Search results

The link between ethnic heterogeneity and public support for welfare policy is debated. The thesis of a negative relationship is supported by much American research. Historically the race issue has blocked a number of American welfare schemes; across the United States ethnically heterogeneous states have less generous benefits, and citizens having negative attitudes towards blacks often oppose welfare. The research question is: To what extent will increased ethnic heterogeneity in European countries establish the same mechanisms? Three theoretical positions are discussed: the position that the American experience is unique; the position that it is generalisable; and a middle position of it being contingent on institutional settings. The latter position predicts that the American experience can be avoided, especially in social democratic welfare regimes where the ethnicity issue has not been politicised. Empirically the article is based on survey data from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark, in which a number of American items were directly replicated. Despite indications of American uniqueness and welfare‐regime effects, the findings support the position that the in‐group/out‐group mechanisms found in the United States are being replicated in Europe.

Even though the shift from `passive' to `active' labour market policy exhibits large cross-national variations, all examples seem to share two common characteristics: (a) the first group exposed to the new policies and the group exposed to the harshest policies was young people on social assistance; and (b) as the target group gradually came to include `ordinary' unemployed people, most countries made exceptions for the oldest unemployed people. The article argues that this striking policy convergence has to do with the public perception of the target groups. The article substantiates this argument first, by giving a theoretical explanation for the different popular images of target groups, and second, by showing — using a national Australian sample — that these general popular images influence the way the public wants `active' labour market policy to be conducted.

Why are people who live in liberal welfare regimes so reluctant to support welfare policy? And why are people who live in social democratic welfare regimes so keen to support welfare policy? This article seeks to give an institutional account of these cross-national differences. Previous attempts to link institutions and welfare attitudes have not been convincing. The empirical studies have had large difficulties in finding the expected effects from regime-dependent differences in self-interest, class interest, and egalitarian values. This article develops a new theoretical macro-micro link by combining the literature on deservingness criteria and the welfare regime theory. The basic ideas are that three regime characteristics, (a) the degree of universalism in welfare policy, (b) the differences in economic resources between 'the bottom' and 'the majority,' and (c) the degree of job opportunities, have a profound impact on the public deservingness discussion and thereby on public support for welfare policy. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2007.]

Why are people who live in liberal welfare regimes so reluctant to support welfare policy? And why are people who live in social democratic welfare regimes so keen to support welfare policy? This article seeks to give an institutional account of these cross-national differences. Previous attempts to link institutions and welfare attitudes have not been convincing. The empirical studies have had large difficulties in finding the expected effects from regime-dependent differences in self-interest, class interest, and egalitarian values. This article develops a new theoretical macro—micro link by combining the literature on deservingness criteria and the welfare regime theory. The basic ideas are that three regime characteristics, (a) the degree of universalism in welfare policy, (b) the differences in economic resources between "the bottom" and "the majority," and (c) the degree of job opportunities, have a profound impact on the public deservingness discussion and thereby on public support for welfare policy.