Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:31:45.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Institutional Embeddedness of Welfare Opinions? The Link between Public Opinion and Social Policy in the Netherlands (1970–2004)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2010

JUDITH RAVEN ,
PETER ACHTERBERG ,
ROMKE VAN DER VEEN  and
MARA YERKES
JUDITH RAVEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
PETER ACHTERBERG
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
ROMKE VAN DER VEEN
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
MARA YERKES
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
*email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major shortcoming in the existing literature on welfare state legitimacy is that it cannot explain when social policy designs follow public preferences and when public opinion follows existing policy designs and why. Scholars examining the influence of public opinion on welfare policies, as well as scholars investigating institutional influences on individual welfare attitudes, find empirical evidence to support both relationships. While a relationship in both directions is plausible, scholars have yet to thoroughly investigate the mutual relationship between these two. Consequently, we still do not know under which circumstances welfare institutions invoke public approval of welfare policies and under which circumstances public opinion drives welfare policy. Taking a quantitative approach to public opinion and welfare state policies in the Netherlands, this paper addresses this issue in an attempt to increase our understanding of welfare state legitimacy. The results show that individual opinions influence relatively new policies, policies which are not yet fully established and where policy designs are still evolving and developing. Social policy, on the other hand, is found to influence individual opinions on established and highly institutionalised policies, but does not influence individual opinions in relatively new areas of social policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 369 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Achterberg, P. (2006), ‘Class voting in the new political culture: economic, cultural and environmental voting in 20 western countries’, International Sociology, 21: 2, 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achterberg, P., van der Veen, R. and Raven, J. submitted, ‘The ideological roots of welfare state reform: support for distributive and reciprocal reform in the Netherlands’, under review.Google Scholar
Albrekt Larsen, C. (2006), The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Albrekt Larsen, C. (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
Albrekt Larsen, C. and Jørgen, G. A. (2009), ‘How new economic ideas changed the Danish welfare state: the case of neoliberal ideas and highly organized social democratic interests’, Governance, 22: 239–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2001), ‘Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: does the type really matter?’, Acta Sociologica, 44: 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, D. and Hoogenboom, M. (2007), ‘Hidden change: disaggregation of welfare state regimes for greater insight into welfare state change’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blekesaune, M. and Quadagno, J. (2003), ‘Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 nations’, European Sociological Review, 19: 5, 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2000), ‘Reciprocity, self-interest and the welfare state’, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26: 33–53.Google Scholar
Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (2006), ‘Why do welfare states persist?’, The Journal of Politics, 68: 816–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, F. L., Barabas, J. and Page, B. I. (2002), ‘Invoking public opinion: policy elites and social security’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 66: 2: 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beer, P. (2007), ‘Het profijt van de middenklasse’, Socialisme & Democratie, 64: 26–34.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1987), How Institutions Think, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1951), Suicide: A Study in Sociology, Glencoe, IL : Free Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R., MacKuen, M. and Stimson, J. (2002), The Macro Polity, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2004), Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2009), ‘US welfare reform: rewriting the Social Contract’, Journal of Social Policy, 38: 3, 383–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. and Le Grand, J. (1987), Not only the Poor: The Middle Classes and the Welfare State, London; Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Gusmano, M. K., Schlesinger, M. and Thomas, T. (2002), ‘Policy feedback and public opinion: the role of employer responsibility in social policy’, Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 27: 731–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halvorsen, K. (2007), ‘Legitimacy of welfare states in transition from homogeneity to multiculturality: a matter of trust’, in Mau, S. and Veghte, B. (eds.), Social Justice, Legitimacy and the Welfare State, Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 239–59.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. and Kangas, O. (2003), ‘When is a change big enough to be a system shift? Small system-shifting changes in German and Finnish Pension Policies’, Social Policy and Administration, 37: 573–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M. M. (2009), ‘United but divided: welfare regimes and the level and variance in public support for redistribution’, European Sociological Review, 25: 723–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. D. (1994), Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kangas, O. (1997), ‘Self-interest and the common good: the impact of norms, selfishness and context in social policy opinions’, The Journal of Socioeconomics, 26: 475–94.Google Scholar
Kasza, G. J. (2002), ‘The illusion of welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 31: 271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle, London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998), ‘The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the western countries’, American Sociological Review, 635: 661–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisering, L. and Leibfried, S. (1999), Time and Poverty in Western Welfare States: United Germany In Perspective, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, M. (1997), ‘A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis’, in Lichbach, M. I. and Zuckerman, A. S. (eds.), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M. (1981), Political Man, expanded and updated edition, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1964) ‘American business: public policy, case studies, and political theory’, World Politics, 6: 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S. (2003), The Moral Economy of Welfare States: Britain and Germany Compared, London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. and Soss, J. (2004), ‘The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics’, Perspectives on Politics, 2: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2004), ‘Social Expenditure Database’ (SOCX, www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure).Google Scholar
Padgett, S. and Johns, R. (2010), ‘How do political parties shape public opinion? Britain in a European perspective’, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Phillips, M., Clery, E. and Butt, S. (eds.), British Social Attitudes 2009–2010: 26th Report, SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. (1983), ‘Effects of pulic opinion of policy’, The American Political Science Review, 77: 1, 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, M. (2009), ‘Public opinion on state responsibility for minimum income protection: a comparison of 14 European countries’, Acta Sociologica, 52: 117–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994), Dismantling the Welfare State: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996), ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics, 48: 143–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Three worlds of welfare state research’, Comparative Political Studies, 33: 791–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P. (2007), ‘Who supports the welfare state? Determinants of preferences concerning redistribution’, in Mau, S. and Veghte, B. (eds.), Social Justice, Legitimacy and the Welfare State, Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1998), Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State, Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, E. B. (1999), The Sometime Connection: Public Opinion and Social Policy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. and Erikson, R. (1995), ‘Dynamic Representation’, The American Political Science Review, 89: 3, 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1997), ‘Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: a comparison of eight western nations’, European Sociological Review, 13: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2006), The Moral Economy of Class: Class and Attitudes in Comparative Perspective, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2008), ‘Choice and values: individualised rational action and social goals’, Journal of Social Policy, 37: 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, C. G. (2002), ‘Reciprocity, justice and statutory health insurance in Germany’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12: 123–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (2002), ‘Individual Motives for contributing to welfare benefits in the Netherlands’, Policy and Politics, 30: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, H. L. (1975), The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures, Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar