Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T06:53:58.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional trust and welfare state support: on the role of trust in market institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2013

Jonas Edlund  and
Arvid Lindh
Jonas Edlund
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden E-mail: jonas.edlund@soc.umu.se
Arvid Lindh
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden E-mail: arvid.lindh@soc.umu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of institutional trust for structuring welfare state support (WSS) has been advanced by several scholars. Yet, the thesis has not received convincing empirical support. We argue that the weak evidence observed by previous research is caused by the failure of not extending the analytical framework beyond the study of public institutions. Using Sweden as a test case, our analytical framework covers trust in public institutions (TPI) and market institutions (TMI). The main findings are: (1) TMI has a robust negative effect on WSS; (2) the expected relationship between TPI and WSS is strengthened controlling for TMI; (3) TMI mediates the relationships between socio-economic variables and WSS. These findings underline the importance of bringing in other institutional configurations that are seen as conceivable alternatives to the state for administrating social welfare, not the least in studies primarily interested in the link between TPI and support for state-organised welfare.

Keywords

attitudesinstitutionsmarketpublictrustwelfare state
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 295 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beauducel, A.Herzberg, P. Y. (2006) On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weight Least Squares Estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling 13(2): 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, A. (2007) Den kapitalistiska välfärdsstaten – om den svenska modellens historia och framtid. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Blomberg, H. (1999) Do Cutbacks Pay off? Perceived Changes in the Standard of Municipal Services and Attitudes Towards Services Among Citizens and Municipal Decision Makers in Finland. International Journal of Social Welfare 8(3): 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, H., Kallio, J., Kangas, O., Kroll, C.Niemelä, M. (2012) Attitudes Among High-Risk Groups. In Svallfors S. (ed.), Contested Welfare States. Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomqvist, P. (2004) The Choice Revolution: Privatization of Swedish Welfare Services in the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration 38(2): 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomqvist, P.Rothstein, B. (2000) Välfärdsstatens nya ansikte. Demokrati och marknadsreformer inom den offentliga sektorn. Stockholm: Agora.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Calzada, I.del Pino, E. (2008) Perceived Efficacy and Citizen's Attitudes Toward Welfare State Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 74(4): 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. F. (2007) Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indices to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Psychological Bulletin 14(3): 464–504.Google Scholar
Crane, A., Matten, D.Moon, J. (2008) Corporations and Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, C. (2011) The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Daly, M.Lewis, J. (2000) The Concept of Social Care and the Analysis of Contemporary Welfare States. British Journal of Sociology 51(2): 281–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidov, E., Datler, G., Schmidt, P.Schwartz, S. H. (2011) Testing the Invariance of Values in the Benelux Countries with the European Social Survey: Accounting for Ordinality. In Davidov, E. et al. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Analysis. New York: Routledge, 149–172.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. (1999) Trust in Government and Welfare Regimes: Attitudes to Redistribution and Financial Cheating in the United States and Norway. European Journal of Political Research 35(3): 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlund, J. (2006) Trust in the Capability of the Welfare State and General Welfare State Support: Sweden 1997–2002. Acta Sociologica 49(4): 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.Goldthorpe, J. H. (1992) The Constant Flux. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1985) Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1993) Changing Classes. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J., Sjöberg, O. (2012) Sveriges socialförsäkringar i jämförande perspektiv. Uppsala Center for Labor studies. Working paper, 2012, 11.Google Scholar
Flora, D. B.Curran, P. J. (2004) An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Ordinal Data. Psychological Methods 9(4): 466–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gevers, J., Gelissen, J., Arts, W.Muffels, R. (2000) Public Health Care in the Balance: Exploring Popular Support for Health Care Systems in the European Union. International Journal of Social Welfare 9(4): 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A.Soskice, D. (eds.) (2001) Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, L. (ed.) (2011) Konkurrensens konsekvenser. Vad händer med svensk välfärd? Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
