Worlds of Welfare, Worlds of Consent?: Public Opinion on the Welfare State

Tilburg University

Worlds of Welfare, Worlds of Consent?

Gelissen, J.P.T.M.

Publication date: 2001

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Gelissen, J. P. T. M. (2001). Worlds of Welfare, Worlds of Consent? Public Opinion on the Welfare State. Thela Thesis.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

C (

2.

Worlds

of

_Welfare,

Worlds

of

Consent?

Public Opinion on

the

Welfare

State

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging vandegraad van doctor

aande KatholiekeUniversiteit_Brabant,

op gezag vande _{rector magnificus,}

prof. dr. F.A. van der DuynSchouten,

in het openbaarteverdedigenten overstaan van

een door hetcollegevoor promotiesaangewezencommissie

in de aula vandeUniversiteit

op vrijdag 1 juni 2001 om 14.15 uur

door

Jean PetrusTheodorusMaria Gelissen,

geboren op 3 oktober 1972 teUbach overWorms

Acknowledgements

All is well that ends well...

About5yearsago,afterfinishingmy master-thesis, I was put in theluxuriousposition of being able to choose between a Ph.D.-student position at the Faculty

of

Social

Sciences of Tilburg University or one at theInteruniversityCenterfor Social Science

Theoryand Methodology (ICS) atUtrecht University. At that time, I preferred the

former. Now that Ihave_{finished my dissertation, I}amworking asaresearchfellow at the ICSin UtrechtandNijmegen_{after all. So, in the end, all my ambitions have been}

satisfied.

At that time, the choice between thetWO pOSitionS was very _{difficult, but I have} never regretted taking on the project in Tilburg.

Above all, this is to

the credit of Wil Arts, my supervisor at the Department of Sociology at Tilburg University. Although he hadthe difficult job

of

reorganising the department,he alwaysfound the

time to

helps

youngPh.D. studentsearchingfor direction in his researchproject. I

enjoyedworking with himonseveralarticles, benefitting fromhis_{insights, humor and}

enthousiasm for our discipline. Most importantly, I am indebted to him for sharing his knowledge with me on howto handle myselfwithinthe scientificcommunity.

I amalso grateful to RuudMuffels forthe stimulating discussions I had with him

- especially during the final stages of this dissertation. Like Wil Arts, his door was

always open to me when advise was needed. Finally, I thank Olli Kangas (University

of

Turku, Finland), Jos Berghman (University of Leuven), Jacques Hagenaars and

Wim van Oorschot (both Tilburg University) foragreeing to be on the dissertation committee.

Many others have made my time at Tilburg University very enjoyable. My

roommate BrigitteWiddershoven - who happened to share the same 'nationalroots'

as myself - and fellow Ph.D. students Trudie Schils and Tamara van der Hoek

made the final months less tedious. Loek Halman was my brother-in-arms in the

incomprehensibility ofvalue-structures and modern micro-computers. Also, many

colleagues at theFacultyofSocialScienceswere alwaysgood company:WilcoEmons, Paqui _{Gallindo-Garre,} Sandra_{van Abswoude, Andries van derArk,JeroenVermunt,}

Pietervan _Harberden, Ellie Roelofs, Pascale Peters, Ronald Dekker,AntonisKlidas, Johan Verweij, Ivan Nyclicek, Marloes vanEngen. Specialthanks go to Ruud Luijkx

for teaching me the research-skills I needed to start the project in the first place. I

appreciated the many useless discussions with Roel Rutten concerning our private

'Methodenstreit' duringcoffee-breaks and _{hiking-trips, and our common enjoyment}

of the 'good things in life'. I am much obliged to Emanuel 'le sauvage' Aris and

Wicher Bersma for their support (among other things, with mastering IdrEX). Igor

'the player' Heinen and Werner Ubachs made sure that I didnot forgetto imbibe in

order to gain new inspiration. Most importantly, I thank them all for theirfriendship. On manyoccasions,TonHeinen (AiO-coordinator ofthe Faculty) made sure that financial aidwasavailabletopresentmyideasabroad. I alsothankthemembers of the secretarial pool (inparticular, MargreetMorren,JanePinas, ElsVerhoevenandAnita

Roestenberg) for theirassistance inmasteringthe bureaucracy ofauniversity. Sandy

Reijnhart _{(TransEd, Bloemendaal) had} the difficult task

of

correcting the mistakes

a Dutch native _{speaker inevitably} makes. Of _{course, any errors left are my own}

responsibility. Ialsothank Matthijs Kalmijn and PauldeGraafforgiving me the time to add thefinal touches to this book.

I amdeeplyindebted to myparentsfortheir love andsupport, not only in matters

of writingthisdissertation.Without theirnon-academic wisdom,which Ioftenneeded

to putthings into perspective, this studywould have notbeenfinished. Therefore, I

dedicate this book to them. Jacqueline andFrank Willtgens also gave methestrength

to keep pushing forward. They all made sure _{that, while} visiting my home town in

Limburg, I was able to putsome distance between myself and my dissertation - not

an easy task,asevery Ph.D. studentknows.

Finally, I _{thank Jonneke for her love,} solidarity, and, above all, her patience with a - at times - willful young scientist. Although she _usually showed a _{great deal of}

patience concerning my work on this dissertation, she made sure that I always kept on

Contents

Acknowledgements vii

1 Introduction

and Research Questions 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . 1.2 Researchquestions . . 1.2.1 Worlds

of

welfarecapitalism . . . 5

1.2.2 Popularsupport forthewelfare

state . . . 6

1.2.3 Notionsof_{solidarity and}choices ofjusticeprinciples . . . 8

1.2.4 Public_supportforhealthcare systems . . . 9

1.2.5 Responsibilityforold-age pensions . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.3 Data . . . .1 2 1.3.1 InternationalSocialSurvey Program . . . 12

1.3.2 Eurobarometersurveyseries . . . 1 3 1.3.3 _{European Values Study . . . .} . . . .1 4 1.4 Scope andlimitations ofthis

study . . . 14

1.4.1 _{Cross-national comparability}ofattitudes . . . .1 4 1.4.2 Selection_{ofcountries foranalysis . . . .1 5} 1.4.3 Contextual-effects models and the smallNProblem . . . 16

1.5 Outlineofthe b o o k. . . .1 8 2 Three Worlds ofWelfare Capitalism or more? In Search of Ideal Types and Real

Forms 21

2.1 Introduction . . . .2 1 2.2 Research

questions . . . 23

2.3 Idealt y p e s. . . .2 4 2.4 Threeworldsof'welfare capitalism' ormore? ... 27

2.4.4 The Antipodes . . . .3 4

2.4.5 Gender... . . . .3 6

2.4.6 East-Asia . . . 37

2.5 Ideal and real typeS . . . · · · 38

2.6 Empirical robustness ofthe three-way-classification . ... .. 42

2.7 Conclusion anddiscussion . . . 46

3 _{Popular Support for Institutionalised Solidarity: A Comparison among} European WelfareStates 51

