UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Designing long‐term policies accepted by the public: Evidence from a vignette experiment

Identification

Clé publique

radar:r-6badc91c1f0ebbcdc4bae70cf2bcc9fd

Auteurs

Benjamin Leruth

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-14T02:19:27.594338+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-14T02:19:27.594338+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

The University of Melbourne

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

AU

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Abstract Democratic governments routinely struggle to build public support for policies whose benefits materialise only after electoral cycles have ended, yet systematic evidence on what drives citizen support for such policies remains scarce. This article reports findings from a vignette experiment conducted with 1738 Australia‐based respondents, who evaluated hypothetical long‐term policy proposals varying across four dimensions: policy domain, financing mechanism, time horizon, and expert assessment. Respondents discounted delayed benefits: support declined as time horizons extended from 5 to 40 years. This penalty, however, was concentrated between the 5‐ and 20‐year horizons and flattened thereafter, a pattern consistent with hyperbolic discounting. Relative to receiving no expert assessment, an expert endorsement raised support, whereas an expert statement of uncertainty depressed it. Respondents also favoured corporate taxation over consumption‐based financing and expansionary over restrictive policy domains. Exploratory interaction analyses qualify this additive picture: the expert endorsement premium was largest for short‐horizon policies rather than offsetting the temporal penalty, while debt financing became relatively more acceptable as horizons lengthened, a pattern consistent with intergenerational cost‐sharing. These findings suggest that democratic myopia is real but bounded and patterned: citizens do not reflexively reject long‐term policies, yet no single design feature neutralises temporal discounting. The political viability of long‐term policies depends on the joint configuration of their design features, including how, and by whom, their prospective effectiveness is communicated. Points for practitioners Public support for long‐term policies declines as benefits recede over time, but the penalty is concentrated in the first two decades: policies promising benefits in 40 years fared little worse than those promising benefits in 20 years. Most of the political cost of long‐termism is incurred as soon as benefits move beyond the immediate political cycle. Independent expert endorsement raises support relative to providing no assessment, while communicated expert uncertainty reduces it. Endorsement should not, however, be treated as an antidote to short‐termism: in our data, its premium was largest for policies with near‐term benefits. Corporate taxation is the most consistently popular mechanism for financing long‐term policies. Public debt becomes relatively more acceptable as time horizons lengthen, suggesting that citizens may regard borrowing as more legitimate when costs and benefits are both shared across generations. Expansionary policy domains, such as renewable energy, rail infrastructure, pensions, and lifelong learning, attract substantially more support for long‐term investment than restrictive domains such as border management and military technology. No single design feature guarantees support. Practitioners should consider financing, expert validation, and time horizon jointly from the outset of policy development, rather than treating communication as an afterthought.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

https://openalex.org/W7224015745

DOI

10.1111/1467-8500.70073

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

article

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Éditeurs

Wiley

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.70073

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.