Public support for carbon pricing policies and revenue recycling options: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the survey literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since public support is critical for implementing carbon pricing policies, we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the survey-based literature on change in public support for direct and indirect carbon pricing policies with and without revenue recycling options. Following a comprehensive and transparent machine-learning assisted screening of the literature, our dataset comprises 35 studies containing 70 surveys across 26 countries with over 100,000 respondents. We find that the introduction of any type of revenue recycling option increases public support for carbon pricing. Results from our meta-regression indicate that green spending (i.e. using revenues for climate-friendly projects) is the only revenue recycling option associated with a statistically significant increase in public support. Our findings moreover suggest that the effects may depend on which region the survey was carried out, highlighting the need for additional research in countries in the regions of Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".