Public opinion towards workfare policies in Europe: Polarisation of attitudes in times of austerity?

Increasing wage inequality, strong labour market divides and welfare retrenchment are widely believed to result in more polarised public opinion towards the welfare state. The present study examined if attitudes towards workfare policies have become more polarised in Europe over recent decades. To achieve this aim, the study analysed public opinion data from the European Value Study (EVS) from 23 European countries in the years 1990–2008, using multi‐level regression analysis. It is found that individuals who are most affected by workfare – the unemployed, the poor and the young – most strongly oppose workfare concepts. Against expectations, there was no evidence of an increasing polarisation of attitudes in Europe. Attitudinal cleavages based on employment status, income and education have remained stable. Differences between age groups have even dissolved because younger cohorts increasingly favour strict workfare policies. The results suggest that warnings of increasing social conflicts and an erosion of solidarity in European societies are exaggerated.     

The limits of inequality: Public support for social policy across rich democracies

Does public opinion react to inequality, and if so, how? The social harms caused by increasing inequality should cause public opinion to ramp up demand for social welfare protections. However, the public may react to inequality differently depending on institutional context. Using ISSP and WID data (1980?2006), we tested these claims. In liberal institutional contexts (mostly English‐speaking), increasing income inequality predicted higher support for state provision of social welfare. In coordinated and universalist contexts (mostly of Europe), increasing inequality predicted less support. Historically higher income concentration predicted less public support, providing an account of the large variation in inequality within the respective liberal and coordinated contexts. The results suggest opinions in liberal societies – especially with higher historical inequality – reached the limits of inequality, reacting negatively; whereas in coordinated/universalist societies – especially with lower historical inequality – opinions moved positively, as if desiring more inequality.     

The redistributive effect of public and private social programmes: A cross‐country empirical analysis

A function of many national social protection systems is to substantially redistribute income. However, the size and nature of social protection programmes are changing. In a number of countries there has been a shift from public towards private social protection arrangements, with the latter substituting for, or complementing, public programmes. Developing earlier work, this present article analyses the redistributive impact on income of public versus private social protection programmes. Using recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, we find a strong positive relationship between public social expenditures and income redistribution across countries. For private social expenditures, we find a weak, but statistically significant, negative relationship with the level of redistribution. In countries where a larger share of total social expenditure is accorded to private arrangements there is less income redistribution. We conclude that the choice between the relative weight of public and private provision of social protection affects the redistributive impact of the welfare state.     

Help or hindrance? Social policy and the ‘social determinants of health’

In recent years, public health research has become increasingly focused on issues of social inequality and social disadvantage. This is because social issues, such as poor housing and unemployment, have been found to impact health significantly, and are now referred to as ‘the social determinants of health‘. As a result of this shift, public health is now principally concerned with what are historically considered to be social policy issues. This paper discusses the confluence of public health and social policy; it examines the opportunities and risks posed by this convergence for those working in social policy seeking to reduce poverty and inequality. We argue that, while much can be gained in the two fields by working more closely together, there remain fundamental differences in perspectives and approaches. In order to maximise benefits, these points of difference need to be thought through sooner rather than later.     

Income Security During Sickness Absence. What Do British Middle‐classes Do?

Income maintenance during sickness absence is an under‐researched field within social policy analysis, and yet it is conducive to exploring the interplay between statutory, corporate and private forms of income protection. Drawing on original qualitative interview data, the article shows that British middle‐class couples largely ignore or dismiss public provision, which is due to a relatively low level of sickness benefits, but also based on misconceptions about social rights and the role of employers as mandatory (and voluntary) sick pay providers. Despite a considerable degree of mistrust, mortgage‐related private sickness insurance mattered to some extent, although this does not necessarily reflect policyholders’ strategic choices vis à vis current household needs for income security. Other potential sources of income replacement, such as savings, are relied on much less. In general, the analysis shows a heavy middle‐class reliance on, and strong confidence in, employer‐based sickness pay. This finding may be contrasted with questions about the sustainability of voluntary corporate provision, as well as its capacity to provide income security for the workforce as a whole.     

Low Public Expenditures on Social Welfare: Do East Asian Countries have a Secret?