3.1 Introductionand research questions . . . 51

3.2 Theories and_{findings about welfare}state _{support . . . 53}

3.2.1 Dimensions andlevels ofattitudes towards the welfarestate . . 53

3.2.2 Motivesto supportthe welfare state . . . 55

3.2.3 Socialpositionandsupport forthewelfarestate . . .... . . 57

3.2.4 Welfarestateregimes andsupport forthewelfarestate . . . 59

3.2.5 Other Contextual-level characteristics and support for the

wel-fare state . . . 60

3.3 Hypotheses . . . .6 0 3.4 Data, Operationalization and

Method . . . 63

3.4.1 Data . . . , , , . . . , , , . ,6 3 3.4.2 Operationalization . . . .6 4 3.4.3 Method . . . , , / . . . .6 9 70 3.5 Results . . . . 3.6 Summary and

_{discussion . . . 75}

4 Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles: Does the Type_really

matter? 79

79 4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n. . . . 4.2 Research questions . . . 80

4.3 _Conceptualframework . . . 82

4.4 Differencesin_{solidarity and justice among welfare} states_{regimes . . . 84}

4.5 Modelsand _{hypotheses . . . 88}

4.5.1 Distributivejustice and solidarity: acausalmodel . . . 88

4.5.2 _{Distributive justice and solidarity: additional hypotheses . . . . 90}

4.6 Data, Operationalizationand

Method . . . 93

5 Public Health Care in the Balance: Exploring Popular Support for

Health Care Systems in the EuropeanUnion 109

5.1 Introductionand research questions . . . 109

5.2 Solidarity anditsmotivationalbases . . . 111

5.3 Reasons forwelfare state

s u p p o r t. . . 113

5.3.1 Welfarestate

regimes . . . 113

5.3.2 Institutional characteristics ofthe nationalcare system . . . 1 1 5 5.3.3 Individual,socialand ideological position . . . 120

5.4 Hypotheses . , , . . . 121

5.5 Data, operationalizationandmethod . . . 125

5.5.1 Data . . . 125

5.5.2 Operationalization

. . . 126

5.5.3 Method . . . 132

5.6 Results . . . · · · 133

5.6.1 Attitudestowards public

health care . . . 133

5.6.2 Explainingdifferences inattitudes towardspublichealth care . 135 5.7 Conclusions and discussion . . . 139

6 _{Old-age Pensions: Individual or Collective Responsibility? An} Investi-gation of Public Opinion within European WelfareStates 143 6.1 Introduction andresearch questions . . . 143

6.2 Theory and hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

6.2.1 Welfare state regimesand_{public opinion}on pensions . . . . . 145

6.2.2 Social_positionand _{opinions about old} ageprovisions . . . 150

6.3 Data, operationalizationandmethod . . . 151

6.3.1 Data . . . 151

6.3.2 Operationalization . . . 152

6.3.3 Method , , , . . . 154

6.4 Results . . . 154

6.5 Conclusion anddiscussion . . . 166

7 Summary and Discussion 171 7.1 Summary . . 7.1.1 Introduction . . . . 7.2 Answers to the research

questions . . . 172

7.2.1 Worlds ofwelfare _{capitalism...} 172

7.2.2 Popular support forthewelfare

state . . . 173

7.2.3 Notionsofsolidarityand choices ofjusticeprinciples . . . 175

7.2.4 Public support for healthcare_{systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176}

7.3 Conclusion . . . , , . , . _{. . . 178}

7.4 Discussion . . . 184

7.4.1 Scientificrelevance . . . 184

7.4.2 Societal_{relevance... . . . 186}

7.4.3 Some_shortcomingsand_prospectsforfutureresearch . . . 188

7.5 Concluding remarks . . . 191

References 193

List of

Tables

2.1 Anoverview_{oftypologies ofwelfare states. . . . 30} 2.2 Classification

of

countries according to 8 typologies. . . . . 40

2.3 _Empiricalrobusmess of theThree-Worlds-Typology. ... .. .. 43

3.1 _{Factor loadings, correlations and fit-indices} ofmeasurement models

for extensiveness and_{i n t e n s i t y. . . 66} 3.2 Scale distributions _{of popular support} for extensiveness and_intensity

ofsocial_{policy. ... ... .. 70} 3.3 Two-level modelof_{factors affecting}the levelof_{support for}anextensive

andintensive welfare state. . . . 72

4.1 _{Factor loadings} and fit-indices _{for Confirmatory} Factor Models of solidarityitems. . . . 96

4.2 Means (and standard deviations) of measures of _preferred level of

solidarityandjustice,across c o u n t r i e s. . . 99

4.3 Two-level hierarchical linear model

of

factors affecting people's pre-ferredlevel of_{solidarity. . . . 102}

4.4 Two-levelmodelof_{factors affecting preference}forjusticeprinciples. . 104

5.1 _{Factor loadings}for_{item s q 1 2 1}c,q12 ld and q122formeasurements of the levelofsupportfor publichealth care. . . 127

5.2 Correlations betweenfactorscoresestimated with the Bartlett method

and_{with multigroupanalysis}in LISREL. . . . 127

5.3 Structural characteristics of the health and social care systems of the Europeanc o u n t r i e s. . . 129

5.4 Measuresof distribution

for

itemsq121_c, q12ld and q122. . . . 134

5.5 Means, standard deviations andvalid N on 'Support for publichealth

care'bycountry. . . . 135

5.6 Two-level modelof_{factors affecting support}forhealth carewithwelfare

state regimesas_{macro-level explanatory}variables. . . . 136

5.7 Two-level model of factors affecting support for health care with structural characteristics of the _{care system}asmacro-level explanatory

variables.

. . . 138

6.1 Welfare stateregimes andthe relevance

of

models

of

social security.. . 148

6.2 _{Opinions about} individual and collective _{responsibility for old age}

pensions... 155

6.3 Multinomial logit regression ofthe public preference forindividual or

collective responsibilityfor pensions... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

6.4 Multinomial logit regression ofthe public preference for individual or

collective responsibilityfor pensions... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

7.1 _{Main findings concerning}the_{relationship between welfarestate regimes} and_{public attitudes. . . . 180} 7.2 Main findings concerning the effects

of

structural characteristics on

public attitudes. . . 181

List of

_Figures

1.1 Thestructure_{ofcontextual explanation... 4}

3.1 Relations_{between support} for extensiveness and intensiveness of

wel-fare statei n t e r v e n t i o n s. . . 54

4.1 TheoreticalModel ofthe_{Impact of Institutional}Arrangements.. . .. 90 4.2 Determinants

of

People's Notions ofSolidarity and Choice ofJustice

P r i n c i p l e s. . . .9 3

5.1 Residential and _community care services for _{older people} in _Europe

(Source: Eurostat, 1 9 9 9) . . . 119

1 Introduction

and

Research

_Questions

1.1 Introduction

The scope

of

public consent to welfare policies constitutes an important topic in the political and social scientific debate about the welfare state. In all Western democracies, the idea that the preferences ofthe majority - how vaguely these may be in practice - should have at least some_{bearing on actual policydevelopments has} become self-evident (Taylor-Gooby, 1995, p. 11). Furthermore, all welfare states

are confronted with severe challenges: the ageing population, family instability and

the labour market consequences ofglobalization and technological change. These

have led tothealmost universal claim that the welfare statehasbecomeunsustainable

andtherefore incapableofsatisfyingexpressed social needs(Esping-Andersen, 2000).

