Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-kkj62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-08T01:06:03.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do increasing reform pressures change welfare state attitudes? An experimental study on population ageing, pension reform preferences, political knowledge and ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

ELIAS NAUMANN
ELIAS NAUMANN*
Affiliation:
SFB 884 ‘The Political Economy of Reforms’, University of Mannheim, Germany.
*
Address for correspondence: Elias Naumann, SFB 884 ‘The Political Economy of Reforms’, University of Mannheim, L 13 17, 68161 Mannheim, Germany E-mail: elias.naumann@uni-mannheim.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is a perennial issue in the public and the scientific debate whether increased pressures to reform due to the financial crisis or population ageing erode welfare state support. Surprisingly, our knowledge of how individuals change their attitudes in hard times is still limited – both theoretically and empirically. We rely on newly available data from a survey experiment in a representative German online survey and exogenously manipulate the perceived pressure to reform (due to an ageing society). We show that people indeed change their reform preferences when faced with an ageing society: the strong opposition to increasing the retirement age decreases. Further analyses reveal that not all groups within society react to increased reform pressures in the same way: political knowledge but also political partisanship do moderate the strength and the direction of the attitude change.

Keywords

public opinionpension reformattitude changepopulation ageingsurvey experiment

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , February 2017 , pp. 266 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alt, J. 1979. The Politics of Economic Decline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Althaus, S. L. 1998. Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92, 3, 545–58.Google Scholar
Blekesaune, M. 2007. Economic conditions and public attitudes to welfare policies. European Sociological Review, 23, 3, 393–403.Google Scholar
Blinder, A. S. and Krueger, A. B. 2004. What does the public know about economic policy, and how does it know it? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 35, 1, 327–97.Google Scholar
Blom, A., Gathmann, C. and Krieger, U. 2014. Setting up an online panel representative of the general population: the German Internet Panel. Field Methods. Published online on March 26, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1525822X15574494.Google Scholar
Boeri, T., Borsch-Supan, A. and Tabellini, G. 2001. Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy, 16, 32, 9–50.Google Scholar
Boeri, T. and Tabellini, G. 2012. Does information increase political support for pension reform? Public Choice, 150, 1/2, 327–62.Google Scholar
Boudiny, K. 2013. Active ageing: from empty rhetoric to effective policy tool. Ageing & Society, 33, 6, 1077–98.Google Scholar
Brooks, C. and Manza, J. 2006. Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. American Sociological Review, 71, 3, 474–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, P. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 1, 29–40.Google Scholar
Castles, F. G. 2008. What welfare states do: a disaggregated expenditure approach. Journal of Social Policy, 38, 1, 45–62.Google Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N. 2007. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 4, 637–55.Google Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N. 2010. Dynamic public opinion: communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104, 4, 663–80.Google Scholar
Dallinger, U. 2010. Public support for redistribution: what explains cross-national differences? Journal of European Social Policy, 20, 4, 333–49.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. 1993. Measuring political knowledge: putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 4, 1179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Fein, J. and Leeper, T. J. 2012. A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 2, 430–54.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. and Nelson, K. R. 2003. Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 4, 729–45.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. and Slothuus, R. 2013. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 1, 57–79.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. 2011. The Varieties of Pension Governance: Pension Privatization in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S., Mackuen, M. B. and Stimson, J. A. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J. J. and Jaime-Castillo, A. M. 2013. Positive or negative policy feedbacks? Explaining popular attitudes towards pragmatic pension policy reforms. European Sociological Review, 29, 4, 803–15.Google Scholar
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H. and Quirk, P. J. 2007. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
Giger, N. 2011. The Risk of Social Policy? The Electoral Consequences of Welfare State Retrenchment and Social Policy Performance in OECD Countries. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Goul Andersen, J., Pettersen, P., Svallfors, S. and Uusitalo, H. 1999. The legitimacy of the nordic welfare states: trends, variations and cleavages. In Kautto, M., Heikkila, M., Hvinden, B., Marklund, S. and Ploug, N. (eds), Nordic Social Policy: Changing Welfare States. Routledge, London, 235–61.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S. 2010. The Politics of Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. 2005. New century – new paradigm. Pension reforms in Germany. In Bonoli, G. and Shinkawa, T. (eds), Ageing and Pension Reform Around the World. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, UK, 47–73.Google Scholar
Hofäcker, D. 2014. In line or at odds with active ageing policies? Exploring patterns of retirement preferences in Europe. Ageing & Society, 35, 7, 1529–1556.Google Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jaime-Castillo, A. M. 2013. Public opinion and the reform of the pension system in Europe: the influence of solidarity principles. Journal of European Social Policy, 23, 4, 390–405.Google Scholar
Jeene, M. and van Oorschot, W. 2014. The dynamics of welfare opinions in changing economic, institutional and political contexts: an empirical analysis of Dutch deservingness opinions, 1975–2006. Social Indicators Research, 115, 2, 731–749.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory – analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 2, 263–91.Google Scholar
Kam, C. D. 2005. Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 2, 163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, D. R. and Kiewiet, D. R. 1981. Sociotropic politics: the American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 2, 129–61.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. 1990. Lessons learned – a review and integration of our findings. Social Cognition, 8, 1, 154–8.Google Scholar
Kumlin, S. 2007. The welfare state: values, policy preferences, and performance evaluations. In Dalton, R. and Klingenmann, H.-D. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 362–83.Google Scholar
Larsen, C. A. 2006. The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P. 2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 4, 951–71.Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J. and Slothuus, R. 2014. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 1, 129–55.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. 2000. Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. and Popkin, S. (eds), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge University Press, New York, 183–213.Google Scholar
Long, J. S. and Freese, J. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. and Jowell, R. 2002. Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 3, 455–87.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. and Soss, J. 2004. The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 20, 1, 55–73.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. 2011. Population-based Survey Experiments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Naumann, E. 2014. Raising the retirement age: retrenchment, feedback and attitudes. In Kumlin, S. and Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (eds), How Welfare States Shape the Democratic Public. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 223–43.Google Scholar
Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. 1983. Effects of public-opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 1, 175–90.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. 1996. The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48, 2, 143.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. 2001. The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Prinzen, K. 2014. Intergenerational ambivalence: new perspectives on intergenerational relationships in the German welfare state. Ageing & Society, 34, 3, 428–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J., Achterberg, P., van der Veen, R. and Yerkes, M. 2011. An institutional embeddedness of welfare opinions? The link between public opinion and social policy in the Netherlands 1970–2004. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. 2002. Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making, Journal of Politics, 64, 4, 1021–44.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. 2010. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2, 1, 1–25.Google Scholar
Shivo, T. and Uusitalo, H. 1995. Economic crises and support for welfare in Finland 1975–1993. Acta Sociologica, 38, 3, 251–62.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. 2009. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. 2010. Policy feedback, generational replacement, and attitudes to state intervention: Eastern and Western Germany, 1990–2006. European Political Science Review, 2, 1, 119–35.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. 2001. Sustaining state welfare in hard times: who will foot the bill? Journal of European Social Policy, 11, 2, 133–47.Google Scholar
van Dalen, H. and Henkens, K. 2005. The double standard in attitudes toward retirement – the case of the Netherlands. The Geneva Papers, 30, 4, 693–710.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. and Meuleman, B. 2014. Popular deservingness of the unemployed. Effects of policy context, economic conditions and cultural climate. In Kumlin, S. and Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (eds), How Welfare States Shape the Democratic Public. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 244–68.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W., Reeskens, T. and Meuleman, B. 2012. Popular perceptions of welfare state consequences: a multilevel, cross-national analysis of 25 European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 22, 2, 181–97.Google Scholar
World Health Organization 2002. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. 1990. Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8, 1, 125–53.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar