Impact of policy design and elicitation method on carbon tax acceptability

Abstract Carbon taxes are a key instrument for mitigating global warming, yet their political feasibility remains contested. A vast literature examines public acceptability, but findings often diverge due to varying elicitation methods, policy designs, and contextual factors such as timing, reduction targets, and revenue use. These inconsistencies complicate interpretation and challenge the validity of reviews and meta-analyses. This article systematizes major differences in measurement approaches and policy attributes and illustrates their implications through an extensive within-subject case study (n = 1415) that controls for timing, sample, and national context. Results show that carbon tax acceptability depends strongly on the elicitation method. Explicit survey formats yield lower acceptability than implicit model-based measures; a substantial gap exists between preferred and maximum acceptable tax levels; and revenue recycling proves essential as acceptability declines sharply without it but rises when revenues are returned as rebates or earmarked for public transport and climate protection. These findings highlight that methodological choices substantially affect measured acceptability and that policymakers should rely on context-specific evidence rather than meta-analyses alone. Careful survey design and transparent revenue use can meaningfully enhance public acceptability of carbon taxation.