Citizens Support for the Nordic Welfare Model Helena Blomberg-Kroll University of Helsinki
Structure of presentation: I. Vulnearable groups and the legitimacy of the welfare state II. The impact of immigration on welfare state support III. General conclusions: Citizens support for the Nordic Welfare Model
I. Vulnerable groups and the legitimacy of the welfare state Results based on a forthcoming study by Helena Blomberg, Johanna Kallio, Olli Kangas, Christian Kroll & Mikko Niemelä. The study is a part of the project "Welfare Attitudes in a Changing Europe", a European reserach project within the European Science Foundation s reserach programme Cross-national and Multi-level Analysis of Human Values, Institutions and Behaviour (HumVIB). Survey (ESS-core module 2008) among ca 50 000 Europeans.
Research Questions: 1) How do different high-risk groups perceive their future risks in different European welfare models? 2) How do different high-risk groups evaluate the welfare state s task performance? 3) What are the attitudes of different risk groups towards the scope and responsibilities of the welfare state? The issue of welfare state legitimacy needs to be viewed not only from the perspective of general public support. Rather, the perceptions and attitudes of the groups most affected by and dependent on the welfare policies conducted should also be taken into account. Since a fundamental task of the welfare state is to protect citizens against social risks, focusing on attitudes and attitude formation among groups in society facing the greatest social risks could provide valuable information on the legitimacy of European welfare systems.
Factors such as sickness, financial difficulties, etc., can be assumed to indicate a potentially higher-than-average risk of facing social problems (or being "vulnerable ) compared to people lacking such characteristics. From a self-interest perspective, people belonging to such groups can be assumed to support the welfare state because they want to secure themselves against these risks. At the same time, personal experiences of services and transfers do not necessary lead to more positive views towards the welfare state. Thus, encounters with the welfare state might result in more negative views more generally, and, thereby, lead to more negative attitudes towards it, concerning all kinds of services and benefits.
Table.1. Perceived future risk by high-risk group (in per cent). All countries Anglo- Saxon Perceived risk: unemployment Nordic Continental Southern Eastern Sick 17,1 15,6 11,0 13,3 18,9 20,3 Economic strain 31,8 36,4 24,3 31,2 32,2 31,9 Immigrant 26,5 22,4 19,8 22,2 33,1 26,4 On social benefits 44,4 52,6 38,9 40,5 44,6 47,7 Perceived risk: economic hardship Sick 45,2 39,5 14,9 22,4 51,4 63,5 Economic strain 70,8 73,5 56,7 54,0 67,3 75,9 Immigrant 38,4 28,4 18,9 21,8 40,0 61,7 On social benefits 61,9 71,0 40,8 49,0 59,8 81,7
Table 2. Evaluation of task performance by high-risk group (in per cent): Social benefits and services in one s country have... All countri es Anglo- Saxon Continen tal prevented widespread poverty (agree or strongly agree %) Nordic Southern Eastern Sick 53,0 56,2 63,8 71,2 55,1 40,7 Economic strain 47,6 52,9 67,2 64,4 57,8 38,4 Immigrant 55,6 55,6 67,6 70,8 51,9 41,4 On social benefits 57,3 53,4 69,4 67,9 50,6 47,9 Risk groups mean 53,4 54,5 67,0 68,6 53,9 42,1 lead to more equal society (agree or strongly agree %) Sick 45,7 37,3 61,5 58,2 55,0 32,4 Economic strain 40,3 40,0 59,5 52,8 57,1 28,4 Immigrant 51,7 50,8 67,4 63,3 51,0 35,7 On social benefits 50,1 40,4 64,0 59,7 53,0 36,1 Risk groups mean 47,0 42,1 63,1 58,5 54,0 33,2
Table 3. Welfare attitudes towards the responsibilities of government by high-risk group, mean values. The government inone s country should... All countries Anglo- Saxon Nordic Continental Southern Eastern ensure a job for everyone who wants one (1-10) Sick 7,20 6,28 6,37 5,82 7,66 7,34 Economic strain 7,73 6,45 6,71 6,46 7,81 7,99 On social benefits 7,27 6,50 6,67 6,38 8,26 7,92 ensure adequate health care for the sick (1-10) Sick 8,82 8,89 8,82 8,17 8,91 9,05 Economic strain 8,85 8,81 8,78 8,27 8,78 8,98 On social benefits 8,65 8,67 9,71 8,34 9,07 8,62 ensure a reasonable standard of living for the old (1-10) Sick 8,68 8,72 8,55 7,79 8,85 9,02 Economic strain 8,83 8,74 8,64 8,07 8,72 9,02 On social benefits 8,49 8,61 8,45 7,94 8,92 8,68 ensure a reasonable standard of living for the unemployed (1-10) Sick 7,25 6,24 7,39 6,28 7,82 7,48 Economic strain 7,60 6,35 7,57 6,46 7,94 7,64 On social benefits 7,53 6,63 7,70 6,91 8,11 7,90 0 = should not be government s responsibility at all 10 = Should be entirely the government s responsibility
Results Results indicate that the Nordic regime, closely followed by the Continental regime, has succeeded best in creating a subjective sense of security against future social risks, which seems concordant with the factual performance of welfare states in this respect. Also evaluations of welfare state task performance seem to correspond with factual welfare state performance in terms of poverty and other social problems: high-risk groups in the Nordic countries and in Continental Europe are most satisfied with the performance of the welfare state, while high-risk groups belonging to the Southern European, the Anglo-Saxon and particularly the Eastern European model have a far more negative view of the task performance of the welfare state.
Regarding welfare state attitudes, our results show that it is the high-risk groups in Eastern and Southern Europe who stress government responsibility to the greatest extent, followed by the high-risk groups in the Nordic regime, while high-risk groups in the Anglo-Saxon and, above all, in the Continental model are the least in favour of government responsibility. Even though we can find differences between risk groups in different welfare regimes, state responsibility for welfare is strongly supported among high-risk groups in all European welfare regimes.
It is also interesting to note that respondents dependent on social benefits do not have particularly critical views on welfare state task performance, neither in comparison with other high-risk groups nor in comparison with the population at large. Thus, a rather strong support for a comprehensive welfare state of the Nordic type in all European countries. There also seems to be rather strong solidarity between different population groups.
II. The impact of immigration on welfare state support? Assumption: a negative relationship between (approving popular attitudes towards) universal welfare policies on the one hand and an ethnically heterogeneous population and increasing immigration on the other. Therefore, it has been assumed that, since the Nordic countries have become increasingly multicultural, popular support for universal social policies in these countries has started to decline as a result of this development. Cultural explanations; Fears of the effects of immigration on national norms, values and identity. Self-interest related explanations; focus on the impacts of fears of members of the majority population of loosing their socioeconomic position.
For example, competition for scare resources (for example jobs) is expected to lead to anti-immigrant attitudes. However, what effects on attitudes towards the support for the welfare system to be expected of such considerations remains rather unclear. In principle, several possible different mechanisms seem plausible: On the one hand, one could, for example, assume that if people feel that immigration increases their personal risk, this might even lead to an increased support for redistributive social policy measures On the other hand, it might trigger welfare chauvinism, a wish for social protection only or mainly for the ethnic majority
The especially vulnerable Nordic welfare model? Based on US experience Alesina and Glaeser (2004) claim that also the traditionally more ethnically homogenous European welfare states will have difficulties in managing an increasing ethnic diversity: the population majority s feeling of solidarity decreases as ethnic diversity increases. Others have claimed that the support for generous, universal and redistributive welfare systems (like in the Nordic countries) are especially vulnerable to immigration and ethnic heterogeneity. If one assumes that especially the Nordic-type welfare system requires a high degree of conformism regarding certain values, this easily leads to the conclusion that, above all, the Nordic-type welfare system is seriously challenged by immigration. On the other hand, it has also been argued that people in universal welfare states will be more positive towards immigration than people in less universal welfare states, since the former are known to produce a greater amount of trust among their citizens in general and thus, also fewer anti-immigrant sentiments.
Table 4. Attitudes towards immigrants social benefits/services in different welfare models: When should immigrants obtain right to social benefits/services? Percentage of respondents agreeing with the response category They should never get the same rights [to social benefits and services]. Welfare regime Nordic: Denmark 2.2 Finland 2.9 Norway 2.0 Sweden 0.8 Continental Belgium 6.2 Switzerland 2.8 Germany 5.8 Netherlands 3.1 Anglo-Saxon: UK 8.6 Southern Spain 6.4 France 4.6 Greece 19.3 Portugal 3.0 Eastern Bulgaria 15.0 Czech Republic 15.1 Estonia 3.8 Croatia 0.0 Hungary 13.8 Latvia 17.3 Poland 2.4 Romania 8.1 Russian Federation 13.8 Slovenia 6.8 Slovakia 10.9 Ukraine 9.1 Source: European Social Survey 2008 (N=48 867)
Table 5. Attitudes towards immigrants and immigration in different welfare models, mean values. (1=worse/bad= 9=better/good). Immigrants make Immigration bad country worse or better or good for economy Welfare regime: Nordic: 5,69 5,51 Continental: 5,11 5,29 Anglo-Saxon: 4,56 4,67 Southern: 4,67 4,85 Eastern: 4,56 4,50 Source: European Social Survey 2008. N=48 867
At least so far, increasing immigration has not led to any particularly strong anti-immigrant attitudes in the (otherwise relatively similar) Nordic (welfare) states. On the contrary, the populations in the Nordic countries still have a rather positive view towards immigrants and immigration in general and, also, towards the social rights of immigrants, in particular if compared to European countries in general. There is some support for the assumption of a connection between immigration and attitudes towards welfare state issues in existing empirical research. However, the mechanisms behind this relationship seem to differ in different socio-economic groups as well as between countries and/or welfare regimes. Although the connection between immigration and support for the welfare state does not appear to be a central issue for people, it could be highlighted by political persuasion and framing.
Attitudes among immigrants? If we shift our focus from considering the attitudes of the majority population to considering the attitudes of the immigrants themselves towards the welfare state, it has often been presumed that immigrants might be in favour of the welfare policies in general and the Nordic welfare model in particular. If an economic theoretical framework is used to explain immigrant attitudes, one would expect that immigrants, due to their socially and economically more vulnerable position, would join the pro welfare coalition, and, thus, display mainly pro welfare state attitudes and a strong support for a comprehensive welfare state and redistributive social policy measures.
On the other hand, welfare state dependency might also be considered as being socially costly. This dependency might also represent unfamiliar values and an adaption to culturally strange modes of behaviour. Because of its universal and comprehensive character, the benefits and services of the Nordic welfare state may, for example, change the character and importance of family ties - between generations or between spouses- since social protection and services are offered universally and to individuals, not families. From this perspective, support for the Nordic welfare model does not seem obvious.
Table 6. Attitudes towards the responsibilities of government among the immigrant (N=4564) and native populations in different welfare models (N=47 025), mean values. (0 = should not be governments' responsibility at all 10 = should be entirely governments' responsibility) Welfare model: Nordic Continental Anglo- Southern Eastern Saxon.ensure a job for everyone who wants one Immigrant pop. 6,48 5,80 6,10 7,50 8,17 Native pop. 6,10 5,71 5,98 7,41 7,41.ensure adequate health care for the sick Immigrant pop. 8,59 8,03 8,29 8,93 9,13 Native pop. 8.81 8.08 8.78 8,75 8,75.ensure a reasonable standard of living for the old Immigrant pop. 8,37 7,60 8,30 8,84 9,16 Native pop. 8,47 7,63 8,53 8,75 8,71.ensure a reasonable standard of living for the unemployed Immigrant pop. 7,13 6,33 6,10 7,49 7,94 Native pop. 7,24 6,22 5,97 7,63 7,12.ensure child care services for working parents Immigrant pop. 7,96 7,31 7,30 8,41 8,47 Native pop. 8.04 7,31 6,90 8,08 7,92.ensure paid leave from work to care for sick family member Immigrant pop. 7,95 6,79 7,05 8,03 8,49 Native pop. 7,89 6,98 7,22 8,13 7,97 Source: Blomberg, Helena, Kallio, Johanna, Kangas, Olli, Kroll, Christian & Niemelä Mikko (forthcoming)
Based on the European Social Survey 2008: Immigrants attitudes towards the welfare state on traditionally used indicators are, on average, close to the attitudes of the native population in the new home country. However, results are tentative.
III. General conclusions: Citizens support for the Nordic Welfare Model Popular support for the Nordic welfare systems in general showed no signs of declining during the last decade(s) - marked by various other societal changes, including i.a. growing immigrant populations. Attitudinal cleavages between population groups have, as a rule, not increased. In fact, the Nordic model today looks truly (uniformly) Nordic if one looks at popular support for the welfare state, much more so than what is the case concerning political and other elite groups or the public discourse.