Strong Policies in Polarized Societies Can Backfire, New Study Warns

In efforts to make decisive action, top-down policies can sometimes have unintended consequences, particularly in polarized societies. A recent study published on June 17, 2024, in Environmental Research Letters explores this phenomenon, particularly in the context of decarbonizing our energy supply, which is crucial for addressing the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

The study, conducted by SFI Applied Complexity Fellow Saverio Perri, SFI Science Board Fellow Simon Levin (Princeton University), and their colleagues, presents a conceptual model demonstrating the interplay between strong policies, public perception of risk, and societal polarization. Their findings suggest that when the perceived risk is low and societal polarization is high, strong policy mandates can inadvertently worsen long-term outcomes.

This dynamic was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, high-risk perceptions led to stringent policies like lockdowns and mask mandates. As these measures effectively reduced the spread of the virus, perceived risk decreased, leading to relaxed mandates and subsequent surges in cases.

Perri and Levin's model indicates that a similar rebound effect could occur with policies aimed at transitioning to low-carbon energy. For instance, if the global community makes significant investments in renewable energy in response to climate change, the success of these investments might reduce perceived risk. In polarized societies, this could lead to a renewed interest in fossil fuels.

"In this scenario, you have a very strong, effective policy, and that's good," says Perri. "But at the same time, in the long term, it's ineffective."

The model also highlights that in highly polarized societies, social interactions can reinforce dominant norms, leading to a phase shift where initial changes happen quickly, but subsequent transitions become more difficult. The authors hope that future climate models and policy decisions will incorporate these human-social feedbacks to better address the complexities of climate change mitigation.

According to research published last year by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the United States “feels roiled by polarization, and the philanthropic world is seized with debates about what to do.” Moreover, “American voters are less ideologically polarized than they think they are, and that misperception is greatest for the most politically engaged people.”

The organization added:

However, most partisans hold major misbeliefs about the other party’s preferences that lead them to think there is far less shared policy belief. This perception gap is highest among progressive activists, followed closely by extreme conservatives: in other words, the people who are most involved in civic and political life hold the least accurate views of the other side’s beliefs. Figure 1 shows the gap between what groups of Americans think the other side believes and what they self-report believing, as of 2019.