Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles: Does the Type Really Matter?

Abstract

In this article, we investigate whether and, if so, to what extent, people's notions of solidarity and their choices of justice principles are related to the type of welfare state regime they live under, as well as to individual socio-demographic and ideological factors. We analyse data from the International Social Survey Program 1996 and the European Values Study 1999, which together cover preferences of citizens from 20 welfare states. Hypotheses pertaining to people's notions of solidarity and preferences for justice principles in the different welfare state regimes are derived from the work of Esping-Andersen and his critics, as well as from sociological and socialpsychological theories of solidarity and distributive justice. We find important, although not decisive, evidence for the thesis that the actual state of affairs with respect to the welfare state regime under which citizens live determines their views about which level of solidarity should be achieved and which justice principles should be emphasized. However, differences found are often not very pronounced, and we argue that this is a consequence of the fact that values of solidarity and justice are matters of priority to all welfare states. Taking into account the differences which exist between welfare state regimes, we also find important differences between individuals and social groups in their preferred level of solidarity and in their choice of justice principles.

Industrial Relations as a Source of Solidarity in Times of Welfare State Retrenchment

“…Whereas authors using the wide conception link solidarity with the creation of 'programmes that break down class divisions or regional disparities' and argue that the 'maximum scope' of this kind of solidarity is universalism (Cox, 2004: 209), narrow conceptions of solidarity 'focus on the degree to which programs achieve redistributive ends, because redistribution demonstrates a commitment to the least well-off in a society' (Cox, 2004: 209-10). From Goodin et al (1999: 37-55), we can conclude that the diversity in the way the concept is used in the literature may also result from the existence of different types of welfare state regimes (liberal, social democratic, corporatist welfare regime), which go hand in hand with distinctive sets of fundamental values, benefit structures and welfare outcomes (about which, see also Arts and Gelissen, 2001). Besides diversity in the way the concept is defined, much of the literature connects the attainment of solidarity mainly with the provision of public welfare schemes, ignoring and undervaluing the importance of other collectivities such as the family (about which, see Ostner, 2004) and collective agreements as source of solidarity.…”

Conditional Punishment: A Comparative Analysis of the Electoral Consequences of Welfare State Retrenchment in OECD Nations, 1980–2003

“…But even a reduced risk is still a risk. One would still expect incumbent vote losses after social policy cuts, since we have strong evidence that a large share of citizens strongly support the welfare state (Arts and Gelissen 2001;Gelissen 2000;Roller 1995;Svallfors 1997 Under what conditions, then, has retrenchment of entitlements led to the electoral punishment of governing parties, and when did voters support parties that cut citizens' transfer income? We show that in addition to the unavailability of the stretching opportunity, a crucial precondition for punishment was the elevation of this issue to the top of the electoral campaign agenda by a combination of opposition parties, interest groups, and the mass media.…”

Home ownership and support for government redistribution

“…Many authors explain support for redistribution by means of the so-called 'self-interest'-thesis: people prefer the amount of redistribution that benefits them most (Meltzer and Richard, 1981;Arts and Gelissen, 2001;Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). Besides respondents' income or their position in the income distribution, self-interested support for redistribution is also spurred on by perceived risk or vulnerability, for instance when people are unemployed or in a flexible labour market position, or when unemployment or labour market flexibility is high in their society (Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003;Burgoon and Dekker, 2010).…”

“…Country-level characteristics hence have a formative effect on citizens' preferences and behaviour (Arts and Gelissen, 2001;Dallinger, 2010), although it is impossible to determine whether this process is mainly bottom-up (people to government) or top-down (government to people) -causality probably runs both ways. Earlier research on support for redistribution has shown that welfare attitudes are influenced by macro-level characteristics such as economic affluence, political-institutional differences and the level and structure of inequality (Finseraas, 2009;Dallinger, 2010).…”

“…While earlier research was inspired by concerns about welfare state legitimacy in times of austerity and retrenchment (for example, Arts and Gelissen, 2001;Meier Jaeger, 2006), more recently, research has focused on the impact of inequality, risk and vulnerability (for example, Burgoon and Dekker, 2010;Paskov …”