Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-8hm5d Total loading time: 0.451 Render date: 2022-05-17T12:25:08.911Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

It could happen to you: how perceptions of personal risk shape support for social welfare policy in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2019

Kerri Milita
Affiliation:
Department of Politics & Government, Illinois State University, USA E-mail: kmilita@ilstu.edu
Jaclyn Bunch
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, University of South Alabama, USA E-mail: jbunch@southalabama.edu
Sara Yeganeh
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, USA E-mail: sara.yeganeh@stonybrook.edu

Abstract

Is public support for social welfare programs’ contingent on an individual’s exposure to risk? Prior work has examined whether tough economic times lead people to “reach out” (i.e. become more accepting of government expansion of social welfare programs) or “pull back” (i.e. become less supportive of welfare). However, these studies do not account for the conditional relationship between an individual’s exposure to risk and his or her risk orientation. Using new survey data, we find that an individual’s risk orientation moderates the relationship between risk exposure and public support for welfare spending. When individuals perceive exposure to economic risk, those who are risk averse are highly supportive of welfare expansion; those who are risk acceptant become less supportive. Broadly, these findings suggest that public support for welfare spending is contingent on whether an individual perceives exposure to risk and, if so, the individual’s propensity to tolerate that risk.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Abramowitz, AI, Lanoue, DJ and Ramesh, S (1988) Economic Conditions, Causal Attributions, and Political Evaluations in the 1984 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics 50(4): 848863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertson, B and Gadarian, SK (2015) Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, M (2016) Donald Trump and the Politics of Fear. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/ (accessed 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Bendersky, C (2014) Resolving Ideological Conflicts by Affirming Opponents’ Status: the Tea Party, Obamacare and the 2013 Government Shutdown. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 53(July): 163168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, AJ, Margolis, MF and Sances, MW (2014) Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 739753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, H, Kallio, J, Kangas, O, Kroll, C and Niemela, M (2012) Attitudes Among High-Risk Groups. In Svallfors, S. (ed.), Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Borghans, L, Heckman, JJ,Golsteyn, BH and Meijers, H (2009) Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association 7(2): 649658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, P and Curley, SP (1992) Individual Differences in Risk Taking. In Yates , J. F. (ed.) Risk-Taking Behavior. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons, 87132.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B and Dekker, F (2010) Flexible Employment, Economic Insecurity and Social Policy Preferences in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 20(2): 126141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, MD and Keeter, S (1997) What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, FL and Barrett, EJ (1994) Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Desilver, D (2017) What does the Federal Government Spend Your Tax Dollars On? Social Insurance Programs, Mostly. Pew Research Center, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S and Maestas, C (2010) Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure and Policy Opinion: The Case of Free Trade. Political Psychology 31(5): 657684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, D and Kalish, E (2016) Financial Insecurity and the Election of Donald Trump. Urban Institute, http://apps.urban.org/features/financial-insecurity-election-of-donald-trump/.Google Scholar
Feldman, S and Zaller, J (1992) The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franko, W, Tolbert, CJ and Witko, C (2013) Inequality, Self-Interest and Public Support for ‘Robin-Hood’ Tax Policies. Political Research Quarterly 66(4): 923937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, A and Ksiazkiewicz, A (2015) Do Political Attitudes and Religiosity Share a Genetic Path? Political Behavior 37(4): 791818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadarian, SK and Albertson, B (2014) Anxiety, Immigration and the Search for Information. Political Psychology 35(2): 133164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, AS, Huber, GA, Doherty, D, Dowling, CM and Ha, SE (2010) Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships Across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review 104(1): 111133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M (1999). Why Americans Hate Welfare. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grable, JE (2000) Financial Risk Tolerance and Additional Factors that Affect Risk. Journal of Business and Technology 14(4): 625630.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S, Kurer, T and Schwander, H (2016) Sharing the Risk? Households, Labor Market Vulnerability, and Social Policy Preferences in Western Europe. Journal of Politics 78(4): 10451060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, S, Kurer, T and Schwander, H (2015) High-Skilled Outsiders? Labor Market Vulnerability, Education and Welfare State Preferences. Socio-Economic Review 15(2): 235258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, H (2001) The Politics of Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Hochschild, JL (1981) What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, CD and Nam, Y (2008) Reaching Out or Pulling Back: Macroeconomic Conditions and Public Support for Social Welfare Spending. Political Behavior 30(2): 223258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, CD and Simas, EN (2010) Risk Orientation and Policy Frames. Journal of Politics 72(2): 381396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, CD (2012) Risk Attitudes and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 56(4): 817836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevins, A (2018) Dualized Trust: Risk, Social Trust and the Welfare State. Socio-Economic Review (January): 123.Google Scholar