These more recent challenges have led to considerable reforms

of

welfare state

arrangements in mature as well asinimmature welfare states. _{Consequently, against}

the background

of

these developments, critics ofthe welfare state have reconsidered the chances

of

survival and the adverse consequences

of

welfare state arrangements (see, for example, Zijderveld, 1999; Schmidtz & Goodin, 1998). The question of

the extent to which the general public is, in spite of this criticism, still committed

to the solidary foundations of the welfare state has, since the 197Os, increasingly

become the _{subject matter of empirical} research _(Coughlin, 1980; Wilensky, 1975; Papadakis & Bean, 1993; Svallfors, 1997; Kluegel & Miyano, 1995; Peillon, 1996;

Taylor-Gooby, 1998). The study

of

popularcommitment to welfare state solidarity hasbeenparticularlyintensified in the wake

of

large-scaleprojects forthecollection of

survey data on opinions, values and attitudes. Ingeneral, ithasbecome increasingly recognised that this fundamental knowledge is_valuable,as theseorientations may be

essential _{in guiding}human behaviour. However, as Svallforsstates "we are now rich ondata,whilequalifiedanalysesand interpretations lag considerablybehind" (1995a,

P. 7).

This study can be situated in the latter tradition

of

cross-national research on attitudes and opinions. Specifically, itisconcerned witha_{description and explanation}

2 Chapter 1

of

public attitudes towards welfarestatesolidarity anddistributivejustice inWestern,

Antipodean and South EastAsian welfare states. _{In addition,} this study investigates

the relationship betweenpublic commitmenttowelfare Statesolidarityandfairness on

the one hand, andthedifferentwelfarestateregimes - as they havebeen conceived by Esping-Andersen (1990) _and, lateron, extended andamended by his critics - on the other. Citizens ofdifferent welfarestates canbeexpected tobecommitted differently

to welfare state solidarity and to differ in their choices

of

justice principles. One of

the main objectives is therefore to investigate theextent to which tile level of public commitment to welfare state solidarity and fairness are related to the institutional

context that constitutes the welfare state ofa country. Svallfors (1995b, pp. 118-119) argues that

"in

trying to explain national differences in attitudes a focus on

institutions can beveryfruitful".According to_{him, "comparative}researchhasshown

that institutions have a substantial impact on things such as the income _{distribution,}

the standard

of

living, social mobility, and voting behaviour. What comparative

attitude research should aim at is to study variations and similarities in attitudes

across _{national contexts, and} explain, or at least interpret, these as the outcome of institutional _{arrangements.} The attitudes we may register in our_{surveys are, at best,}

today's traces

of

yesterday's history. Theyare remnants

of

historical processes that

havebeen _{structured by national}institutions. National differences inattitudes could be explained as the outcome ofthe lived experience and interpretations

of

national

institution". One of the main objectives is therefore to answer Svallfors' call, and

to investigate the ways in which welfare state arrangements may matterforpeople's

commitmenttowelfarestatesolidarityanddistributivejustice.

Moreover, not only, as we have stated above,willcitizensof differentwelfarestates

showdifferentlevels

of

commitmenttowelfarestatesolidarity, butalso,withinwelfare

states, theseattitudes

will

differamongsocial groups. Thefirst objective ofthis study

is to examine the determinants

of

people's commitment to welfare state solidarity

and their choices of_{justice principles. This study not only investigates} whether or

not these variations reflect differences in institutional context created by differing welfare statearrangements, butalsowhether or not they reflectindividual differences.

In particular, we _investigate the relevance of_{self-interest and ideology} for people's

commitment to welfare solidarity and fairness. All studies on this topiC have shown that people in different social locations and with differingsocio-political orientations

areindeedcommitteddifferentlytowelfarestatesolidarity and that theyhavedifferent preferences with respect to justice principles, (see, for example, Papadakis, 1993;

Introductionandresearch questions 3

1.2 _{Research questions}

The central problematic dealt with in this study concerns the following questions:

To what extent are citizens of different welfare states and with different social

characteristics committed differently to welfare state solidarityand certain principles

ofsocial justice; how can these differences can be explained. More specifically, five

research questions have been formulated. The first one addresses the discussion on

the variety in and clustering

of

welfare state arrangements atthe national level. The remainingfour research questionsconsist oftwo parts. The firstpartaddresses how

and why there maybe differences among welfare state regimes in their population's

endorsement

of

welfare state solidarityand particular justice principles. The second

part raises the question of how and why individuals maydiffer in their commitment

towelfarestatesolidarity anddistributivejustice.

With respect to the differences _{among welfare} states, and specifically among welfare state regimes, it has been proposed that public attitudes will tend to reflect varyingtraditions

of

characteristic welfare governance. This proposition is based on the assumptionthatthesewelfarestateregimes each have beeninfluenced bydifferent

historical circumstances,politicalframeworks andsocial values_{(Taylor-Gooby, 1995).}

Accordingto _{Ullrich (2000), this is one of the}more promising lines

of

research

to explain national consensus and national particularity. However, thus far, only

a limited number of studies have systematically investigated, with varying results,

the impact

of

welfare state arrangements on people's commitment to welfare state

solidarity,apartfrom theirindividual-level determinants (Svallfors, 1997;Gundelach, 1994; Papadakis & Bean, 1993; Mau, 1997). This study is also focused on_assessing

the impact of bothindividual-level _(social characteristics and socio-political beliefs) and _{group-level variables (type} ofwelfare state regime and structural characteristics

of the national health and pension system) on an outcome at the individual level,

namely people's commitment to welfare state solidarity and distributive justice.

An important

contribution of

this study to previous such research is that explicit

propositions concerning the impact ofthe institutional context are formulated and

specificinformation on group membershipis included into the analytical framework. Essentially, attitudes are related to aspects ofthe social context and to indicators of location inthesocial structure andof_{socio-political}beliefs. In_{Figure 1.1, wepresent}

the structure

of

explanation whichisfollowed inthis study.

As far as therelevance

of

societalinstitutionsisconcerned,weexamine theextent

to which the institutional conditions created by welfare state arrangements have an

impact on people'scommitmenttowelfare statesolidarity andtheirchoices

of

justice principles. Here, the point of departureis_{Esping-Andersen's well-known classification}

4 Chapter 1 SOCIETAL LEVEL

Determinants:

Institutional conditions created bywelfare state

_{arrangements x}

\

Outcome:

Structural_positions

\

Public _opinion

Culturalconvictions

-onwelfare state

solidarity and fairness INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

Figure 1.1: The structure of contextual explanation.

differentmodelsof_{welfare provision. However, this study will not}belimitedtowelfare

states which canbeplaced underthese headings. Esping-Andersen'sclassification of welfare states has not only been _{applauded, but it has also} been heavily criticised,

whichhasresulted _{in important}extensions ofhis _{original classification. Basically, his}

critics argue that more than just threetypesofwelfare provisionexist in therealworld,

andthatclassifications

of

welfarestates should also take thesealternativemodes into

account. Depending on the data available, we

will

investigate the extent to which

these different styles

of

welfare provisionrelate to people's attitudes towards welfare

statesolidarity anddistributive justice.

However, real _{welfare states are only empirical approximations} of ideal-typical

constructs. Therefore, they may have limited relevance with respect to better

un-derstanding people's commitmentto welfare state solidarity and fairness. Structural

aspects

of

specific sectors of the national system of social protection may show a

stronger association with attitudes towards welfare solidarity, as theseparticular in-stitutional arrangements relate more concretely to the acceptance

of

specific styles

of

welfare provision _{(Ullrich, 2000).} Therefore, not only the contextual effect of

belonging to a certain type

of

welfare state regimeis investigated here, but also the

extent to which structural characteristics

of

specific sectors of the national system

of

social protection relate to people's commitment to welfare state solidarity. For

Introductionand research_{questions 5}

(health) care systemsis _dependenton structural characteristicsof_{these systems.} The contextual approach whichwefollow inthisstudy requires both the

examina-tion

of

these differencesand similarities across_{welfare states, but} also withinwelfare

states. As Figure 1.1 _illustrates, the extent to which individuals are supportive of

theirwelfare system and _{prefer certain principles of justice are seen as} the result of their location in the social structure and their socio-political _beliefs, controlling for

contextual effects.

1.2.1 Worlds of welfare capitalism

In the last decades, interest in comparing the welfare states

of

modern societies has

grown fast. To grasp the differences and similarities which exist among the welfare

state arrangements

of

_{different countries, the use}

of

theoretical models has become both a _{widely accepted,} and sometimes _{strongly disputed activity (see,} for_example, Baldwin, 1996). Goodin et al. (1999, p. 37) argue in favour of the classification endeavour ofwelfare states, saying that the institutions ofthe welfare state are the

result of many political tugs-of-war over a long period of time. As they point out,

in the course of all this bickering over the design and redesign

of

these _{institutions,}

however,patterns have emergedand clusters havebeenformed. Tosome_{extent, the}

characteristics

of

welfare states within these clusters _{reflect certain intentions,} ideas

and values. This is partially because there are only a limited number of ways of

pursuinganygiven social objective.Those who are - froma_{policy-making perspective}

- involved in the shapingand_reshapingof institutional_{arrangements, will inparticular} cling to old intellectual routines to further serve their intentions and _principles.

Moreover, theseroutines are real in thesensethatthere is, tosomeextent,an internal

'regime logic' that dictates whatinstitutional options canfit together coherently and work together well.

This ideathat qualitatively different regimelogics have crystallised inreal welfare

states has _{gained momentum} since the _appearance of _{Esping-Andersen's}

ground-breaking book The _{77:ree IForlds ofwelfare} Capitalism (1990). In this book, Esping-Andersen combines Marshall's (1950) definitionofsocial _citizenship with Titmuss's

(1958; 1974) classification

of

threedifferentprinciples fortheorganization ofwelfare provision: residual, industrial-achievement and institutional-redistributive welfare

state models. _{By distinguishing qualitatively different ways} of _{welfare provision,}

Esping-Andersen aims toexemplify how specific constellations

of

politicalpower have led to the development ofhistoricallydifferentwelfarestateregimes. For this purpose

he relates social_citizenshipand_{welfare (Boje, 1996, p. 19). Esping-Andersen}defines social citizenship bythenumberofsocialrightsattributedtoindividuals inthewelfare

6 Chapter 1

variations in the substance

of

social citizenship and welfare state stratification, we findqualitativelydifferent arrangementsamong _{the state, the}market and the family. These cluster intoa _{liberal, conservative and social-democratic regime-type}

(Esping-Andersen, 1990, pp. 22 & 26),whichare influencedbytheirhistorical roots, political

systems and social values.

It is not surprising that Esping-Andersen's claim of 'three worlds of welfare capitalism' has been contested by other students ofthe welfare state. Although his

effort was much acclaimed,a_{greatmany alternative}endeavours have beenundertaken

to categorise real welfare states into different welfare state regimes. Although the

basic division into 'liberal'/'social-democratic'/'conservative' has, by now, become

customary, opinions differ about whether these three regime-types are sufficient to

classifywelfarestateswhich werenotincludedin_{Esping-Andersen's original account.} In addition, as the act oftypologiSing iS a matter

of

deciding that some features are

important ina certain respectandothers not (cf. Baldwin, 1996), disputehas arisen

about the proper classification ofrealwelfare states. In the end,theexplanatory value

of

Esping-Andersen's typologyWas questioned. The first researchquestion relates to

the discussion concerningtherobusmess oftheEsping-Andersenianworkingtypology. It readsasfollows:

1. Are there families of real welfare states or are all welfare states rather unique specimens? If the former is the case, are there three or more ideal-typical worlds of welfare capitalism?

To answer this question, we_{first review Esping-Andersen's original classification;} wethen considerthevariouscriticisms which havebeenleviedagainst the typolOgiCal

approach, in general, and the theoretical underpinnings ofEsping-Andersen's

typol-ogy, inparticular. In addition,weoffera _surveyofwelfarestateclassifications which

havebeen proposed to extend and amend Esping-Andersen's original classification. Wealso offer acompilation ofrealwelfare statesand their classification according to the varioustypologies. Finally, we also discuss thevariousattempts which have been undertaken to test the goodness-of-fit

of

Esping-Andersen's classification.

1.2.2 Popular support for the welfare state

Thesecond researchquestionaskswhether ornotpublic opiniontowards thewelfare statetendstoreflectthe distinctive corporatist, social-democratic andliberal-leaning

Introductionand research_{questions 7}

security and justice. The second research question is limited to the public's

prefer-ences_{with respect to}the _{goal-dimensions of government intervention. Roller divides}

thisintoextensiveness (whether individuals actually hold thestateresponsible for the provisionofsocial_{protection) and intensity} (thedegree towhich governmentshould intervene in a certain area ofsocial _{protection). Both} kinds of_{preferences are put} under_{the generalheading of}the_{public'spreference}for_{institutionalised solidarity, as}

welfarestate_solidarityisachieved herebymeansofstateintervention. Apart from an examination oftheextent towhichthedifferentstyles

of

governmentintervention are

echoed in public opinion, severalcontextual factors are thoughtto affect the level of support forinstitutionalised solidarity:the levelofsocial_{protection, income}inequality

and taxpolicies. Theresearchquestion isasfollows:

2. To what extent do citizens of different welfare states support institutionalised solidarity? To what extent can differences among individuals and societies in this support be explained by differences among welfare state regimes, social protection

level, income inequality, and tax regime, and, at the individual level, by social

position and socio-political beliefs?

To answer this question, people's preferences for an extensive and intensive welfare state are _{compared among France, Belgium,} The Netherlands, Denmark,

West Germany, Ireland, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. _Using

the technique ofmultilevel-analysis, we estimate the effects

of

belonging to acertain welfare stateregime. The effects

of

welfare effort, income inequality, and tax regime arealsoestimated._{In addition,}weestimatetheeffects ofanindividual'ssocialposition

and his or her socio-political beliefs,asthesecharacteristics canbe expectedtoexplain

within-countryvariationsinlevelsof_support.

Inprevious research, cross-national variations and similarities in public

commit-ment to the welfare state have been studied extensively (see, for example Svallfors,

1997; Taylor-Gooby, 1995; Papadakis & Bean, 1993). However, most studies are restricted to an_{analysis of one or only a few countries. Moreover, they usually do not}

explicitlyinclude contextualconditionsalongsideof individualsocialcharacteristics in

theiranalytical framework, although the impactofwelfare statearrangements isoften

emphasised. Consequently, this presumedassociation hasnotreallybeenempirically

established (however, see Svallfors, 1997; Roller, 1995). One major contribution

of

this study is that

it

extends the previous research on popular commitment to

the welfare state, in the sense that it analyses a relativelylarge number

of

countries simultaneously, while adding comparativemeasuresofcontextual and individual char-acteristics. In this way, we estimatethe impact of each type

of

welfare state regime,

welfarestate _{effort, income}inequality and the tax-regime on people's preferences for

8 Chapter 1

1.2.3 Notions of solidarity and choices of justice principles

Thethird researchquestion is concerned with the problem

of

whether ornot

classi-fications ofwelfare states matters forpeople's notions

of

solidarity and their choices

of

justice principles. This research question is an extension ofthe previousresearch

question. Specifically,weinvestigate,first ofall, people's notions

of

solidarityinterms

of

the preferred broadness

of

government intervention to provide social protection which are intended to benefit citizens. Secondly, we examine the cross-national differences in preferences for the equality, need, and equity principle

of

distributive

justice (Deutsch, 1975). But whyfocus on thesetwo dimensions? As Goodin et al.

(1999, pp. 22-23)argue,welfarestates can, toa _{certain extent,}beranked onthebasis

of

certain "external standards

of

assessment" such as thepromotion

of

economic ef-ficiency, socialequality, social integration and stability, autonomy, and the reduction

of

poverty. These values have - in one way or another and to a greater or lesser

extent - traditionally been served

by various welfare state _{arrangements. Moreover,}

they emphasise that abroad consensus existsconcerningthesemoralvalues across all

welfare regimes. These values are the moral embodiments through which allwelfare

stateregimes,

of

whatever type,arelegitimised bytheircitizens.Thisbroad consensus

indicates that in the pursuit ofthese values certain similarities among welfare states

may exist. However, the fact that welfare states quite often substantiallydiffer in the allocation and distribution

of

welfare is a consequence of differences among them concerning which particular egalitarian justice principles theyemphasise and which specific notions of solidarity they embrace. Variations in both the level

of

support

for_{government responsibility in guaranteeing certain}social_rights and_{preferences for}

certain justiceprinciples willbe related to the type

of

welfarestateregime acountry's

welfare state belongs to. In this way, we investigate whether certain moral under-pinnings ofwelfare state regimes are echoed in the public's attitudes. The research

question isasfollows:

3. To what extent do citizens of different welfare states have different notions

of solidarity and do they choose different justice principles? To what extent can differences among individuals and societies in these notions and choices be explained by differences among welfare state regimes, social position and

socio-political beliefs?

We compare popular notions of_{solidarity and} choices ofjustice principles among Canada,theUnitedStates,GreatBritain, Ireland,France, West Germany,Denmark,

Norway, _{Sweden,Austria, Belgium,}TheNetherlands,Greece,Portugal, Spain,Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and The Philippines. After classifying these welfare

states into _{liberal, conservative, social-democratic, Mediterranean, Radical or}

Introductionand researchquestions 9

Moreover, we also estimate the effects an individual's social position and his or her

socio-politicalbeliefs.

As far as the explanation of cross-national differences in people's

notions of

solidarity are concerned, we _{mainly follow Taylor-Gooby (1998)} and Kluegel and

Miyano (1995). These studies compared people's notions

of

solidarity in terms of

theirconsent to governmentresponsibilityfordifferentaspectsofwelfare provision. In

both studies, onlyalimitednumberofcountries couldbecompared, as data onpublic

attitudes towards government intervention were not available for all welfare states.

Specifically, Taylor-Gooby (1985) only compared attitudes among West Germany, Great Britain, Italyand Sweden. Based on this limited number

of

countries, Taylor-Gooby concluded that

"public

_attitudes, though in some respects still distinctively 'national', seemobstinatelytoresist conforming tothe dominant policythemes of the welfarestatestheyinhabit". Kluegel andMiyano (1995) comparedpublicsupport for

government interventiontoreduce inequalities andthe effects

of

justice beliefs on the endorsement

of

governmentinterventionamong GreatBritain,Japan,West Germany, The Netherlands, and theUnited States. Theyfound thatJapan ischaracterised by a

especiallyhighlevel

of

support and theUnitedStates, as is alsofound inotherstudies

(forexample Papadakis & Bean, 1993; Svallfors, 1997) by an especiallylow level of support.

Onemajorcontribution ofourapproach is thereplication and extensionofprevious

research byTaylor-Gooby(1998), Svallfors (1997), andPapadakis and Bean (1993).

This is a replication in the sense that the type

of

welfare state regime is explicitly

included to assessthe explanatorypower ofthe regime-typologyforpeople's notions of solidarityandtheirchoices ofjustice principles. It is anextension in thesense that

this study includes significantlymore countries. Itenables us, firstly,to include more different welfare state regimes than the original tripartite classification by Esping-Andersen (1990), and secondly, to take into account that, also within welfare state

regimes, significantvariationmay exist among welfarestates inthepublic'sconsent to governmentintervention. Moreover, this study contributes to the literature about the relationship between welfarestate _{arrangements andpublic} attitudes by investigating whether particular egalitarian justice principles, emphasisedby welfare state regimes,

are reflected in thepreferencesofcitizens forcertain justice principles.

1.2.4 Public support for health care systems

The latter two research questions relate to the public's general commitment to the

welfarestate, encompassingthewhole gamutof_{welfare provisions. However, findings}

may differ when attitudes towards specific policyareas areconsidered. Here, we have

chosen to examine more closely attitudes toWards tWO policy areas which lie at the

10 Chapter 1

The followingtworesearchquestions deal withthecross-national variationsin public

supportforgovernmentprovision

of

thesetwopolicyareas.