This paper explores the sources of low public expenditures on social welfare in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Six factors are analysed based on aggregate data: the public/private mix of welfare programmes, the age structure, the maturity of old-age pension schemes, the population coverage of social security, the relative generosity of social security and the role of enterprises and families as alternative providers of welfare. The evidence allows putting some conventional statements about the virtues of East Asian welfare states into questions. Public expenditures on welfare are bound to rise a lot in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, while the level of protection in Hong Kong and Singapore is well below the standards of Western countries.     

Poverty, welfare problems and social exclusion

This article investigates whether, and to what degree, poverty is linked to other types of welfare problems and, in larger perspective, whether the situation can be understood in terms of social exclusion. Two different measures of poverty – income poverty and deprivation poverty – and 17 indicators of welfare problems were used in the analysis. It was shown that income poverty was rather weakly related to other types of welfare problems, i.e. the most commonly used measure of poverty seems to discriminate a section of the population that does not suffer from the kinds of problems we usually assume that poverty causes. Deprivation poverty, identifying those who most often had to forgo consumption of goods and services, did correlate strongly with other types of welfare problems. Hence, people living under poor conditions do suffer from welfare problems even though this section of the population is not always captured by income poverty measures. The final analysis showed that the types of welfare problems that were most likely to cluster were deprivation poverty, economic precariousness, unemployment, psychological strain and health problems. Whether these types of accumulated welfare problems, from a theoretical perspective, can be seen as indicators of social exclusion is more doubtful.     

Revisiting the welfare state system in the Republic of Korea

Abstract   The Republic of Korea's welfare system has undergone radical institutional expansion since the 1990s, largely as a consequence of the financial crisis of 1997. In spite of these changes, public social expenditure remains extremely low — particularly with regard to all other OECD countries — with the result that the overall social insurance system and social welfare service sector remain underdeveloped. Thus, the current welfare system can best be characterized as a residual model, in that state intervention as a provider of welfare remains highly limited and the family and the private market economy play the central roles in offering a social safety net. This situation is largely the legacy of the so-called 'growth-first' ideology, which has remained the dominant approach favoured by the majority of the country's political and economic decision-makers since the period of authoritarian rule (1961-1993). The adoption of Western European-style neo-liberal restructuring, implemented following the 1997 financial crisis, has also played a role.     

Economic Policy and Social Policy: Policy-linkages in an Era of Globalisation

This article argues that changes in the role of the state in economic affairs will affect the process of social policy. Growing economic integration caused by globalisation now places a greater constraint upon the discretion of the nation state, bringing about a transformation into a more competitive state. States are increasingly having to compete against each other in order to promote competitiveness and attract foreign direct investment (FDI) from international capital markets. This competition influences in turn the social policy formation requiring the redesigning of social policy. Thus, welfare states may need to reform their social policy towards a "business-friendly social policy". The analysis of social policy inputs and outputs presented here suggests that there are common trends in most welfare states towards: a market-conforming policy on business taxation, a reduction of the share of employer's contributions in social protection revenues, more limited income security programmes, an increased allocation of resources for active labour market programmes and less state intervention in the labour market. All these reforming trends in social policy can be understood as a response of welfare states to the evolving needs of business caused by structural change, notably globalisation.     

Protective legislation: The “third pillar” of the welfare state

Welfare states are built upon three central social policy pillars: (1) income programs, including an assortment of income maintenance and security benefits; (2) social services, comprising a diverse constellation of provisions, which furnish care such as health care and education, and “in kind” benefits; and (3) protective legislation, encompassing a dense web of proactive and preventative laws, rights, and entitlements, such as health and safety legislation, minimum wage laws, child protection acts, rent controls, and laws governing evictions and foreclosures. Despite its centrality to the welfare state and to our well‐being, this third pillar has received considerably less attention in comparative social policy research. The dominant welfare state typologies have focused almost exclusively upon income measures and, more recently, on social services, to construct their welfare state categories or “worlds” of welfare while largely neglecting this crucial third pillar. A greater focus on protective welfare legislation can help sharpen the distinctions among welfare states within and across the welfare worlds, which is particularly valuable in light of the ongoing erosion of the other two pillars over the past few decades.     

Public health care in the balance: exploring popular support for health care systems in the European Union

Which factors explain intra‐ and inter‐country variations in levels of public support for national health care systems within the European Union, and why? We propose that public opinion towards public health care is dependent on (1) the type of welfare state regime to which the various European welfare states belong, (2) typical features of the national care system and (3) individual social and demographic characteristics, which are related to self‐interest or morality oriented motives. To assess the explanatory power of these factors, data from the Eurobarometer survey series are analysed. Support for public health care appears to be particularly positively related to social‐democratic attributes of welfare states, whereas support drops with increasing degrees of liberalism and conservatism. Further, support for public health care proves to be associated with wider coverage and public funding of national care services. We also find higher levels of support in countries with scarce social services for children and the elderly, and larger proportions of female (part‐time) employment. Lastly, with respect to individual characteristics, we find remarkably little evidence for self‐interest oriented motives affecting the preference for solidary health care arrangements.     

The Swiss social insurance system: Social security and grass‐roots democracy

The foundations of Switzerland's social insurance system can be traced to 1890 when a public referendum voted the inclusion of an article into the Federal Constitution that gave the executive the task of creating a sickness and accident insurance scheme. Currently, as in other European countries, the Swiss social insurance system is facing challenges as a result of rising health costs and demographic shifts, which are placing a growing burden on both public finances and private households. To reach policy decisions to address these challenges, the Swiss system is distinguishable from those of its European neighbours because of a continuing tradition of political decision‐making based on grass‐roots democracy: through referenda, the Swiss people remain directly responsible for the development of the national social insurance system. Importantly, not only might this unique feature of Swiss democracy lead the Swiss people more readily to accept and identify with their social insurance system but it may offer a sound democratic base upon which to build a consensual approach to address the policy challenges that lie ahead.     

Building a people's home* for settled,conscientious Swedes

Social policy in Sweden has evolved along two lines, one marginal and the other institutional. A work ethic that stems from the pre-Christian era is a factor in both these traditions, above all in the marginal model. The marginal line, with social services aimed at the indivual, has traditionally focused on the coercion of deviants, a tendency that was manifest in the statutory provisions up to the reform of the social services in 1982. Rigorous regulations based on domiciliary right meant that poor relief and social assistance were largely reserved for the settled population. A primary aim of the social services reform of 1982 was to replace the existing social relief, with its heavy emphasis on control, by a system of social services that would be voluntary in principle and aimed at catering to the client. Coercive measures became less frequent initially, but the element of repression soon grew again at a time when the economic climate was becoming harsher. Since the beginning of the 1980s there has been a further increase in repression in both social welfare and correctional care. This has been accompanied by significant tendencies to move away from an institutional social policy towards a marginal line. The shifts in values in the 1980s and 1990s do not represent a traditional right-left dichotomy.     

Redefining Welfare: Australian Social Policy and Practice

The present paper outlines and analyzes Australia's welfare reform policies as they have been implemented over the past decade. While there have been numerous social policy initiatives over this period, welfare reform provides an interesting site for analysis and review. This suite of policies and programs is of particular importance from several standpoints. First, its target groups – those needing income security assistance, including the unemployed, people with disabilities, and single parents – are historically and traditionally of concern to social work and social welfare. Second, welfare reform policies have had significant impact on social welfare agencies, and the social workers and welfare workers employed in them. Finally, welfare reform has had a wider impact on inequality in Australia and our attitudes to those in need. This paper first provides a brief overview of the context of Australian social policy and welfare, its origins and current situation. It then outlines the key operational elements of welfare reform and how it has been implemented. The third section of the paper offers a critical analysis of these policies and programs and finally poses some questions and issues requiring further discussion and research.     

The state of the German social insurance state: Reform and resilience

At the core of the German system of welfare provision stand social insurance schemes whose central role contributes to Germany being labelled a social insurance state. In recent decades, Germany has been experiencing major social policy reforms that are often evaluated as paradigm changes. These changes have been reflected in analyses that sometimes even questioned common classifications of the German welfare state. The article sheds light on recent developments that have affected the German system of social insurance. It focuses on four aspects of social insurance: benefits, financing, governance, and coverage. Although confirming many earlier analyses of reforms in detail and sharing assessments of changes such as retrenchment and marketization, the article nevertheless stresses that social insurance remains structurally intact and that the work–welfare nexus underlying welfare provision has been reinterpreted but not surrendered.     

