Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:31:21.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automation risk and support for welfare policies: how does the threat of unemployment affect demanding active labour market policy support?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Zhen Jie Im Open the ORCID record for Zhen Jie Im [Opens in a new window]
Zhen Jie Im*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does unemployment risk affect workers’ support for demanding active labour market policies (ALMPs)? There may be a substantial number of workers who experience unemployment risk from labour market disruptions. Yet, we know less about its impact on demanding ALMP support than the impact of unemployment status. Here, I explore the impact of unemployment risk through automation. Automation-threatened workers’ support for demanding ALMPs may be influenced by two opposing considerations that are linked to their potential reliance on welfare. First, they may worry about barriers to welfare access. Second, they may worry about welfare competition, especially under austerity. Their support for demanding ALMPs would hence depend on which consideration they find to be most salient. Based on the European Social Survey (2016) data on West European countries, I find that automation-threatened workers significantly support such policies. This may indicate that they find welfare competition concerns more salient than welfare access ones.

Keywords

Labour market changessocial policypolicy preferencesautomationwelfare statecomparative politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 76 - 91
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Social Policy Association

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

Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Chapter 12 – Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In Card, D., & Ashenfelter, O. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics. (pp. 1043–1171). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128, 2188–2244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achterberg, P., Van Der Veen, R., & 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, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. D. (2009). Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Fixed effects regression models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2017). Revisiting the risk of automation. Economics Letters, 159, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103, 2121–2168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, M., De La Porte, C., & Jacobsson, K. (2017). Labour market policy under conditions of permanent austerity: Any sign of social investment? Social Policy & Administration, 51, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biagi, F., & Sebastian, R. (2020). Technologies and “Routinization”. In Zimmermann, K. (Ed.), Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_8-2Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2013). The origins of active social policy: Labour market and childcare policies in a comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, M. L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, C. (2018). Public opinion towards targeted labour market policies: A vignette study on the perceived deservingness of the unemployed. Journal of European Social Policy, 29, 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, C. (2019). Public opinion towards workfare policies in Europe: Polarisation of attitudes in times of austerity? International Journal of Social Welfare, 28, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, G. M. (2016). Where have the middle-wage workers gone? A study of polarization using panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 34, 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & Ester, P. (1987). Working-class authoritarianism: A re-examination of the Lipset thesis. European Journal of Political Research, 15, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Social Survey (2016). ESS Round 8: European Social Survey Round 8 data file edition 2.9. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.Google Scholar
Fernández-Macías, E., & Hurley, J. (2016). Routine-biased technical change and job polarization in Europe. Socio-Economic Review, 15, 563–585.Google 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, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garritzmann, J. L., Busemeyer, M. R., & Neimanns, E. (2018). Public demand for social investment: New supporting coalitions for welfare state reform in Western Europe? Journal of European Public Policy, 25, 844–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, P., & Middleton, S. (1982). Images of welfare: Press and public attitudes to poverty. Oxford: M. Robertson.Google Scholar
Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review, 104, 2509–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, S., & Kriesi, H. (2015). What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. In Kriesi, H., Kitschelt, H., Beramendi, P., & Häusermann, S. (Eds.), The politics of advanced capitalism. (pp. 202–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeene, M., Van Oorschot, W., & Uunk, 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, 731–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, L. F., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: Supply and demand factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knotz, C. M. (2018). A rising workfare state? Unemployment benefit conditionality in 21 OECD countries, 1980–2012. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 34, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurer, T. (2020). The declining middle: Occupational change, social status, and the populist right. Comparative Political Studies, 53, 1798–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurer, T., & Gallego, A. (2019). Distributional consequences of technological change: Worker-level evidence. Research & Politics, 6, 1–9. 2053168018822142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurer, T., & Palier, B. (2019). Shrinking and shouting: The political revolt of the declining middle in times of employment polarization. Research & Politics, 6, 1–6. 2053168019831164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenen, T., Rossetti, F., & Van Oorschot, W. (2019). Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research: Comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60, 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, F. (2018). Computers and populism: Artificial intelligence, jobs, and politics in the near term. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34, 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maassen, G., & De Goede, M. (1989). Public opinion about unemployed people in the period 1975–1985 the case of the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Sociology, 25, 97–113.Google Scholar
Mcneish, D., & Kelley, K. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods, 24, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcneish, D., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 495–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oesch, D., & Rodríguez Menés, J. (2011). Upgrading or polarization? Occupational change in Britain, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, 1990–2008. Socio-Economic Review, 9, 503–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, E., & Johnston, N. P. (2017). Occupation and the political economy of trade: Job routineness, offshorability, and protectionist sentiment. International Organization, 71, 665–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P. (2009). Risks and redistribution: An individual-level analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 855–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovny, A. E., & Rovny, J. (2017). Outsiders at the ballot box: Operationalizations and political consequences of the insider–outsider dualism. Socio-Economic Review, 15, 161–185.Google Scholar
Sacchi, S., Guarascio, D., & Vannutelli, S. (2020). Risk of technological unemployment and support for redistributive policies. In Careja, R., Emmenegger, P., & Giger, N. (Eds.) The European social model under pressure. (pp. 277–295). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwander, H., & Häusermann, S. (2013). Who is in and who is out? A risk-based conceptualization of insiders and outsiders. Journal of European Social Policy, 23, 248–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, S., & Rueda, D. (2017). Automation and the welfare state: Technological change as a determinant of redistribution preferences. Comparative Political Studies, 52, 171–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Im Supplementary Materials

Im Supplementary Materials

Download Im Supplementary Materials(File)
File 83.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Im Supplementary Materials

Im Supplementary Materials

Download Im Supplementary Materials(File)
File 82.6 KB