Examining Attitudes towards Welfare in an In/Security Regime: Evidence from Ghana

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which Gough and Woodʼs (2004) classification of most sub-Saharan African nations as insecurity regimes is still relevant by analysing public responses and attitudes towards general and specific (healthcare) welfare policies in Ghana, using a mixed-method design. Ghana presents a fascinating case study not only due to the changing socio-economic landscape but also because of the prevailing socio-political stability. The research findings demonstrate that most participants wanted more welfare spending (including on healthcare) but remained reluctant to rely on government provisions due to distrust and perceived inefficiencies in the public sector. The findings also depict the continuing reliance on family and social networks as safety nets and sometimes in preference to state arrangements. The article argues that Ghanaʼs welfare regime may be gradually shifting from the classic insecurity regime (albeit still relevant) to one resembling the less effective informal security regime – at least from the publicʼs experiences – and demands a careful integration of individual, familial, and community networks in current and future formal welfare arrangements.

Examining the incentives and disincentives in the maintenance of Insecticide‐Treated Nets among householders in Ghana

“…10,26,27 The position of the participants can also be explained from the self-interest hypothesis of welfare studies, which posits that people are likely to favour (and perhaps adopt) measures that support their plans for improving their wellbeing. 40 For instance, the need to stay healthy in order to avoid contracting malaria, which would deter their ability to make a living, was of central importance in explaining why participants were motivated to care for their ITNs. Thus, the quest to remain healthy, which some participants stated, is not only natural; it can also be understood from the socioeconomic circumstances of the participants.…”

Who should care? Exploring the views and experiences of individuals in negotiating solutions for health security

“…4.1 Qualitative approach to welfare attitude research Within social policy studies, an attitude is assigned as an epistemological basis to map out the extent to which a specific welfare system evolves and the social needs of citizens can be met through an established system (Amoah, 2020;Chung et al, 2018;Gelissen, 2003;Valarino et al, 2018). This can be done through the identification of the most preferred institutions of Attitudes toward health security welfare for citizens.…”

“…Regarding this, there are three major assumptions on factors shaping attitudes towards welfare. The first is the self-interest thesis, which assumes that individuals perceive themselves as vulnerable, or at risk, and tend to have a more positive attitude (supportive) towards the welfare state, compared to those who are socially in advantageous positions (Amoah, 2020; Chung et al , 2018). The second is the institutional thesis.…”

“…Most of sub-Saharan Africa countries represent this type (Bevan, 2004). In particular, this argument is challenged by a recent study of Amoah (2020) that is based on the selected case of Ghana. Amoah argues that the country has been gradually moving toward a less effective informal security regime as “people are now in the position to demand more welfare provisions – an improbable phenomenon in typical insecurity regimes” (Amoah, 2020, p. 13).…”

Healthcare expansion in Indonesia and Thailand: a causal mechanism and its implications for welfare regimes

“…Despite that, the ambitious work of Gough et al( 2004) at covering the Global South countries lacked depth. For this reason, recent studies (Amoah, 2020; Roumpakis, 2020; Roumpakis & Sumarto, 2020; Sumarto, 2020; Velázquez Leyer, 2020; Yang & Kühner, 2020) have updated the Global South classification by using a range of methodologies, reaching out to detail recent developments in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, based on selected studies of Ghana and Mexico, and comparative cases of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Cross-cutting studies of the Global North and Global South were also followed (Papadopoulos & Roumpakis, 2019; Roumpakis, 2020).…”