Hernes, H. (1987) Women and the Welfare State: The Transition from Private to Public Dependence. In Showstack Sassoon A. (ed.), Women and the State. London: Hutchinson, 72–92.Google Scholar
Hoel, M.Knutsen, O. (1989) Social Class, Gender and Sector Employment as Political Cleavages in Scandinavia. Acta Sociologica 32(2): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. R.Boyer, R. (1997) Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling 6(1): 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, S.Weibull, L. (2012) Förtroendet för staten. In Weibull L., Oscarson H. and Bergström A. (eds.), I framtidens skugga. Göteborg: SOM institute, 127–144.Google Scholar
Huber, E.Stephens, J. D. (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson Sevä, I. (2010) Välfärdstatsundersökningen 2010 [The Welfare State Survey 2010]. Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (1983) The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Korpi, W.Palme, J. (1998) The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries. American Sociological Review 63(5): 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W.Palme, J. (2003) New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalizsation: Welfare State Regress in 18 Countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review 97(3): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumlin, S. (2004) The Personal and the Political. How Personal Welfare State Experiences Affect Political Trust and Ideology. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kumlin, S. (2007a) Overloaded or Undermined? European Welfare States in the Face of Performance Dissatisfaction”. In Svallfors S. (ed.), The Political Sociology of the Welfare State. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 80–116.Google Scholar
Kumlin, S. (2007b) The welfare State: Values, Policy Preferences, and Performance evaluations. In Dalton R. J. and Klingeman H. D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 362–382.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M.Schneider, W. (1983) The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T.Wen, Z. (2004) In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11(3): 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B., du Toit, S. H. C., Spisic, D. (1997) Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K.Muthén, B. O. (2007) Mplus User's Guide, 5th ed.Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Nye, J., Zelikow, P.King, D. (eds.) (1997) Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Orloff, A. S. (1993) Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States. American Sociological Review 58(3): 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, D. (2007) Is There Really a Scandinavian Social Service Model? A Comparison of Childcare and Elderly care in Six European Countries. Acta Sociologica 50(3): 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. (1991) Is American Public Policy Exceptional? In Shafer B. E. (ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1998) Just Institutions Matter. The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B.Steinmo, S. (eds.) (2002) Restructuring the Welfare State: Political Institutions and Policy Change. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacker, R. E.Lomax, R. G. (2010) A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2006) Generosity of Social Insurance 1971–2002. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(3): 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipilä, J. (ed.) (1997) Social Care Services: The Key to the Scandinavian Welfare Model. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S. (1994) American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions? In Dodd L. and Jillson C. (eds.), The Dynamics of American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 117–124.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1996) Välfärdsstatens moraliska ekonomi: välfärdsopinionen i 90-talets Sverige. Umeå: Borea.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2002) Political Trust and Support for the Welfare State: Unpacking a Supposed Relationship. In Rothstein, B. and Steinmo, S. (eds.), Restructuring the Welfare State: Political Institutions and Policy Change. New York: Palgrave, 184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2006) The Moral Economy of Class. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2012) Government Quality, Egalitarianism, and Attitudes to Taxes and Social Spending: A European Comparison. European Political Science Review, doi:10.1017/S175577391200015X.Google Scholar
Trydegård, G-B. (2001) Välfärdstjänster till salu – privatisering och alternativa driftformer under 1990-talet. In Szebehely M. (ed.), Välfärdstjänster i omvandling, SOU 2001:52. Stockholm: Fritzes, 77–140.Google Scholar
Uslaner, E. (2010) Trust and the Economic Crisis of 2008. Corporate Reputation Review 13(2): 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, W.Meuleman, B. (2012) Welfare Performance and Welfare Support. In Svallfors S. (ed.), Contested Welfare States. Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 25–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, E. O. (2004) Beneficial Constraints: Beneficial for Whom? Socio-Economic Review 2(3): 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar