Reshaping the World: Public Preferences between the Polycrisis and the Anthropocene - Seminar Recap
On March 21st, the OHPA was happy to host Dr. Francesco Nicoli for a lecture on his research concerning Poly-crises and the public’s preferences for international governance. Dr. Nicoli’s work focuses on the interaction between multiple crises happening simultaneously, a “Polycrisis,” and how these circumstances may affect and even exacerbate one another. The subject of the lecture featured how Dr. Nicoli’s research interacted with the climate crisis and the public’s opinion regarding policy on a supranational level, particularly the EU, and what inferences may be drawn relating to the politics of the Anthropocene.
Dr. Nicoli elucidated the differing nature of crises, and how factors such as time and intensity affect a crisis. Dr. Nicoli defines crisis itself as an “intense decision over a period of time in at least one metric of public concern from its expected path, due to internal or external factors or a combination, which is perceived as resulting in costs for one or more agents, directly or indirectly in virtue of their participation in an institutionalized system of multilateral governance.” He categorizes crises into four distinct subcategories: A creeping crisis occurs when the problem is quite large, however it does not put significant pressure on society, at least for the time being. A hidden crisis occurs with both low pressure as well as low symmetry(when a gap between the best alternative policy solution ). A grinding crisis denotes a scenario of high pressure but low symmetry, and a sudden crisis occurs due to high pressure and symmetry.
Dr. Nicoli explained that crises vary depending on based on the level of interdependence (between nations) required to create an efficacious solution. The climate crisis is an apt example of such a scenario: in order for meaningful progress to be made, a multiplicity of states working together to develop and implement policies is crucial. Dr. Nicoli’s research thus also consists of surveying the public, particularly the EU, and evaluating how people view supranational issues to better inform policy makers in three distinct areas. Dr. Nicoli found by surveying Europeans across several nations that broadly most citizens prioritize their personal costs and income as well as regional income policies (until they must pay for such policies via taxes).
Dr. Nicoli and his team surveyed three distinct subjects: Pharmaceutical and Health care regulations, a possible EU Energy Union, and European defense policy. They found most people preferred programs which included broad packages to allow the EU to purchase medicine at mass scale, rather than national, and preferred that public money to be given to a permanent public healthcare fund in thee form of collective finance. Most people surveyed favored an EU Energy Union, which would purchase stores of natural gas and oil for the entire EU to use at a collective supranational level. This was notable as this sentiment became popular in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which threw Europe’s energy security into disarray. Additionally participants even more strongly favored a collective EU defense but were regardless wary of an EU Army. In terms of surveying the public in regards to the climate crisis, much of the population showed a concern for the environment and issues of sustainability, but ultimately preferred that their personal income and finances be protected instead if the policy choice was offered.
Dr.Nicoli concluded that crises are opportunities for growth and the implementation of more ambitious policies than would occur under normal circumstances, and the Climate crisis was no exception to this. In conclusion, Dr. Nicoli elucidated crises create opportunities to foster interdependence which broad and ambitions policies are best equipped to solve.