“Crowding in” or “crowding out”? An examination of the impact of the welfare state on generalized social trust

Generalized social trust is correlated with increased levels of civic engagement, lower crime rates, and greater economic growth. Many scholars believe that equality provides the conditions in which social trust can flourish. Thus, welfare programs might be one way to generate social trust. However, the relationship between social spending and trust is contested: Some argue it is negative, while others argue it is positive. This study examined the effects of total social welfare expenditures on social trust in 18 OECD countries, holding constant individual characteristics, country characteristics, and country and year effects. Fixed effects analyses indicate that every additional percent of gross domestic product spent on social expenditures 5 years prior is associated with a 4.7 percent increased likelihood that respondents of that country will endorse trusting other people. Further testing for reverse causality found no significant association between trust and later social expenditures, supporting the claim that expenditures drive trust instead of the reverse.     

Aiming to keep poor Mexican families at the breadline (but no higher): The effects of minimum wage,tax, and social policy changes between 1994 and 2012

Welfare policy in Mexico has been transformed in recent decades. During the years of the import‐substitution industrialization economic strategy and the hegemonic party political regime, social policy was based on social insurance programs of limited coverage to urban formal sector workers and their families. In the mid‐1990s, an unprecedented expansion of social protection through social assistance programs was triggered, along with social insurance reform. This article assesses the effects at the household level of social policy changes, in combination with changes in taxes and the minimum wage, which also impact the welfare of the population. The research applies “model families” to establish effects of social, tax, and minimum wage policy changes across population groups, and their combined potential to combat poverty. Findings show that although taxation and social policy changes increased redistribution towards poor families, their capacity to lift and keep them above poverty thresholds was limited by the drop in the real value of the minimum wage and by strict targeting mechanisms, which exclude families that do not meet eligibility criteria but still fall below poverty lines. Social policy expansion merely subsidized the drop in real minimum wage, and poor families at best remained at similar income levels. Hence, the logic of the design of welfare policy changes can be characterized as aiming to keep poor families on the breadline, but no higher.     

The distributive impact of private pensions in the context of the institutional designs of public pension systems across OECD countries

Income inequality has been increasing across the developed world for the last few decades. The welfare state has played an important role in reducing income inequality, but it has now entered into an era of transformation. The shift from public to private pension schemes is one of the main policy instruments in this shift. An increase in private pensions is expected to create an increase in income inequality. Therefore, using data from OECD SOCX, this study examined how the effect of private pensions on income inequality might be changed by the institutional design of public pension systems. The results suggest that the effect of private pensions differs when the institutional design of the public pension system is considered. An increase in private pensions is related to an increase in income inequality when the public pension has a low level of coverage and a high level of earnings‐relatedness.     

A conceptual approach to the creation of public–private partnerships in social welfare

All societies are confronted with complex, often difficult to overcome, challenges associated with changing population demographics. These challenges have placed increasing demands on society for social protection. Individual citizens, politicians, and scholars alike all are searching for the ideal configuration of the welfare mix, that is, a combination of various institutions that can offer the best possible combination of essential goods and services for everyone in every society. Key Practitioner Message: ● The organization of the public–private welfare partnership as viewed from a conceptual perspective; ● The unique contextual and contemporary social forces that shape public–private partnerships in modern welfare state practice; ● Contrasts in the origins and nature of public–private partnerships between two of the world's most populous countries whose histories, traditions, values, and norms differ fundamentally from one another. Even so, considerable learning regarding welfare state formation in different societies is possible through the application of the Public–Private Development Mix to the analysis of welfare state formation in these two contrasting societies.     

When 'Choice' and 'Choice' Are not the Same: Institutional Frameworks of Choice in the German Welfare System

The creation and strengthening of welfare markets in Germany means that citizens can increasingly choose among competing providers of welfare goods and services. However, the conditions under which citizens may exercise choice in various fields of social policy are quite different. A major reason for these differences can be found in the public institutions that frame citizens' choice in welfare markets. This article analyses welfare markets in German health care, long-term care, pensions and employment policies, paying special attention to the respective public institutional frameworks. It will be argued that differences between frameworks of choice can be categorized by means of four parameters representing different aspects of public involvement in welfare markets. Depending on the kind and the degree of public involvement, welfare markets may be compatible with 'traditional' notions of public responsibility for citizens' social security.