The fourthresearch questionis concerned with the explanationofcross-national variations in levels

of

_{public support} for national health care _{systems. This will be}

donebystudying theeffects of the type

of

welfarestateregimetowhich welfarestates

considered can be assigned, the _{structural characteristics of}the national health care systems, and the individual social and _{demographic characteristics.} The research

questionisformulatedasfollows:

4. To what extent are citizens of different welfare states supportive of their health

care systems? To what extent can differences among inditiduals and societies

in their coni,nimie,it to natioiial health care systems be explained by dWerences among welfare state regimes, structural characteristics of the health care systems, social position and socio-political beliefs?

To answer this question, the 1996-level

of

public support forthe national health care systems is _{compared among Denmark, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain,}

France, Ireland, The _{Netherlands, Portugal, Great Britain, Finland, Sweden, and} Austria.

Only a limited number

of

studies have examined public attitudes towards

health care and their relationships to institutional characteristics

of

welfare states

(Pescosolido, Boyer, & Tsui, 1985; Ardig6, 1995; Elola, 1996). Pescosolido et al.

(1985) found thatevaluations

of

welfare policies in health varied across 8 countries

with _{patterned differences between welfare laggards} and welfare leaders. _Ardig6

(1995) foundthatcitizens

of

sevenEuropean countries andtheUnitedStates

consid-ered good medical care 'veryimportant' and its_provision an 'essential'_{responsibility}

of

the government. He also showed that the way health care services are financed

affects the degree

of

responsibility attributed to the government for providing good

medicalcare. Finally,_{Elola (1996) found that}publicsatisfaction with thehealth care

system is lower in countries with a National Health System, than in countries with

social_securitybased healthsystems.

The analyses in this study follow the lead of these previous _studies, but extend them in significant ways. For onething, more countries are included. This enables

us to assess whetherarelationship existsbetween the amount

of

emphasisplaced on

universalityandcollectiveresponsibility inthe institutional arrangements ofa specific

type

of

welfare state regime and the level

of

support for the national health care

system. _{Moreover, this study adds} to previous research by examiningthe impact of

several structural characteristics ofthe national care system _{while, at the same time,}

Introductionand research questions 11

1.2.5 Responsibility for old-age pensions

The fifth and final research question tackles the explanation ofvariations in public

consent to government intervention in another social policy area: _old-age pensions. Researchoncross-national variations inattitudes about old-agepensionsis relatively

scarce. The informed studies that do exist are mainly descriptive. In a survey of

Elite _opinion on retirement _pensions in Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, The

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, George and Taylor-Gooby _{(1996) found}

only a few variations in opinions, which neither fell into any pattern nor correlated

with pension typologies. Walker and Maltby (1997) and _{Walker (1993) presented} an overview of the opinions of EU-citizens concerning intergenerational relationships,

pensions and living standards ofthe elderly, employment and older workers and health and social care for the elderly. Among these many issues, one

of

their

more notable findings was that the pension contract _{(i.e. those} working accept the

responsibility

of

financially contributing to the provision

of

pensions for the elderly), - often seen as the basic expression

of

intergenerational solidarity between those in employment and older people - is ingood health. Consensus on this topiC is found

everywhere. _{However, Walker and} Maltby (1997, pp. 53-59) also found that most

national pensions systems donot succeedin providingpensions which are evaluated

as adequatebytheirbeneficiaries. Eventually, thisraisesthe question of howpensions

shouldbefinanced and who shouldberesponsible for the provisionofpensions.

In this study, we focus on the latter tWO iSSUeS. We

will

examine the extent of

differences and similarities inpublicattitudesabout the provision

of

old-agepensions.

Specifically,weexpectthatseveral contextual factors affectpopularviewsconcerning the responsibilities forthe provision

of

pensions: the type

of

welfare stateregime and

the features of thenationalpension systems. We also assess theeffects

of

individual

level social characteristics. In _{other words,} the final research question is stated as follows:

5. To what extent do citizens of different welfare states endorse different ways of

providing old-age pensions? To what extent can differences among individuals

and societies in these preferences be explained by differences among welfare state

regimes, structural characteristics of the national pension system, social position and socio-political beliefs?

To answer this question, people's views on who should be responsible for the

provision of pensions are compared in 1992 and 1996 among France, Belgium, The Netherlands, West Germany,Italy,Denmark, Ireland,United Kingdom,Greece, Spain,Portugal,Finland, Sweden andAustria. We estimatetheimpactofwelfarestate

12 Chapter 1

controlling for country-differences, the effects

of

social characteristics

of

individuals

are assessed.

In our analyses, we explicitly focus on the collectivist and market selectivist features which can be distinguished indifferent welfare state regimes. According to

Esping-Andersen (1990, p. 80), these features are especiallyimportantwhere old-age pensions are concerned. This is _{because pensions} constitute "acentral link between

individualism and solidarity". The impact of the regime-classification on public

attitudesistestedagainst theimpactofcharacteristics ofthenational pensionsystem.

Again, the approach taken in this study

will

augmentpreviousresearchby comparing

a _{relativelylarge} number ofcountries, andin particularby simultaneously including

contextual conditionsand individuallevel social characteristics. In this way, we try to

achieve a betterunderstanding ofthe foundations

of

public attitudes concerning the

responsibility fortheprovision

of

pensions.

1.3 Data

As we noted in Section 1.1 _comparative research on values, _{attitudes and opinions}

has become rich in data during the last two decades. Themost important data-sets

for comparative purposes now come from projects such as the International Social

Survey Project, the EuropeaniWorld Values Study, the International Social Justice Project and the Eurobarometer Suruey Series. _{The contextual nature of our study calls for} datawhich consist of two levels

of

units -hierarchically arranged- where individuals

are the primary or micro-level units and a grouping of the individuals constitutes the second macro-level (Ringdal, 1992, p. 235 ). All data-sets used in this study

meetthis requirement; theyarehierarchically structuredasopinions

of

citizenswithin countries. Inthis study we draw on data fromtheInternationalSocial Survey Program,

theEurobarometersurvey series and theEuropeanValuesStudy. Inthe following, we offerashort description ofthese_{cross-national survey-projects.}

1.3.1 International Social Survey Program

The InternationalSocial SurveyProgram (ISSP) isanongoing, annual programme of cross-national collaboration, in which the collaborating organizationsjointly develop

topical modules dealing with important areas of social science. These modules are fielded as fifteen-minute supplements to the regular national surveys (or a special

survey ifnecessary) and include extensive common cores of _background variables. Since 1984, the ISSPhas growntoinclude 31 _nations, the founding four-Germany,

the UnitedStates,GreatBritain,and_{Australia - plus Austria, Italy, Ireland,}Hungary,

The Netherlands, Israel, Norway, the _{Philippines, New Zealand, Russia, Japan,}

Introduction and researchquestions 13

France, Portugal, Slovakia, Latvia, Chile, Bangladesh, Denmark and South Africa.

In addition,

East Germany was added to the German sample upon reunification.

The ISSP researchers concentrate in particular on developing questions that are 1)

meaningful and relevant to all countries and 2) can be expressed in an equivalent manner in all relevantlanguages.ThequestionnaireisfirstlydraftedinBritishEnglish and then translatedinto otherlanguages using standard back translation procedures.

In this study, we use the 1996 module on the role

of

government which covered

attitudes towards a) civil liberties, b) education and parenting, c) welfare and social

equality and d) the economy (for more detailed information about the ISSP, see

http://www.issp.org) .

1.3.2 Eurobarometer suruey series

TheEurobarometer_surveyseries isa_programmeofcross-nationaland cross-temporal

comparative_research, which is designed to provide regular monitoring ofthe social and_politicalattitudes of the_{public in}the_EuropeanUnion. TheEurobarometerpublic opinionsurveys have beenconductedonbehalf of the European Commissionsince the

early 1970s. Currently,the target-population for sampling includesthepopulation of

anyEUmember country, aged15_{years and over,resident in any of}theMemberStates.

The regularsample size instandard Eurobarometer surveys is 1000 respondents per

countryexcepttheUnited Kingdom (N=1000 inGreatBritainandN=300in Northern

Ireland). Since 1995, the survey series have covered all European Union Member

countries: France, Belgium, TheNetherlands, West Germany, East_Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal,Finland,Sweden andAustria. InallMemberStates,fieldworkisconducted

on thebasis

of

equivalent basicbilingual _{(French and English) questionnaires which}

are translated into theother_languages.Thebasic_{sampling design in all}MemberStates

is a multi-stage, random probability one, and selected _respondents are interviewed face-to-face in their homes. In this study, we use data from Eurobarometer 37.1 (conducted in April and May, 1992), 44.0 (conducted in October and November, 1995) and 44.3 (conducted in February andApril, 1996). These include questions to

measurethepublic'sgeneral endorsement of the welfarestate _{(Eurobarometer 37.1),}

preferences regarding the provision

of

_{pensions (Eurobarometer 37.1 and 44.0) and}

support for the national health care system _{(Eurobarometer 44.3).} See Saris and

Kaase (1997) for more information. Information about the Eurobarometer survey

14 Chapter 1

1.3.3 European Values Study

The European Values Study is a large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey researchprogrammeon basichumanvalues,initiated bytheEuropean ValueSystems

Study Group (EVSSG) in the late 1970s. The major aim of the EVS is to design

and conduct anempirical study ofthe moral and social values underlying European

socialand_{political institutionsand governing conduct.} Twowaves werefielded in 26

countries in 1981 and in 1990. Here, we will use data from the most recent third

wave duringwhichthefieldworkwasconducted in 1999 or 2000 throughoutEurope. Each national survey consisted of a large representative sample

of

citizens aged 18

or over. The observational method used wasface-to-face interviewsbased on largely standardised questionnaires.The currentresearchpopulation consists of thefollowing

34countrieswhichparticipated in the EVS 1999:Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech _{Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany,} Greece,

Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway,

The _{Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,} Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, _Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the USA. The 1999-survey, used in this study, _{included, for} the first time, questions about people's preferences

for

certain justiceprinciples (formore informationabouttheEuropean Values Study,

see the EVS-homepageathttp://cwis.kub.nl/_{fsw_2/evs/index.htm).}

1.4 Scopeand limitations of this study

Thepresent studyis among the firstto systematically investigate the ways in which

the specifics

of

welfare state regimes might affect public commitment to welfare

state solidarity and distributive _{justice. Moreover, this study examines the ways in} which other contextual factors such as welfare state _{effort, methods of financing}

the welfare state, income inequality and structural characteristics of the national pension and healthcare system are associated withthese public _{attitudes. However,}

the comparative and contextual approach which we use in this study raises some

important methodological issues which we

will

discuss in the following sections. In particular, these issues _{relate to 1)} the cross-national comparability

of

attitudes and

opinions, 2) the selection ofcountries for analysis and 3) the problem

of

estimating statistical contextual-effects modelsbasedon smallsample sizes.

1.4.1 Cross-national comparability of attitudes

An importantguideline incross-national researchon values, attitudesand _{opinions is}

that scores onascale can becomparedacrosspopulations only whentheirequivalence

Introduction andresearch_{questions 15}

about the welfare state, surprisingly little attention is paid to this _issue, although

several students

of

public opinion have underscored the importance of establishing equivalence ofscales (see, for example Kangas, 1997; Svallfors, 1997; 1999). This

ispartly_because, often, only single-item instrumentsare availabletoindicateconsent to a specific social policy aspect. This makes the construction

of

multi-item scales

and, consequently, the empirical testing ofequivalence of scales across populations nearly impossible. Often, the researcher simply has to trust that the cross-national questionnaire was designed meticulousnessly and that it takes into account different

meanings and connotations of various concepts. Therefore, equivalence is only implicitly assumed.

However, ifwefollowtheguideline given by vandeVijver andLeung (1997), the latter approachis_{highly unsatisfactory. It does} not_{establish equivalence} ofmeasures

empirically. In this study, we will - depending on the available data - follow this

guideline and test the equivalence

of

scales acrosspopulations. To achieve this, we apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in several instances. In order to make

valid cross-national comparisons, it is necessary to demonstrate that the manifest variables _{(the items used)} are similarly related to the same _{latent belief,} attitude or

value in the countries being studied (Petterson, 1995).Withintheframework of CFA

models,twoimportanthypotheses can be tested_{(Halman & Moor, 1993):First of all,}

the hypothesis that the same structure applies (i.e. only thesame manifest variables

are related to the same belief, attitude or value) and, secondly, the hypothesis of

invariance

of

factor loadingpaths. Thisexpressesthestrength of the relations between

the manifestvariables and the latent belief, value or

attitude:

Using this approach,

we extend previous research on public endorsement ofthe welfare state, as we try to establish empirically cross-national comparability

of

concepts whenever possible, instead

of

simply assuming that theyarecomparable.

1.4.2 Selection of countries for analysis

The primary objective ofthis study is to assess the extent to which differentwelfare

regimes relate tothe public's commitmentto welfarestate solidarity and distributive

justice. Therefore,thechoice

of

countriestostudy - and consequently the comparisons

we made - weremainly dictated by Esping-Andersen's typology anditslater extensions.

Apart from that, the choice

of

countries was largely opportunistic and data-driven.

For example, cross-national surveys such as the Eurobarometer-survey series are

necessarilyrestricted tothemember states ofthe EuropeanUnion,makingitpossible

16 Chapter 1

of

public attitudes towards aspects of the welfare _state, important comparisons with

other countries, such as the United States, could not be made due to the scope of data collection.Thismeansthat conclusionsreachedby comparativeanalyses are very

much dependent onthe_{countries considered,}whichnecessitatescarefulinterpretation oftheresults.

