Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T14:21:25.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“First the Grub, then the Morals”? Disentangling the Self-Interest and Ideological Drivers of Attitudes Towards Demanding Activation Policies in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2020

FEDERICA ROSSETTI Open the ORCID record for FEDERICA ROSSETTI [Opens in a new window] ,
KOEN ABTS Open the ORCID record for KOEN ABTS [Opens in a new window] ,
BART MEULEMAN  and
MARC SWYNGEDOUW
FEDERICA ROSSETTI
Affiliation:
Centre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Box 3601, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, email: federica.rossetti@kuleuven.be
KOEN ABTS
Affiliation:
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands, email: K.Abts@tilburguniversity.edu
BART MEULEMAN
Affiliation:
Centre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Box 3601, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, email: bart.meuleman@kuleuven.be
MARC SWYNGEDOUW
Affiliation:
Centre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Box 3601, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, email: marc.swyngedouw@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the shift towards an activating role of the European welfare states, there is increasing scholarly interest in public support for demanding activation policies that impose obligations on welfare recipients. Borrowing the classical theoretical frameworks used in welfare attitudes research, we aim to disentangle the effect of self-interest and ideological beliefs on support for demanding activation. Using data from the Belgian National Election Study (2014), we find that support for demanding activation is strongly related to authoritarian dispositions, work ethic and rejection of egalitarianism. For the social-structural variables, we find direct as well as indirect (that is, mediated by the ideological dimensions) effects. Controlling for ideology, social categories that are potentially most affected by welfare obligations – i.e. those currently unemployed, with a previous experience of unemployment and low-income individuals – are more likely to oppose demanding policies, which can be interpreted as a self-interest effect. The effects of educational level, conversely, are primarily mediated and should be understood in terms of ideological preferences rather than self-interest. Our results indicate that, when analysing support for specific welfare policies, attention needs to be paid to the interplay between self-interest and ideological preferences.

Keywords

Demanding activation policiesPublic opinionWelfare obligationsWelfare state attitudesSelf-interest vs. ideologies

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 346 - 366
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abts, K., Swyngedouw, M., Meuleman, B., Baute, S., Galle, J. and Gaasendam, C. (2015), Belgian National Elections Study 2014. Codebook: Questions and Frequency Tables, Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Achterberg, P., van der Veen, R. and Raven, J. (2014), ‘The ideological roots of the support for welfare state reform: Support for distributive and commodifying reform in The Netherlands’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 23, 2, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. and Sanford, N. (1950), The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Andreß, H.-J. and Heien, T. (2001), ‘Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States’, European Sociological Review, 17, 4, 337–356.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M. (2014), ‘Towards standby-ability: Swedish and Danish activation policies in flux’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 23, S1, S54–S70.Google Scholar
Billiet, J., Abts, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2015), ‘Right-wing Flanders and left-wing Wallonia? Public opinions on redistribution, the welfare state and immigrants’, in: Rihoux, B., Van Ingelgom, V. and Defacqz, S. (Eds.), La légitimité de la science politique: construire une discipline, au-delà des clivages, Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 81–100.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2010), ‘The political economy of active labor-market policy’, Politics & Society, 38, 4, 435–457.Google Scholar
Buss, C. (2018), ‘Public opinion towards workfare policies in Europe: Polarisation of attitudes in times of austerity?’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 28, 4, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriero, R. and Filandri, M. (2018), ‘Support for conditional unemployment benefit in European countries : The role of income inequality’, Journal of European Social Policy, 29, 4, 498–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheong, J. and MacKinnon, D. P. (2012), ‘Mediation/indirect effects in structural equation modeling’, in Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, New York: The Guilford Press, 417–435.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2007), ‘The ethics of welfare-to-work’, Policy & Politics, 35, 4, 573–589.Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2007), ‘Between workfare and enablement – The different paths to transformation of the welfare state: A comparative analysis of activating labour market policies’, European Journal of Political Research, 46, 6, 823–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2000), Welfare Rights and Responsibilities: Contesting Social Citizenship, Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2004), ‘Creeping conditionality in the UK: From welfare rights to conditional entitlements?’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 2, 265–287.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W., Kaufmann, O., Konle-Seidl, R. and Reinhard, H.-J. (2008), ‘Bringing the jobless into work? An introduction to activation policies’, in Eichhorst, W., Kaufmann, O. and Konle-Seidl, R. (Eds.), Bringing the Jobless into Work? Experiences with Activation Schemes in Europe and the US, Berlin: Springer, 1–16.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, 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossati, F. (2018), ‘Who wants demanding active labour market policies? Public attitudes towards policies that put pressure on the unemployed’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. (1982), ‘The Protestant work ethic and attitudes towards unemployment’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 4, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, L. and Marsh, C. (1990), ‘The Protestant work-ethic as a cultural phenomenon’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 6, 499–517.Google Scholar
Harrington, D. (2009), Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y. and Rafferty, J. A. (1989), ‘The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state’, Social Forces, 67, 4, 1027–1048.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2013), Changing Welfare States, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A. and Kersbergen, K. Van. (2019), ‘Transformative welfare reform in consensus democracies’, Politics of the Low Countries, 1, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemerijck, A. and Marx, I. (2010), ‘Continental welfare at a crossroads: The choice between activation and minimum income protection in Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Palier, B. (Ed.), A Long Goodbye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reforms in Continental Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. and Weiler, J. D. (2009), Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houtman, D. (1997), ‘Welfare State, unemployment, and social justice: Judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed’, Social Justice Research, 10, 3, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Dept. (2015), ‘Belgium: 2015 Article IV Consultation—Staff Report; and Press Release’, Country Report No. 15/70, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2016/12/31/Belgium-2015-Article-IV-Consultation-Staff-Report-and-Press-Release-42779 [accessed 29/10/2017].Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H. (2004), ‘Labour market and employment policies activated?’, in Lind, J., Knudsen, H., and Jørgensen, H. (Eds.), Labour and Employment Regulation in Europe, Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, 199–209.Google Scholar
Knotz, C. (2018), ‘Why countries ‘get tough on the work-shy’: The role of adverse economic conditions’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 3, 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, A. and Roosma, F. (2018), ‘Changing public support for welfare sanctioning in Britain and the Netherlands: A persuasion experiment’, Social Policy & Administration, 52, 4, 847–861.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. (1994), ‘Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory’, Ethics, 104, 2, 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenen, T. and Meuleman, B. (2018), ‘Public support for the social rights and social obligations of the unemployed: Two sides of the same coin?’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 28, 4, 454–467.Google Scholar
Larsen, C. A. (2008), ‘The political logic of labour market reforms and popular images of target groups’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 1, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likki, T. and Staerklé, C. (2015), ‘Welfare support in Europe: Interplay of dependency culture beliefs and meritocratic contexts’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27, 1, 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, S. M. (1959), ‘Democracy and working-class authoritarianism’, American Sociological Review, 24, 4, 482–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. and Williams, J. (2004), ‘Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 1, 99–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2017), Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition, Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Nicaise, I. and Schepers, W. (2015), ESPN Thematic Report on Social Investment – Belgium, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1993), ‘When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change’, World Politics, 45, 4, 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosma, F. and Jeene, M. (2017), ‘The deservingness logic applied to public opinions concerning work obligations for benefit claimants’, in van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B., and Reeskens, T. (Eds.), The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, P. (2002), ‘Mutual obligation, participation and popularity: Social security reform in Australia’, Journal of Social Policy, 31, 01, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seikel, D. and Spannagel, D. (2018), ‘Activation and in-work poverty’, in: Lohmann, H. and Marx, I. (Eds.), Handbook on In-Work Poverty, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 245–260.Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. (2004), ‘Are European activation policies converging?’, in Lind, J., Knudsen, H. and Jørgensen, H. (Eds.), Labour and Employment Regulation in Europe, Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, 211–231.Google Scholar
Stam, K., Verbakel, E. and de Graaf, P. M. (2014), ‘Do values matter? The impact of work ethic and traditional gender role values on female labour market supply’, Social Indicators Research, 116, 2, 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1991), ‘The politics of welfare policy in Sweden: Structural determinants and attitudinal cleavages’, The British Journal of Sociology, 42, 4, 609–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008), ‘The new welfare state settlement in Europe’, European Societies, 10, 1, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trickey, H. (2000), ‘Comparing workfare programmes - features and implications’, in Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H. (Eds.), “An Offer You Can’t Refuse” - Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, 249–293.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, W., Marchal, S., Schuerman, N., Van Mechelen, N. and Van Kerm, P. (2015), Leven aan de dop. De impact van werkloosheid op het inkomen in België in vergelijkend perspectief (CSB Berichten No. 2015–3), Antwerp: Centrum voor Sociaal Beleid Herman Deleeck.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. (2002), ‘Miracle or nightmare? A critical review of Dutch activation policies and their outcomes’, Journal of Social Policy, 31, 03, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oorschot, W. and Roosma, F. (2017), ‘The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness’, in van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B., and Reeskens, T. (Eds.), The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 3–33. Google Scholar
Venn, D. (2012), ‘Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits: Quantitative indicators for OECD and EU countries’, OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 131, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Watts, B. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2018), Welfare Conditionality, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weishaupt, J. T. (2011), From the Manpower Revolution to the Activation Paradigm: Explaining Institutional Continuity and Change in an Integrating Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherly, P. (2001), ‘The reform of welfare and the way we live now: A critique of Giddens and the Third Way’, Contemporary Politics, 7, 2, 149–170.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rossetti et al. supplementary material

Rossetti et al. supplementary material 1

Download Rossetti et al. supplementary material(File)
File 23.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rossetti et al. supplementary material

Rossetti et al. supplementary material 2

Download Rossetti et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.2 KB