Political divide in support for a meat tax

Meat consumption and willingness to reduce it may be linked to political ideology, with a common assumption that left-leaning individuals favour meat reduction policies more than right-leaning ones. However, rigorous evidence is lacking on this point. This study examines whether support for meat reduction policies varies by self-reported political ideology. Using a conjoint experiment with nationally representative samples from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK (N=8,000+), we randomly vary four attributes of a hypothetical meat tax: cost, revenue redistribution, motivation, and outreach. We find that right-wing voters support a baseline meat tax more than left-wing voters, but their support decreases when policies involve revenue redistribution, incorporate environmental costs, or emphasize health or animal welfare over environmental concerns. These patterns are partly explained by differences in Schwartz values across ideological groups. Overall, support for the tax decreases in cost imposed on the consumer and increases in redistribution and outreach. Our findings highlight the role of narratives in shaping political debates on meat taxation.

About Shanchayan Banerjee

Sanchayan Banerjee is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Economics and Public Policy at the Policy Institute in King’s College London. He is a visiting fellow of the London School of Economics and an affiliate of Amsterdam Sustainability Institute and the Institute for Environmental Studies in Amsterdam.

His research focusses on developing citizen-oriented, participatory behavioural public policies and testing their effectiveness and legitimacy using experiments (field, lab and online) in areas of food policy, energy policy, public health, and charitable donations.