Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Kerri Milita (a1), Jaclyn Bunch (a2) and Sara Yeganeh (a3)

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending 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
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending 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
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
Albertson, B and Gadarian, SK (2015) Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burgoon, B and Dekker, F (2010) Flexible Employment, Economic Insecurity and Social Policy Preferences in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 20(2): 126141.
Carpini, MD and Keeter, S (1997) What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
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.
Desilver, D (2017) What does the Federal Government Spend Your Tax Dollars On? Social Insurance Programs, Mostly. Pew Research Center, http://www.pew research.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/.
Ehrlich, S and Maestas, C (2010) Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure and Policy Opinion: The Case of Free Trade. Political Psychology 31(5): 657684.
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/.
Federal Communications Commission (2018) Eight Broadband Progress Report. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report.
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.
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.
Friesen, A and Ksiazkiewicz, A (2015) Do Political Attitudes and Religiosity Share a Genetic Path? Political Behavior 37(4): 791818.
Gadarian, SK and Albertson, B (2014) Anxiety, Immigration and the Search for Information. Political Psychology 35(2): 133164.
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.
Gilens, M (1999). Why Americans Hate Welfare. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grable, JE (2000) Financial Risk Tolerance and Additional Factors that Affect Risk. Journal of Business and Technology 14(4): 625630.
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.
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.
Heclo, H (2001) The Politics of Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Hochschild, JL (1981) What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Kam, CD and Simas, EN (2010) Risk Orientation and Policy Frames. Journal of Politics 72(2): 381396.
Kam, CD (2012) Risk Attitudes and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 56(4): 817836.
Kevins, A (2018) Dualized Trust: Risk, Social Trust and the Welfare State. Socio-Economic Review (January): 123.
Kinder, DR and Kiewet, DR (1981) Sociotropic Politics: the American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11(2): 129161.
Klar, S and Krupnikov, Y (2016) Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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).
Luttmer, EFP (2001) Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution. Journal of Political Economy 109(3): 500528.
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.
Margalit, Y (2013) Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession. American Political Science Review 107(1): 80103.
Mau, S and Burkhardt, C (2009) Migration and Welfare State Solidarity in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 19 (3): 213229.
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.
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/.
Mughan, A (2009) Economic Insecurity and Welfare Preferences: A Micro-Level Analysis. Comparative Politics 39 (3): 293310.
Mughan, A and Lacy, D (2002) Economic Performance, Job Insecurity and Electoral Choice. British Journal of Political Science 32(3): 513533.
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.
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.
Quattrone, GA and Tversky, A (1988) Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses. American Political Science Review 82(3): 719736.
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.
Rueda, D (2005) Insider-Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: the Challenge to Social Democratic Parties. American Political Science Review 99(1): 6174.
Scheve, K and Slaughter, MJ (2004) Economic Insecurity and the Globalization of Production. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 662674.
Schmidt-Catran, A and Spies, DC (2016) Immigration and Welfare Support in Germany. American Sociological Review 81(2): 242261.
Schneider, SK and Jacoby, WG (2005) Elite Discourse and American Public Opinion: The Case of Welfare Spending. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 367379.
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.
Stevenson, RT (2001) The Economy of Policy Mood: A Fundamental Dynamic of Democratic Politics? American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 620633.
Stimson, JA (2004) Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Tomz, M and Van Houweling, R (2009) The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103(1): 8398.
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.
Weisman, J and Peters, JW (2013) Government Shuts Down in Budget Impasse. New York Times.
Weyland, K (2003) Economic Voting Reconsidered: Crisis and Charisma in the Election of Hugo Chavez. Comparative Politica Studies 36(7): 822848.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Milita et al. Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
WORD
Supplementary materials

Milita et al. supplementary material
Tables S1-S7 and Figures S1-S4

 Word (304 KB)
304 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed