The paper investigates public support for a meat tax in Germany, a policy option gaining traction to address environmental and animal welfare concerns within the livestock sector. The livestock industry's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (14.5% of human-induced GHG emissions) and the ethical implications of intensive farming practices are significant drivers of this policy discussion. Existing literature highlights the multifaceted problems associated with meat production, including negative public health impacts and labor concerns in processing plants. While stricter regulations are being implemented, a meat tax is proposed as a potential additional intervention to steer consumption towards more sustainable patterns. Modeling studies suggest that such taxes could effectively influence meat consumption, improving both public health and reducing environmental burdens. In Germany, the debate centers on two main justifications for a meat tax: climate change mitigation and animal welfare improvements. The German Green Party, for example, has advocated for a climate charge on animal products, while an expert commission proposed a fixed animal welfare tax. While these arguments are often treated independently, they both apply to the same industry and products. Therefore, this study focuses on comparing the impact of these two justifications on public support. Introducing a food tax, however, presents significant political challenges, particularly in times of high inflation. Previous research into public acceptance of taxes, particularly environmental taxes, reveals that factors like revenue earmarking, progressive taxation, and clear communication about the tax's impacts can positively influence support. This study extends this existing work by examining additional attributes of the tax, namely its justification (animal welfare versus climate) and the degree of differentiation (uniform versus differentiated), to determine their influence on support.

The authors reviewed the existing literature on public attitudes towards meat consumption and taxation. Studies have explored various policy characteristics that influence public support for carbon taxes and taxes on animal products. These studies consistently show that factors such as refraining from using the word "tax", earmarking revenues, establishing progressive taxation, and clearly explaining the tax's impact can significantly increase public support. Some research has also investigated the effectiveness and relative importance of different reasons for reducing meat consumption, such as health, animal welfare, and environmental concerns. The authors hypothesized that a tax aimed at improving animal welfare would garner greater public support than one focused on climate change mitigation, given the findings that animal welfare is often cited as more impactful than environmental concerns.

The study employed a referendum choice experiment, conducted online using a sample representative of the German adult population (2,855 participants). The experiment used a referendum setting because previous studies indicate that this approach demonstrates external validity and incentive compatibility when perceived as consequential. To enhance the sense of consequentiality, participants were informed that the results would be shared with relevant committees in the German parliament. The experiment exogenously varied three key attributes of the proposed meat tax: 1. **Tax Justification:** Animal welfare versus climate change mitigation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of these two groups. 2. **Degree of Tax Differentiation:** Uniform tax (a fixed amount per kilogram of meat) versus differentiated tax (tax rates varying based on the carbon footprint or husbandry conditions). Participants were randomly assigned to one of these two tax structures. 3. **Salience of Behavioral Effects:** High (participants reflected on the tax's impact on consumption before voting) versus low (belief elicitation after voting). Participants were randomly assigned to one of these two salience conditions. This resulted in eight treatment groups (2 x 2 x 2). Within each group, the tax level was gradually increased across six consecutive proposals. The participants had to make a decision on each proposal. The study also included questions to measure participants' beliefs about the tax's impact on meat consumption and their understanding of the proposed mechanism. Statistical analysis involved linear regressions with a binary outcome variable (support or rejection of the tax), using cluster-robust standard errors due to the within-subject design. Additional analyses explored the differences between respondents' perceived impact of climate and animal welfare justified taxes. Generalized ordered logistic regression was used to analyze participants' beliefs about the tax's effect on consumption.

The study's key findings demonstrate a strong relationship between tax justification and support. Support for the meat tax decreased monotonically with increasing tax levels, confirming the researchers' hypothesis. At the lowest tax level (€0.19/kg), all tax variants received majority support; however, at higher levels, only animal welfare justified taxes achieved majority support. On average, animal welfare taxes received 11.1 percentage points more support than climate taxes. Surprisingly, the degree of tax differentiation had minimal impact on support rates, suggesting that voters didn't value the greater effectiveness of the Pigouvian differentiated tax. High salience (prompting participants to consider consumption impacts before voting) increased support by 4 percentage points. An additional analysis revealed that participants correctly anticipated the differentiated tax's stronger steering effect on meat consumption, particularly in subcategories, but this understanding didn't translate into increased support for the differentiated tax compared with a uniform tax.

The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers. The relatively low tax levels at which majority support was observed suggest that policymakers might find greater success initiating meat taxation with a low rate and then gradually increasing it, rather than adopting high rates from the start. The stronger support for animal welfare-justified taxes highlights the significance of framing and emphasizes the importance of aligning policy justification with public values. The lack of significant impact of tax differentiation on support was unexpected, suggesting that voters may not fully appreciate the benefits of efficiency in terms of consumption changes. This could be explained by participants considering animal welfare taxes as promoting welfare independent of consumption reduction. The result implies a lack of focus on the effectiveness of a tax in influencing behavior, instead emphasizing the importance of policy aims such as animal welfare.

This study provides crucial insights for designing effective meat taxes. Low initial tax rates, coupled with clear communication emphasizing animal welfare benefits, are key to garnering public support. While differentiated taxes may be more effective, public indifference toward them suggests that policymakers may achieve success even with uniform taxes. Future research should explore the interplay between different framing strategies and earmarking, as well as investigating what drives preferences for animal welfare taxes.

The study's findings are based on a hypothetical referendum, and actual behavior might differ. The focus on Germany limits generalizability to other contexts. The study's sample, while representative in many aspects, exhibits higher education levels than the national average, which could potentially influence findings. The specific phrasing of the survey questions might have influenced responses.