How to retrench the welfare state: Attitudes in the general population

Abstract

In recent years, many countries have faced pressure to cut the costs of the welfare state, and different strategies have been utilized to achieve this, including stricter eligibility requirements, reduced level of benefits, and reduced maximum duration of benefits. This contribution reports the results from a Norwegian survey designed to measure which of these strategies the general population would prefer in a situation where the government has to tighten various social security schemes. For a given reduction in total costs, there is a trade-off between the desire to avoid large individual benefit reductions and the desire to protect some groups of benefit recipients from any cuts. Different preferences for how to retrench the welfare state will reflect how individuals trade off these concerns. We find a striking association between political affiliation and preferred retrenchment strategy. Right-wingers typically prefer to tighten the eligibility criteria, while left-wingers typically prefer to reduce the benefit level. Furthermore, our results indicate that labor market outsiders are less in favor of tightening the eligibility criteria, but more in favor of reducing the maximum duration of benefits, than labor market insiders.This article contributes to the literature on welfare state retrenchment by examining which retrenchment strategy that the public prefers, which in turn sheds light on which measures that are likely to receive popular support from different demographics in the population.

Political legitimacy and welfare state futures: Introduction

“…Previous studies have used political partisanship (Goerres & Tepe, ), economic individualism (Blekesaune, ; Blekesaune & Quadagno, ), and gender role attitudes (Chung & Meuleman, ) to determine why individuals will support a certain policy area or the welfare state in general. Lastly, welfare attitudes are affected by the current policy provision, both the level and the structure, as well as other socio‐economic conditions of the country (Blekesaune, ; Chung & Meuleman, ; see also the other contributions to this issue: Burlacu, Immergut, Oskarson, & Rönnerstrand, ; Cappelen, Cappelen, Kuhnle, & Tungodden, ; Kootstra & Roosma, ; Lubbers, Diehl, Kuhn, & Albrekt Larsen, ; Taylor‐Gooby, Chung, & Leruth, ; in particular, Burlacu et al, ; Lubbers et al, ). Regarding the relationship between current policy levels and support, both a positive and negative relationship have been put forward.…”

“…Cappelen et al () in their contribution to this issue pursue framings in relation to policies to cut welfare spending. Austerity programs are in place across many European countries, and retrenchment policies are not uncommon.…”

Frontline social service as a battlefield: Insights from street‐level bureaucrats' interactions with violent clients

“…We also encourage decision‐makers not to focus only on punishment, but to consider the roots of violence in the street‐level public policy arena and the shortage of resources SLBs possess when dealing with the growing demands from citizens. This shortage can be understood in the broader context of the withdrawal from the welfare state which has taken place in many countries (Cappelen, Cappelen, Kuhnle, & Tungodden, 2018; Saban, 2014; Starke, 2006), including Israel (Benjamin, 2016; Gal, 2010; Lahat, 2018; Rosenhek, 2004). In this context, client violence may be a byproduct of the ongoing frustration that citizens experience from the reduction in public resources.…”

Different understandings of welfare benefits among the Dutch public: A focus group study

“…A rich body of literature has identified the groups more in favour of welfare benefits (henceforth: ‘benefits’ for brevity's sake) and the relevant factors in this regard (e.g., Achterberg et al, 2013; Cappelen et al, 2018; Deeming, 2018; Gelissen, 2000). Much less research has focused on uncovering what benefits actually mean to citizens.…”