Fairbrother, Malcolm | 2024
Results from a Six-Country Public Opinion Survey
32 s.
Policymakers, civil society organizations, and academics are proposing the establishment of new institutions for better representing the right and interests of future generations. Interest in this idea has been rising for a variety of reasons, with some countries having already established new institutions aimed at improving long-term decision-making, and the United Nations likely soon to take similar steps at the multilateral level. Thus far, however, no research has been done on public attitudes towards potential new institutions for future generations (IFGs). We therefore surveyed people in six countries—Sweden, Brazil, India, Italy, Nigeria, and the United States—about their views of ten potential IFGs. We investigated in particular which IFGs are more versus less popular, and how the views of different kinds of people vary.
Comparing IFGs, we found that the following were more popular: expert councils; reserved seats in parliament/congress for members aged under 35; a rule requiring legislators to debate the consequences of new laws for future generations; and allowing for lawsuits against governments if they do not adequately protect the interests of future generations. In contrast, lowering the voting age to 15 was not popular, and nor was the principle of making future generations pay for government actions if they will be the beneficiaries. (The latter is the principle underlying proposals for states to pay for climate policies with public debt.) More punitive IFGs were especially popular in lower-income countries, possibly because of those countries’ lower-quality institutions/government, and public perceptions that juridical processes can hold otherwise untrustworthy actors accountable.
Comparing individuals, we found that people who say they are more willing to sacrifice for future generations are more supportive of IFGs. So are those who are more supportive of redistribution; more concerned about the environment; more thoughtful about their actions’ future consequences; more globally empathetic; and more collectivist. Differences between individuals on the (self-identified) political left versus right, and differences among different demographic groups, were not so pronounced and/or varied more from country to country. Individuals who are more trusting in existing political and social institutions are also, as existing social science research would predict, more positive about proposals for new IFGs.
We also asked people whether they think IFGs would really make much of a difference, and we used a simple survey experiment to investigate how support for IFGs might depend on which potential implications people think about. We found that most respondents thought the IFGs would make a difference, while our survey experiment did not have any notable impact on people’s views.
