Support for the environment post-transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs
Corresponding Author
Temirlan T. Moldogaziev
School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence
Temirlan T. Moldogaziev, 324 Pond Laboratory, School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorRachel M. Krause
School of Public Affairs & Administration, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGwen Arnold
Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, Davis, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLe Ahn Nguyen Long
Department of Public Administration, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorTatyana Ruseva
Department of Government and Justice Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChris Silvia
Romney Institute of Public Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChristopher Witko
School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Temirlan T. Moldogaziev
School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence
Temirlan T. Moldogaziev, 324 Pond Laboratory, School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorRachel M. Krause
School of Public Affairs & Administration, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Search for more papers by this authorGwen Arnold
Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, Davis, California, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLe Ahn Nguyen Long
Department of Public Administration, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorTatyana Ruseva
Department of Government and Justice Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChris Silvia
Romney Institute of Public Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Search for more papers by this authorChristopher Witko
School of Public Policy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enThough many individuals are aware of the need to address environmental concerns, fewer are willing to pay for climate action or think the environment should be a priority for government spending. One compelling reason is that they prioritize using scarce resources to address immediate material concerns. This is particularly likely for individuals facing absolute material scarcity or for those who think they are relatively economically worse off, especially in contexts characterized by rapid transformation and volatility in the levels and quality of social welfare provision. To test these expectations, we analyze survey data from formerly Communist economies, which today find themselves with vastly different fortunes. Empirical findings suggest that absolute and relative material scarcity affect opinions regarding government spending on, and the willingness to pay more for, environmental action. However, willingness to pay more for government public services, inclusive of anti-poverty initiatives, has an impact on willingness to pay more for climate action, but in counter-intuitive ways. Overall, the results appear to suggest that explicitly addressing and relating individual living standards and inequality with environmental concerns may expand support for climate action.
摘要
zh尽管许多人都意识到需要应对环境关切, 但很少有人愿意为气候行动买单或认为环境应是政府开支的重点。一个令人信服的原因是, 他们优先使用稀缺资源来解决紧迫的物质关切。对于面临绝对物质匮乏的个体或那些认为自身经济状况相对较差的人来说, 这种情况尤其可能发生, 特别是在社会福利水平和质量存在迅速转变和波动的情境下。为了检验这些预期, 我们分析了来自前共产主义经济体的调查数据, 这些经济体如今的发展趋势已大不相同。实证结果表明, 绝对和相对的物质稀缺性会影响一系列意见, 后者有关于政府在环境行动上的支出以及为环境行动支付更多费用的意愿。不过, “为政府公共服务(包括反贫困倡议)支付更多费用”的意愿, 会以反常的方式影响“为气候行动支付更多费用”的意愿。总体而言, 结果似乎表明, 明确应对个人生活标准和不平等, 并将个人生活标准和不平等与环境关切相联系, 可能会扩大对气候行动的支持。
Resumen
esAunque muchas personas son conscientes de la necesidad de abordar las preocupaciones ambientales, menos están dispuestas a pagar por la acción climática o piensan que el medio ambiente debería ser una prioridad para el gasto público. Una razón convincente es que priorizan el uso de recursos escasos para abordar preocupaciones materiales inmediatas. Esto es particularmente probable para las personas que enfrentan una escasez material absoluta o para aquellos que piensan que están económicamente peor, especialmente en contextos caracterizados por una rápida transformación y volatilidad en los niveles y la calidad de la provisión de bienestar social. Para probar estas expectativas, analizamos datos de encuestas de antiguas economías comunistas, que hoy se encuentran con fortunas muy diferentes. Los hallazgos empíricos sugieren que la escasez absoluta y relativa de materiales afecta las opiniones sobre el gasto del gobierno y la disposición a pagar más por la acción ambiental. Sin embargo, la disposición a pagar más por los servicios públicos del gobierno, incluidas las iniciativas contra la pobreza, tiene un impacto en la disposición a pagar más por la acción climática, pero de manera contraria a la intuición. En general, los resultados parecen sugerir que abordar y relacionar explícitamente los niveles de vida individuales y la desigualdad con las preocupaciones ambientales puede ampliar el apoyo a la acción climática.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| ropr12498-sup-0001-AppendixS1.docxWord 2007 document , 49.9 KB | Appendix S1 |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Abras, A., Hoyos, A., Narayan, A., & Tiwari, S. (2013). Inequality of opportunities in the labor market: Evidence from life in transition surveys in Europe and Central Asia. IZA Journal of Labor & Development, 2(1), 1–22.
10.1186/2193-9020-2-7 Google Scholar
- Acharya, S., & Nuriev, S. (2016). Role of public investment in growth and poverty reduction in transition economies. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 5, 310–326.
10.6000/1929-7092.2016.05.27 Google Scholar
- Agyeman, J., & Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y. (2009). Environmental justice and sustainability in the Former Soviet Union. MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/9780262012669.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Allen, A., da Silva, N., & Corubolo, E. (1999). Environmental problems and opportunities of the peri-urban interface and their impact upon the poor. University College London https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/37/1/DPU_PUI_Allen_Corubolo_daSilva_Environmental.pdf
- Andonova, L. B. (2003). Transnational politics of the environment: The European union and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/6908.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2018). The impacts of climate change on the poor in disadvantaged regions. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 12(1), 26–47.
- Bashirov, G. (2021). New extractivism and failed development in Azerbaijan. Third World Quarterly, 42(8), 1829–1848.
- Bennulf, M., & Holmberg, S. (1990). The green breakthrough in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies, 13(2), 165–184.
10.1111/j.1467-9477.1990.tb00435.x Google Scholar
- Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M., & Stokes, L. C. (2020). Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 054019.
- Bohr, J. (2014). Barriers to environmental sacrifice: The interaction of free rider fears with education, income, and ideology. Sociological Spectrum, 34(4), 362–379.
- Botterill, L. C. (2004). Valuing agriculture: Balancing competing objectives in the policy process. Journal of Public Policy, 24(2), 199–218.
10.1017/S0143814X04000108 Google Scholar
- Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., & Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 62, 102061.
- Bryner, G. (1999). Balancing preservation and logging: Public lands policy in British Columbia and the Western United States. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 307–327.
- Čábelková, I., Smutka, L., & Strielkowski, W. (2022). Public support for sustainable development and environmental policy: A case of The Czech Republic. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 110–126.
- Cann, H. W. (2021). Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict. Review of Policy Research, 38(5), 570–595.
- Çarkoğlu, A., & Kentmen-Çin, Ç. (2015). Economic development, environmental justice, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 575–597.
- Carmin, J., & Fagan, A. (2010). Environmental mobilisation and organisations in post-socialist Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Environmental Politics, 19(5), 689–707.
- Chabada, T., & Krajhanzl, J. (2021). Srovnání Podpory Veřejnosti pro Ochranu Divoké Přírody a Klimatu. Envigogika, 16(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.624
10.14712/18023061.624 Google Scholar
- Chaisty, P., & Whitefield, S. (2015). Attitudes towards the environment: Are post-communist societies (still) different? Environmental Politics, 24(4), 598–616.
- Cojocaru, A. (2014a). Prospects of upward mobility and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the life in transition survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 34, 300–314.
- Cojocaru, A. (2014b). Fairness and inequality tolerance: Evidence from the life in transition survey. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(3), 590–608.
- Cojocaru, A., & Diagne, M. F. (2015). How reliable and consistent are subjective measures of welfare in Europe and Central Asia? The Economics of Transition, 23(1), 75–103.
- Creutzig, F., Javaid, A., Koch, N., Knopf, B., Mattioli, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2020). Adjust urban and rural road pricing for fair mobility. Nature Climate Change, 10, 591–594.
- Cruces, G., Perez-Truglia, R., & Tetaz, M. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100–112.
- Davidovic, D., Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2020). The contingent effects of environmental concern and ideology: Institutional context and people's willingness to pay environmental taxes. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 674–696.
- Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31(4), 540–549.
- Dietrich, H., & Möller, J. (2016). Youth unemployment in Europe—Business cycle and institutional effects. International Economics and Economic Policy, 13(1), 5–25.
10.1007/s10368-015-0331-1 Google Scholar
- T. Dietz, & P. C. Stern (Eds.). (2002). New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures. National Academies Press.
- Duijndam, S., & van Beukering, P. (2021). Understanding public concern about climate change in Europe, 2008–2017: The influence of economic factors and right-wing populism. Climate Policy, 21(3), 353–367.
- Dunlap, R. E., & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(3), 529–563.
- Engel-Di Mauro, S. (2016). The enduring relevance of state-socialism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(4), 1–15.
10.1080/10455752.2016.1248131 Google Scholar
- Fairbrother, M. (2012). Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: Evidence across nations and time. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 910–922.
- Fairbrother, M. (2017). Environmental attitudes and the politics of distrust. Sociology Compass, 11(5), e12482.
- Fesenfeld, L. P., Sun, Y., Wicki, M., & Bernauer, T. (2021). The role and limits of strategic framing for promoting sustainable consumption and policy. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102266.
- Franko, W., Tolbert, C. J., & Witko, C. (2013). Inequality, self-interest, and public support for “robin hood” tax policies. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 923–937.
- Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001–1008.
- Funtowicz, S. O., Martinez-Alier, J., Ravetz, J. R., & Munda, G. (1999). Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity. European Environmental Agency.
- Gatersleben, B., Jackson, T., Meadows, J., Soto, E., & Yan, Y. L. (2018). Leisure, materialism, well-being and the environment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 131–139.
- Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection. Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 392–415.
- Gevorkyan, A. V., & Assa, J. (2021). Poverty in “transition”: 30 years after and in the pandemic. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80(4), 1233–1258.
- Goldman, L., & Tran, N. (2002). Preventable tragedies: The impact of toxic substances on the poor in developing countries (No. 34661). The World Bank.
- Goldthau, A. (2018). The Naysayer: Bulgaria. In The politics of shale gas in Eastern Europe: Energy security, contested technologies and the social licence to frack (pp. 91–114). Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/9781316875018.005 Google Scholar
- Goldthau, A., & LaBelle, M. (2016). The power of policy regimes: Explaining shale gas policy divergence in Bulgaria and Poland. The Review of Policy Research, 33(6), 603–622.
- Gorkey, S. (2020). The rise of youth unemployment and youth NEETs in the CEECs after the 2008 crisis. In International perspectives on the youth labor market: Emerging research and opportunities (pp. 1–32). IGI Global.
10.4018/978-1-7998-2779-5.ch001 Google Scholar
- Gurkov, I. (2015). Transition economy. In Wiley encyclopedia of management (pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
10.1002/9781118785317.weom060204 Google Scholar
- Harrison, K. (2012). A tale of two taxes: The fate of environmental tax reform in Canada. Review of Policy Research, 29(3), 383–407.
- Henry, L. A., & Douhovnikoff, V. (2008). Environmental issues in Russia. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, 33, 437–460.
- Hiteva, R., & Maltby, T. (2017). Hitting the target but missing the point: Failing and succeeding in the Bulgarian renewable energy sector. In A guide to EU renewable energy policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
10.4337/9781783471560.00022 Google Scholar
- Howarth, C., Bryant, P., Corner, A., Fankhauser, S., Gouldson, A., Whitmarsh, L., & Willis, R. (2020). Building a social mandate for climate action: Lessons from COVID-19. Environmental & Resource Economics, 76, 1–9.
- Howie, P., & Atakhanova, Z. (2014). Resource boom and inequality: Kazakhstan as a case study. Resources Policy, 39, 71–79.
- Huber, R. A., Fesenfeld, L., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Political populism, responsiveness, and public support for climate mitigation. Climate Policy, 20(3), 373–386.
- Huber, R. A., Greussing, E., & Eberl, J.-M. (2021). From populism to climate scepticism: The role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics, 1–24.
- Huber, R. A., & Wicki, M. L. (2021). What explains citizen support for transport policy? The roles of policy design, trust in government and proximity among swiss citizens. Energy Research & Social Science, 75, 101973.
- Huber, R. A., Wicki, M. L., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 649–673.
- Hyll, W., & Schneider, L. (2014). Relative deprivation and migration preferences. Economics Letters, 122(2), 334–337.
- Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9780691186740 Google Scholar
- Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(1), 57–72.
- Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2017). Trump and the populist authoritarian parties: The silent revolution in reverse. Perspectives on Politics, 15(2), 443–454.
10.1017/S1537592717000111 Google Scholar
- Jahn, D. (2021). Quick and dirty: How populist parties in government affect greenhouse gas emissions in EU member states. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 980–997.
- Jakobsson, N., Muttarak, R., & Schoyen, M. A. (2018). Dividing the pie in the eco-social state: Exploring the relationship between public support for environmental and welfare policies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(2), 313–339.
- Jett, J., & Raymond, L. (2021). Issue framing and U.S. state energy and climate policy choice. The Review of Policy Research, 38(3), 278–299.
- Jones, C., & Fowler, L. (2022). Administration, rhetoric, and climate policy in the Obama Presidency. The Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12472
- Katz, J. L. (2005). A web of interests: Stalemate on the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Policy Studies Journal, 29(3), 456–477.
10.1111/j.1541-0072.2001.tb02104.x Google Scholar
- Kenny, J. (2018). The role of economic perceptions in influencing views on climate change: An experimental analysis with British respondents. Climate Policy, 18(5), 581–592.
- Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885–893.
- Kim, S. Y., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2014). Cross-national public opinion on climate change: The effects of affluence and vulnerability. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 79–106.
- Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. HarperCollins College Publishers.
- Kivell, P., Roberts, P., & Walker, G. P. (2018). Environment, planning and land use. Routledge.
10.4324/9780429457807 Google Scholar
- Konisky, D. M., Milyo, J., & Richardson, L. E. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust*. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066–1085.
- Kulin, J., Johansson Sevä, I., & Dunlap, R. E. (2021). Nationalist ideology, rightwing populism, and public views about climate change in Europe. Environmental Politics, 30(7), 1111–1134.
- Kvaløy, B., Finseraas, H., & Listhaug, O. (2012). The publics' concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 11–22.
- Lachapelle, E., Borick, C. P., & Rabe, B. (2012). Public attitudes toward climate science and climate policy in federal systems: Canada and the United States compared. The Review of Policy Research, 29(3), 334–357.
- Levy, B. S., & Patz, J. A. (2015). Climate change, human rights, and social justice. Annals of Global Health, 81(3), 310–322.
- Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2008). Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries*. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1312–1335.
- Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2012). Explaining environmental activism across countries. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), 683–699.
- Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2018). Trust and environmental activism across regions and countries. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8(3), 249–263.
10.1007/s13412-018-0498-1 Google Scholar
- Mayer, A., & Smith, E. K. (2017). Rethinking economic conditions and environmental attitudes: Macroeconomic effects, individual experiences, and subjectivity. Social Currents, 4(4), 342–359.
10.1177/2329496516670185 Google Scholar
- McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2016). Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 338–358.
- Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., & Williams, L. (2006). The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development Economics, 11(2), 159–178.
- Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (2006). Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/3292.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Mostafa, M. M. (2013). Wealth, post-materialism and consumers' pro-environmental intentions: A multilevel analysis across 25 nations. Sustainable Development, 21(6), 385–399.
- Mostafa, M. M. (2016). Post-materialism, religiosity, political orientation, locus of control and concern for global warming: A multilevel analysis across 40 nations. Social Indicators Research, 128(3), 1273–1298.
- Mostafa, M. M. (2017). Concern for global warming in six Islamic nations: A multilevel Bayesian analysis. Sustainable Development, 25(1), 63–76.
- Nazarov, Z., & Obydenkova, A. (2021). Environmental challenges and political regime transition: The role of historical legacies and the European Union in Eurasia. Problems of Post-Communism, 1–14.
- Newmark, A. J., & Witko, C. (2007). Pollution, politics, and preferences for environmental spending in the states. Review of Policy Research, 24(4), 291–308.
10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00284.x Google Scholar
- Nikolova, E., & Sanfey, P. (2016). How much should we trust life satisfaction data? Evidence from the life in transition survey. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(3), 720–731.
- Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash and the rise of populism: Trump, brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/9781108595841 Google Scholar
- Nowlin, M. C. (2022). Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12468
- Owens, S. (2000). “Engaging the public”: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 32(7), 1141–1148.
- Portney, P. R., & Stavins, R. N. (2000). Public policies for environmental protection. Resources for the Future.
- Prakash, A., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Survey research in environmental politics: Why it is important and what the challenges are. Environmental Politics, 29(7), 1127–1134.
- Remington, T. F. (2018). Russian economic inequality in comparative perspective. Comparative Politics, 50(3), 395–416.
- Rivlin, A. M. (1984). A public policy paradox. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4(1), 17.
- Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 989–993.
- Rohrschneider, R., & Miles, M. R. (2015). Representation through parties? Environmental attitudes and party stances in Europe in 2013. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 617–640.
- Ruseva, T. B., & Petrova, M. A. (2020). Implementing the European Union renewable energy policy targets in Bulgaria. In Cases on green energy and sustainable development (pp. 30–59). IGI Global.
10.4018/978-1-5225-8559-6.ch002 Google Scholar
- Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 505–515.
- Smith, E. K., & Mayer, A. (2018). A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change, 49, 140–153.
- Stoutenborough, J. W., Bromley-Trujillo, R., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). Public support for climate change policy: Consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across specific policy alternatives. Review of Policy Research, 31(6), 555–583.
- Szulecka, J., & Szulecki, K. (2019). Between domestic politics and ecological crises: (De)legitimization of polish environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 1–30.
- Tridico, P. (2010). Growth, inequality and poverty in emerging and transition economies. Transition Studies Review, 16(4), 979–1001.
10.1007/s11300-009-0116-8 Google Scholar
- Underdal, A. (2010). Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 386–393.
- Van Houtven, G., & Cropper, M. L. (1996). When is a life too costly to save? The evidence from U.S. environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 348–368.
- Weinthal, E., & Watters, K. (2010). Transnational environmental activism in Central Asia: The coupling of domestic law and international conventions. Environmental Politics, 19(5), 782–807.
- Wise, J. (2021). Emphasising the health benefits of climate change actions can make them more attractive to governments, say scientists. British Medical Journal, n2508.
- Wooden, A. E. (2014). Kyrgyzstan's dark ages: Framing and the 2010 hydroelectric revolution. Central Asian Survey, 33(4), 463–481.
10.1080/02634937.2014.989755 Google Scholar