Kinder, DR and Kiewet, DR (1981) Sociotropic Politics: the American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11(2): 129161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, S and Krupnikov, Y (2016) Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, RJ, Hamilton, AJ and Tolbert, CJ (2014) Does Policy Adoption Change Opinions on Minority Rights? The Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. Political Research Quarterly 67(4): 795808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauter, D (2016) How Do Americans View Poverty? Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-poverty-poll/ (accessed 14 August 2016).Google Scholar
Luttmer, EFP (2001) Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution. Journal of Political Economy 109(3): 500528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, C and Pollock, W (2010) Measuring Generalized Risk Orientation with a Single Survey Item, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1599867.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y (2013) Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession. American Political Science Review 107(1): 80103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S and Burkhardt, C (2009) Migration and Welfare State Solidarity in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 19 (3): 213229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, JJ, Hibbing, MV, Canache, D, Seligson, MA and Anderson, MR (2010) Personality and Civic Engagement: an Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior. American Political Science Review 104(1): 85110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, R and Neidorf, S (2007) Surge in Support for Social Security Net: Sympathy for the Poor and the Government Aid Programs Returns to 1980s Levels. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/2007/05/02/surge-in-support-for-social-safety-net/.Google Scholar
Mughan, A (2009) Economic Insecurity and Welfare Preferences: A Micro-Level Analysis. Comparative Politics 39 (3): 293310.Google Scholar
Mughan, A and Lacy, D (2002) Economic Performance, Job Insecurity and Electoral Choice. British Journal of Political Science 32(3): 513533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R, Martin, P and Blais, A (1999) Attitude Towards Risk-Taking and Individual Choice in the Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty. British Journal of Political Science 29(3): 523539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, N, Soane, E, Fenton-O’Creevy, M and William, P (2005) Personality and Domain-Specific Risk Taking. Journal of Risk Research 8(2): 157176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattrone, GA and Tversky, A (1988) Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses. American Political Science Review 82(3): 719736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, B and Smith, AR (2012) Welfare Policymaking and Intersections of Race Ethnicity and Gender in US Legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 131147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, D (2005) Insider-Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: the Challenge to Social Democratic Parties. American Political Science Review 99(1): 6174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, K and Slaughter, MJ (2004) Economic Insecurity and the Globalization of Production. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 662674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Catran, A and Spies, DC (2016) Immigration and Welfare Support in Germany. American Sociological Review 81(2): 242261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, SK and Jacoby, WG (2005) Elite Discourse and American Public Opinion: The Case of Welfare Spending. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 367379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, SN, Stecula, DA and Wlezien, C (2015) It’s (Change in) the (Future) Economy, Stupid: Economic Indicators, the Media, and Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 457474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, RT (2001) The Economy of Policy Mood: A Fundamental Dynamic of Democratic Politics? American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 620633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, JA (2004) Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S, Kulin, J and Schnabel, A (2012) Age, Class, and Attitudes Toward Government Responsibilities. In Svallfors S. (ed.), Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tax Policy Center (2017) State and Local General Expenditures, Per Capita. Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita.Google Scholar
Tomz, M and Van Houweling, R (2009) The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103(1): 8398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voogt, RJJ and Saris, WE (2003) To Participate or Not Participate: the Link Between Survey Participation, Electoral Participation and Political Interest. Political Analysis 11(2): 164179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisman, J and Peters, JW (2013) Government Shuts Down in Budget Impasse. New York Times.Google Scholar
Weyland, K (2003) Economic Voting Reconsidered: Crisis and Charisma in the Election of Hugo Chavez. Comparative Politica Studies 36(7): 822848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Milita et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Milita et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S7 and Figures S1-S4

Download Milita et al. supplementary material(File)
File 304 KB

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

It could happen to you: how perceptions of personal risk shape support for social welfare policy in the American States
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

It could happen to you: how perceptions of personal risk shape support for social welfare policy in the American States
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

It could happen to you: how perceptions of personal risk shape support for social welfare policy in the American States
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *