A cultural polarization of welfare values?

Peter Achterberg

Contextualizing in research

Contextualizing as a means to extend research... Sometimes: Phenomenon y can be explained

by x. Sometimes: Phenomenon y cannot be

explained by x.

Is there ‘really’ a relationship?Is there ‘really’ a relationship?

Yes! No!Num

ber

of s

tudi

es s

how

ing

the

rela

tions

hip

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

No!

Some examples

The degree to which class leads to tolerant values…

The degree to which interethnic contact leads to ethnic exclusionism…

The degree to which class determines voting…

The degree to which income leads to happiness…

The degree to which the influx of immigrants leads to downwards wage pressures…

THIS CALLS FOR….

More studies focusing on this particular relationship?

NO!!!! One well-aimed study answering the

question: How can be explained that sometimes x leads to y?

Opening the black box...

of measurement: Apparently there’s something funny about the

measurement of x and y...

of context: Apparently there’s something funny about the

context which causes these differences...

Measurement

X Y

X1 y1

YES

y2

NO

X2

NO

Context

X YZ

Example: Distributive and retributive justice

Literature: Chapter Houtman, Achterberg Derks (2008)

Studies: class sometimes associated with support for the welfare state

If much emphasis on obligations – no relationship between class and support

If much emphasis on rights – there is a relationship between class and support

It depends on the measurement of support for the welfare state

classWelfare

state support

C RYES

O

NO

Hypothesizing – two mechanisms

Working class

position

Egalitarianism

Support for rightsof unemployed

+ +

Culturalcapital

Authoritarianism

-

-

Support for obligations

of unemployed +

Hypothesizing – two mechanisms

Working class

position

Egalitarianism

Support for rightsof unemployed

+ +

Culturalcapital

Authoritarianism

-

-

Support for obligations

of unemployed +

Support for rights vs. obligationsof unemployed

-

So, on the one hand: values on overcoming differences between the rich and poor

On the other hand values on overcoming the differences between ‘hard working people’ and the deviant ‘welfare scroungers’

Data and measurement

Dutch data, 1997, Measures for class position, cultural capital,

egalitarianism, authoritarianism Support for rights vs obligations of

unemployed (composite measure, alpha =0.81)

Results: Class and support

Deviations from mean presented

No clear pattern in trend No statistically

significant differences between the classes in their views on rights and obligations of the unemployed

Class Support

Class 1 -.37

Class 2 .05

Class 3 -.09

Class 4 .61

Class 5 .37

Class 6 -.35

Class 7 .15

Eta .12(n.s.)

N 706

Explaining emphasis on the obligations of the unemployed (fig. 6.2, p 101)

The economic mechanism is equally strong and opposite to the cultural mechanism

Because of the a cross pressure mechanism at work class position cannot directly affect the dependent variable

Classindicators

Cultural capital

indicators

Egalitarianism

authoritarianism

Emphasis on obligations

-0.24

0.25

Conclusion 1

Support for rights and obligations of the unemployed is not simply a matter of distributive justice

It is also a matter of retributive justice

By breaking open the measurement, and hypothesizing about it, we can now explain why sometimes class affects welfare support…

Example Contextualizing…A cultural polarization of welfare values in Great Britain

Background: Hardening welfare attitudes, Tom Sefton (2003)

X Y

Z

Background, hardening welfare values

British public increasingly thinks that the benefits for the unemployed are too high and that they discourage work

Correlation 0.75; p<0.01, n=19attitudes towards unemployment

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Background, hardening welfare values

attitudes towards benefits

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

British public increasingly agrees that if benefits weren’t so generous people would learn to stand on their two feet

Correlation 0.78; p<0.01, n=15

Background, hardening welfare values

British public increasingly agrees that many social security claimants deserve no help

Correlation 0.73; p<0.01, n=15attitudes towards (un)deservingness

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

2,1

2,2

2,3

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Background, Hardening welfare values?

Hardening welfare attitudes

1,5

1,7

1,9

2,1

2,3

2,5

2,7

2,9

3,1

3,3

3,5

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

•Among the British public welfare values are hardening•Correlation 0.75; p<0.01, n=15

Background, Hardening among lower income groups Higher income groups’

values are tougher than those of lower income groups

Among the lower income groups values are hardening

Correlation -0.30 The question is: WHY? Apparently there’s

something funny about the context which causes these differences...

Correlation with income

-0,02

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Hypothesizing changes in time This ‘hardening’ of welfare

values suggests that something may be changing in the way the distributional and retributional mechanism affect welfare values

From class to culture Inglehart(1997),

Hechter(2002), A new political culture

Clark (1998) A politics of conduct

Mead (1988; 1992)

Class/ material issues no longer play a role of importance Egalitarian values may

decreasingly affect welfare values

Cultural / immaterial issues increasingly become salient Authoritarian values may

increasingly affect welfare values

Schematic

TIME

Egalitarianism

Authoritarianism

‘Hard’Welfare values

_

+

+

+

Results

Explaining hardening welfare values in Great Britain 1987-2005. Multilevel analyses (Maximum Likelihood, entries are B’s, all variables were standardized using z-scores; N=27.627 in 15 years). #

M1M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9

ConstantFixed effects

-.04 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.00 .00 .00 .00

Year .21** .21** .20** .19** .19** .19** .17** .15**

Education -.05** .00 -.00 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01

Income .05** .05** .03** .03** .03** .03** .03**

Authoritarianism .37** .38** .37** .38** .38** .38**

Egalitarianism -.20** -.20** -.20** -.20** -.20**

Interactions

Year x authoritarianism .02* .02*

Year x egalitarianismResiduals

.03**

Individual level .95 .95 .94 .81 .77 .77 .77 .77 .76

Year level .06 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

Slope authoritarianism x 10-2

.06 .06 .03 .03

Slope egalitarianism x 10-

2

.17 .17 .07

Deviance 76844 76825 76745 72536 71253 71228 71208 71203 71196

Δ DF. 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; # Due to missing values on the dependent variable in1988, 1990, 1992 these years is excluded from the analysis. Source: British Social Attitudes (1987-2005)

SummarizingExplanatory power authoritarianism and egalitarianism

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Egalitarianism

Authoritarianism

Once more: Why?

Conclusion Egalitarianism decreasingly affects welfare

values Authoritarianism increasingly affects welfare

values The question is: WHY? Apparently there’s something funny about the

context which causes these differences...

Welfare values in late-modern countries Declining inequality

Poverty declines in the period under investigation, unemployment as well

There is less need for egalitarian values Economic issues are no longer salient in contexts with

little inequality Rising detraditionalization

Beck, Giddens, Heelas: Institutions no longer structure life and behavior

There is more need for values stressing order and debate about deviance

Cultural issues are increasingly salient in highly detraditionalized contexts

Schematic

INEQUALITY

Egalitarianism

Authoritarianism

‘Hard’Welfare values

_

+

_+

SECULARIZATION

And…

Interactions m9 m10 m11 M12

Year x authoritarianism .02* .00 .00 .00

Year x egalitarianism .03** .03** .01 .01

Secularization x authoritarianism

.02* .02* .02*

Economic insecurity x egalitarianism

-.03* -.03*

Secularization x egalitarianism

.01

Economic insecurity x authoritarianism

.01

Conclusion 2

Due to declining inequality distributive justice plays a smaller role in determining welfare values

Due to rising detraditionalization, retributive justice plays a larger role in determining welfare values

By breaking open the context, and hypothesizing about it, we can now explain why sometimes egalitarianism and authoritarianism affect welfare support differently

Moreover, we can also explain why welfare values are hardening…

Summary: I’ve opened the black box...

of measurement: Either as rights or obligations

And know why sometimes class is related to support for the welfare state

of context: Decreasing inequality and increasing

detraditionalization And know why sometimes egalitarianism and

authoritarianism affect support for the welfare state differently