Themostimportant criterion for includingacountry was thatitcouldbeclassified

according to an _extended, senary version

of

Esping-Andersen's typology

of

welfare

states. However, the comparison of only six countries - one for each _{regime type}

-would be _{highly unsatisfactory} because differences will always exist among different countries (cf. Svallfors, 1997, p. 286). Therefore,weaimedatincluding atleast two

countries foreach regime type. The availabilityofrelevantattitudinal dataforced us, at times, to include borderline cases -for exampleThe Netherlands or Great Britain - which are not that easy to classify. This makes the interpretation

of

results more

difficult. _{However, if one uses} a typology, hybrid cases

will

irrevocably emerge. No

specific case can everperfectly embody a particular idealtype (Goodin et al., 1999,

p. 56).

Byomitting countries simplybecause they cannot be classified beforehand,

the researcher is not able to understand the peculiarities

of

these specific cases.

Eventually, ifwe accept that there are limits to the empirical power

of

discernment

ofclassifications, inclusionofborderline cases iswarranted, butshould be done with caution.

In addition, countries were selected on thebasis that similar and equal numbers

of

indicators (items) beavailableto constructthe dependentvariables whichmeasure

people's attitudes about welfarestate solidarity andtheirchoicesofjustice principles.

Therefore, we strove for a similar basic construction ofthe dependent variables in orderto assessthe cross-national comparability oftheconstructs.

1.4.3 Contextual-effects models and the small N Problem

In_{this study, we}use_{contextual-effects models, which generally can}be defined as "an

efforttoexplain individual-level dependent variables using combinations

of

individual

and group-level independent variables" (Blalock, 1984). A general characteristic of these models is that they allow for the impact

of

macro-level characteristics on an

individual actor,controlling fortheimpact

of

individual-levelsocialcharacteristics. In

this study, bothindividuals and countries are the units

of

analysis. In thelatter case,

where the line

of

approach is the comparison ofattitudes among countries and the

assessmentofthe impact oftheinstitutionaland_{structural context, this study}analyses

significantlymorecountries than were included inprevious investigations. However,

as has beenclarifiedabove, thestudyis still limited bythenumber

of

countries which

can be used to test the relevance of the Esping-Andersenian classification for the

Introduction and research_{questions 17}

must takeinto account whatiscommonly known as 'the small N problem'.

As Goldthorpe (2000, p. 49) explains, the small N problem occurs whenever countries or other macrosocial entities are taken as the units

of

analysis. In those instances, thenumber availableforstudyislikely tobequitelimited. When individuals

are the _units, populations can be sampled which give Ns

of

several hundreds or

thousands. However, when countries are the _{units N, in the}most idealcase, cannot

rise much above one hundred, even ifall available cases are _{taken. Often, there are}

far feweravailablecases. Goldthorpe further points out that inapplying techniques of

multivariateanalysis, seriousdifficulties then tend tobeencountered when thesample

size atthemacro-level is notmuch greater thanthetotalnumber

of

variablesinvolved. Statistically, this means that there are too few degrees

of

freedom, that models

become'overdetermined', that intercorrelations among independent variablescannot

be adequatelydealt with andthat results may notberobust. Substantively, itmeans

that competing explanations ofthedependent variable may not be open to anydecisive

evaluation. As Goldthorpe (2000, p. ₅₂₎ correctly argues, this is essentially not a

problem ofthe_{method used, but}

"a

problemofinsufficient informationrelative to the

complexity ofthe macrosociological questions that we seekto address". Eventually, both aqualitative and a quantitative approach may suffer from the smallNproblem. As we mentioned inSection 1.4.2, the number

of

countriesincluded in this study is generally larger than in previous studies. _{However, given} the scope

of

welfare state

typologies and the available survey-data, the number

of

countries to be analysed is still relatively _{limited. Therefore, it} is necessary to evaluate theconsequences which the smallNproblem might have for this study.

Inthisstudy, we useastatistical modelling-approach. Twotechniques

ofmultivari-ate analysis will be usedto assesstheimpact ofregime-types, structuralcharacteristics

ofthe _{national care and pension system} and individual-levelsocial characteristics. In most analyses, a random coefficient _{model, the} most general type ofa hierarchical linear or multilevel model (Bryk & Raudenbusch, 1992; Snijders & Bosker, 1999),

will

be estimated. According to Snijders and Bosker (1999, p. 43), the random coefficient model should be used if the groupsare regarded asa_{sample from a (real or}

hypothetical)population andthe researcher wishes to draw conclusionspertaining to this population, or iftheresearcherwishes totesteffects

of

group-level variables. The

advantage

of

using these models is that it explicitly takes into account the clustered

structure of the data. Specifically, these models enable us to estimate the effects of contextual variables on people's commitment to welfare state solidarity, controlling foreffectsofindividual-levelcharacteristics.Theadvantage,compared toanOrdinary

Least _Squares (OLS) regression approach - in which effects ofcontextual variables

18 Chapter 1

often leads to a serious risk

of

committing type I errors (asserting on the basis of the observations that there is an _{effect, whereas in} the population there is no such effect). Because the country-level part ofthe model takes into account the correct

numberofobservations _{(i.e. countries),}theprobability

of

committing a type I error is significantlyreduced2. Anotheradvantageofthese models isthatexplainedvariances can be calculated separately for both the individual and the contextual-level. This

makes it possibleto assess theexplanatory value

of

contextual factors, apart from the explanatory value ofindividual-level characteristics.

Therandom coefficient model is used incases wherethe dependent variable can

be seen as _{continuous. However, when}the dependent variable is categorical, we use

the multinomial logit model to asses the impact

of

individual and contextual-level explanatory variables. In these _{models, contextual factors} are disaggregated to the

individual-level. Aswe discussed above, this approach leads to the problem that the

sample size ofcontextual factorsisdramatically exaggerated. It istherefore necessary

to realise that the data are clustered by _{countries. Therefore,} we specify that the

observations are _independent across _{groups (clusters), but not necessarily} within

groups. This procedure affects the estimated standard _{errors, but not} the estimated coefficients. This significantlyreducesthe probability

of

committing a type I error in

the evaluation

of

contextual-leveleffects.

1.5 Outline ofthe book

Chapters 2 through 6 present the results of this study. The research questions formulated in Section 1.2aredealt with inthesefive_{chapters. Eachchapter}addresses

one ofthe research _{questions. The chapters}are writtenas _{separatearticles, of which}

Chapters 2,3,5 and 6 have been _{previously published, and Chapter 4 has been}

submitted toan international journalfor publication :

· Chapter 2 is an extended version of an article which was published inMe,ts & Maatschappij (Arts & Gelissen, 19998). The augmented version of this chapter

hasbeen submittedfor publication toan internationaljournal.

· Chapter 3 is an extended version of an article published in the International Journal of Social Welfare (Gelissen, 200Ob). An earlier version, in Dutch, was

publishedinSociale Wetenschappen (Gelissen, 1999).

· Chapter 5 appeared as an article published in the International Journal of Social IFefare(Gevers, Gelissen, Arts,& Muffels, 2000).