Why are we doing this? Issue framing, problem proximity, and cities’ rationale for regulating single-use plastics

ABSTRACT

As local governments wade into policy arenas that extend beyond their traditional set of responsibilities – including those associated with sustainability and climate change – they are often compelled to explain and justify their actions. In this context, issue framing can serve as a strategic political tool. The issue of plastic pollution, which has simultaneous substantive local and global problem dimensions offers the opportunity to examine the factors that influence cities’ strategic use of proximate and public goods-based issue frames when making a case for policy action. Nearly 300 U.S. city governments have passed ordinances establishing policies that – either through a ban, fee, or combination thereof – aim to reduce the consumption of plastic bags. By coding the ‘purpose’ sections of these ordinances, this research identifies nine distinct rationales, each of which characterizes the benefits of plastic bag reduction as a proximate or public good. Empirical analyses on the factors that influence cities’ framing decisions finds that having a coastal location is associated with the greater use of a general public goods frame and that cities with more politically conservative residents or with more conservative state governments are less likely to invoke rationales related to climate protection in the text of their ordinances.

KEYWORDS:

• Issue frame
• problem definition
• local government
• waste management
• plastics

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 I employ the convention of using ‘cities’ as a general term to refer to incorporated places, per the US Census, which, depending on the state, may include boroughs, towns, and villages. ‘Whole town’ Census Designated Places, which are recognized as municipalities with legal boundaries and governments, are also included.

2 For example, Forbes, California Recycles, and Baglaws.com all provide lists of cities on their websites.

3 Some cities have passed multiple versions of plastic bag ordinances. Typically, ordinance amendments were made in response to changes in state law or threats of state preemption. As a result, later versions are often abbreviated and/or reflect the externally imposed considerations motivating the policy change, rather than the substantive rationales behind pursuing plastic bag reduction. Reflecting this and to maintain consistency, this research considers only the first plastic bag ordinance passed by each city.

4 The California state law banning single-use plastic bags and allowing the sale of paper or reusable plastic bags for a $.10 fee does not preempt local ordinances passed before September 1 2014. As such, there is still considerable variation in local bag policy across the state.

5 A few states provide voting returns aggregated at the city or town level (e.g California and Rhode Island) which enabled the direct use of their data. For the majority of the remainder, I aggregated available precinct level data up to the city level. County level returns are used for 27 cities – namely, those in Oregon, Utah, and New York State (except New York City) – because data were not available to estimate city-level returns.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rachel M. Krause

Rachel M. Krause is an associate professor in the University of Kansas School of Public Affairs and Administration. She is coauthor of the book “Implementing City Sustainability: Overcoming Administrative Silos to Achieve Functional Collective Action”.