Workers, worries and welfare states: Social protection and job insecurity in 15 OECD countries

Abstract

Abstract. This article examines a model of the domestic political economy of subjective employment insecurity in advanced industrial societies. Based on data on people's attitudes toward their job as well as levels of and kinds of social protection collected in 15 OECD countries, it shows that there are distinct manifestations of job insecurity that are affected differently by distinct aspects of social protection programs. While the analysis shows that social protection measures reduce employment insecurity, it also reveals that overall levels welfare state generosity do not have any systematic effect on whether workers feel secure. The article's findings suggest the need to decompose the different components of employment insecurity as well as disaggregate national systems of social protection when examining the impact of welfare states on job insecurity.Comparative political economists commonly assume that increased economic insecurity is one of the prime explanations for why welfare states have continued to grow, or why cutbacks have been relatively limited, despite tax fatigue and the economic pressures associated with globalization. Following Rodrik (1997) and Garrett (1998), much of the existing literature takes as axiomatic that insecurity, measured objectively, generates demand for social protection. Given the centrality that such reasoning has come to assume, the absence of any systematic analysis of the effects of social protection on individual perceptions of economic insecurity is striking. Drawing on 1997 survey data from 15 OECD countries, the following analysis focuses on whether and how cross-national differences in social protection affect the extent to which workers worry about losing their jobs.In estimating the effects of public policy and institutional arrangements, we draw on research in psychology to distinguish between different components of job insecurity, and explore how specific types of social protection (employment protection legislation, active labor market policies and unemployment insurance) affect these components. By disaggregating both job insecurity and systems of social protection, our analysis not only demonstrates that public provision of social protection does indeed reduce the job insecurity experienced by individuals, but also specifies the distinct causal pathways whereby this effect occurs.

Inequality, Labor Market Segmentation, and Preferences for Redistribution

“…Deindustrialization has reinforced this process by gradually segregating many low-skilled workers into insecure, often part-time or temporary, jobs (Gingrich and Ansell 2012;Kalleberg 2003;Wren 2013). Employment protection legislation benefiting mostly skilled workers in fulltime jobs probably reinforced this dualism (Rueda 2005, 2 See Cusack, Iversen, and Rehm (2006), Anderson and Pontusson (2007), Rehm et al (2012), and Margalit (2013). 2008). Immigration of workers without recognized skills in their host countries has added an ethnic-linguistic dimension to segmentation, creating more competition for low-end jobs while benefiting many skilled native workers who gain from lower prices on basic services like convenience stores or house cleaning.…”

Endogenous Preferences: The Political Consequences of Economic Institutions

“…Such policy preferences are precisely what Iversen and Soskice (2001) and Iversen (2005) find when producing estimates that show, controlling for income, that the demand for social spending is strongly associated with skill specificity for all OECD countries. Anderson and Pontusson (2007), and Iversen and Stephens (2008). Because the higher levels of skill specificity in CMEs are associated with the demand for robust unemployment policies across the social strata, this paper suggests that such preferences should translate into over-proportional support for leftist politics.…”

Demands of Social Change Across Multiple Domains of Life and Across Time at the Advent of the Global Financial Crisis

“…This notwithstanding, we expected that younger people would evidence a steeper increase in perceived demands facing the GFC. Not protected by seniority and oftentimes just navigating the transition to work life, younger people are often found to be the most vulnerable group in terms of perceived job insecurity (see Anderson & Pontusson, 2007;Pacelli, Devicienti, Maida, Morini, Poggi, & Vesan, 2008), although they usually have higher chances of re-employment (see Erlinghagen, 2008).…”