VILKA KRETSAR SKA BETALA? En enkätundersökning om upplevd rättvisa med finansieringsförslag för Sveriges elektrifiering.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how Swedish people perceive fairness with three different financing options of the conversion to electric and hybrid cars. In the Swedish context the conversion is built by two aspects, the club good of charging infrastructure, and the private good of subsidized cars. Previous research has examined perceived fairness with carbon taxes and who are most affected by these, how self-interest play a major role in the perceived fairness and the importance of earmarking carbon taxes. There are debates about the cost of the conversion but less about who should finance it. Who in the aspect of how the cost should be distributed among the Swedish population. From the three fairness principles Equal Pay, Ability to Pay and Polluter Pays three different options of financing are formulated. In an online survey these financing options are presented with the two aspects of the conversion in which the respondents rate their perceived fairness with each financing option on a likert scale. The outcome of the perceived fairness is tested with the theory “model of total fairness” and the phenomena of self-interest in mind. The results show that Equal Pay are perceived as the most unfair principle, in contrast with Ability to Pay and Polluter Pays which are perceived as the most fair in the context of the finance of the conversion to electric and hybrid cars. The conclusion is that the phenomenon of self-interest is the main explanatory factor of the results.