In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Ximena Caló, covers the new article by Theodore Tallent, Malo Jan and Luis Sattelmayer, “More than Symbols: The Effect of Symbolic Policies on Climate Policy Support”.
The 2018 Yellow Vests movement in France started over a proposed increase in the carbon tax. Protests escalated into a nationwide crisis that forced the government to abandon the policy. Governments across Europe face similar difficulties when they try to introduce climate policies that cost voters money or constrain their choices, even when those policies are needed to fight climate change.
Theodore Tallent, Malo Jan, and Luis Sattelmayer argue that one underused tool can shift this dynamic. They call it a symbolic policy. Symbolic policies are measures with low material impact. They do not cost much, regulate much, or reduce emissions on their own. But they send a powerful message. The authors show that pairing a symbolic policy with a costly one substantially boosts public support for the costly measure, without changing what it actually costs people.
Symbolic policies include requiring government ministers to travel by train instead of plane, banning private jets, cutting parliamentary salaries, or holding annual parliamentary discussions on environmental measures proposed by citizens. None of these would meaningfully reduce carbon emissions or strain the budget on their own. But each conveys a clear message about who is expected to contribute, whose voices are being heard, and how serious the government is about climate action,
The first is a survey experiment with about 2,000 respondents. Participants read a fictitious government announcement of either a costly climate policy on its own (lowering the highway speed limit from 130 to 110 km/h, or banning short-haul flights where a train alternative exists), or the same policy paired with a symbolic measure (requiring ministers to travel by train, or banning private jets for the wealthiest citizens). Pairing the speed limit reduction with the symbolic policy targeting politicians increased support for the announcement by about 0.6 points on the 1-4 scale (approximately 20% of the full response range). The version targeting private jets increased support by about 0.5 points (approximately 16% of the full range). The same pattern held for the flight ban, though with smaller effects. The symbolic policies cost essentially nothing in material terms, but they meaningfully shifted how the costly policies were received.
To understand why, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with French citizens from different regions and backgrounds. Three concerns emerged consistently. First, fairness. Respondents repeatedly described resentment over the gap between what they were being asked to sacrifice and what wealthy individuals or politicians were doing. Many spoke about being told to reduce their flights while wealthy citizens continued to use private jets. Second, elite hypocrisy. People bristled at policymakers who imposed restrictions on citizens while exempting themselves from the same standards. Third, government credibility. Many doubted whether the government was genuinely committed to climate action, suspecting that costly measures imposed on citizens reflected political theater rather than serious policy effort.
“The authors caution that symbolic policies could backfire if governments use them as substitutes for genuine action rather than complements to it.”A symbolic policy can address each of these concerns. Banning private jets signals that wealthy citizens are contributing too. Requiring ministers to take the train signals that politicians are leading by example. Holding parliamentary discussions on citizen-proposed measures signals that the government takes citizens’ concerns seriously and is genuinely engaged with climate action. None of these measures substantially reduces emissions, but each changes what the costly policy means.
A follow-up experiment with 3,300 respondents extended the test to a harder case: support for a carbon tax, the policy that sparked the Yellow Vests in the first place. The authors paired it with a citizen-participation measure, a yearly parliamentary discussion of an environmental proposal supported by citizens. Support for the carbon tax rose when paired with the symbolic policy. Respondents who saw the symbolic policy rated the announcement as fairer, perceived politicians as more engaged and more responsive, and saw the government’s climate commitment as more serious. Importantly, respondents did not dismiss symbolic policies as empty rhetoric. They saw them as credible, and pairing them with costly measures made the entire announcement feel more serious.
Most existing research focuses on financial compensation, paying people to accept policies that cost them money. Tallent, Jan, and Sattelmayer show that this is not the only lever available. Policies that cost almost nothing but signal fairness, elite responsibility, and openness to citizen voice can also move public support, often substantially. This does not mean symbolism is enough on its own. The authors caution that symbolic policies could backfire if governments use them as substitutes for genuine action rather than complements to it. But when paired with real climate measures, they appear to do meaningful political work. As governments grapple with how to advance an unpopular but necessary transition, the design of these companion measures may matter as much as the design of the substantive policies themselves.
Call for Applications: APSA Diversity Fellowship Program – Fall Cycle | Deadline: October 25, 2026
Your email address will not be published.
*
*
Copyright © I American Political Science Association