Search results

Through out the Western countries welfare policies and in particular labour market policies changes quit dramatically. This is also the case in the Nordic countries, especially in Denmark, even though neo-liberal workfare strategies never have been an option. The aim of this article is to analyse the public attitudes connected to these changes in Scandinavia. Do the general public pity the unemployed? Do the unemployed pitythemselves? Are the policy makers blamed or blessed? Based on comparative surveys from Finland and Denmark including both a population sample and a large sub-sample of unemployed the paper shows that in the case of activation both the general public but also the unemployed themselves perceive the intensified ?active? policy as a plus-sum game. In terms of increased control the unemployed is more sceptic whereas the public to a very large extend is in favour ? especially in Finland. Thus, the political scene seems much more set for ?credit claming? than ?blame avoidance?. However, this cannot be seen as a road to a real workfare strategy. The country difference between Finland and Denmark and survey results based on Danish election data indicate that public support for ?harsher? labour market policy actually can be mitigated. And when it comes to lowering benefits the electorate in all the Nordic countries is remarkable conservative. ; Through out the Western countries welfare policies and in particular labour market policies changes quit dramatically. This is also the case in the Nordic countries, especially in Denmark, even though neo-liberal workfare strategies never have been an option. The aim of this article is to analyse the public attitudes connected to these changes in Scandinavia. Do the general public pity the unemployed? Do the unemployed pitythemselves? Are the policy makers blamed or blessed? Based on comparative surveys from Finland and Denmark including both a population sample and a large sub-sample of unemployed the paper shows that in the case of activation both the general public but also the unemployed themselves perceive the intensified ?active? policy as a plus-sum game. In terms of increased control the unemployed is more sceptic whereas the public to a very large extend is in favour ? especially in Finland. Thus, the political scene seems much more set for ?credit claming? than ?blame avoidance?. However, this cannot be seen as a road to a real workfare strategy. The country difference between Finland and Denmark and survey results based on Danish election data indicate that public support for ?harsher? labour market policy actually can be mitigated. And when it comes to lowering benefits the electorate in all the Nordic countries is remarkable conservative.

The perception of structural unemployment – summarised in the notion of 'Eurosclerosis'– became almost hegemonic during the 1990s. Policy makers all over Europe tried, by means of supply‐side policies, to counteract the lack of incentives in the developed European welfare states, the lack of qualification on the post‐industrial labour markets and the personal decay due to long‐term unemployment. However, based on the critical case of Denmark, this article challenges the perception of structural unemployment and suggests an alternative business cycle/barrier perception. At the macro level it is difficult to explain the Danish decline in unemployment from 1994 to 2000 within the structure perception. The lack of explanatory power of the structure perception is further highlighted in micro‐level analyses conducted on a panel study of long‐term unemployed. Based on the unemployed's own assessments, we find no indications of supply‐side problems. These results are supported by analyses of actual labour market integration of the long‐term unemployed in the period between 1994 and 1999, which show that education level and previous unemployment had no noteworthy influence on labour market integration, whereas age had a decisive influence. These surprising results further undermine the perception of structural unemployment and the supply‐side policies rooted in this 'mistaken' problem definition.

The Nordic welfare states are based on a unique system of highly decentralized municipalities. However, in Denmark a discussion about merging municipalities has emerged. The discussion has kept within the framework of the classic dichotomy between capacity and proximity, or been limited to considerations of effectiveness versus democracy. The assumptions behind both arguments can be nuanced and problematized, and a new study, based on an extensive set of data, analyses the basic assumptions behind the argument of proximity. In accordance with earlier studies, it finds that participation is higher in small municipalities. However, municipal size does not affect citizens' interest in and knowledge of local politics. Nor does it affect citizens' perception of local politicians and their trust in local political decisions. This is surprising, given previous research in this area.

The article theorises how covering social risks through cash transfers and in-kind services shapes public attitudes towards including/excluding immigrants from these programmes in Western European destination countries. The argument is that public attitudes are more restrictive of granting immigrants access to benefits than to services. This hypothesis is tested across ten social protection programmes using original survey data collected in Denmark, Germany and the UK in 2019. Across the three countries, representing respectively a social democratic, conservative and liberal welfare regime context, the article finds that the public does indeed have a preference for easier access for in-kind services than for cash benefits. The article also finds these results to be stable across programmes covering the same social risks; the examples are child benefits and childcare. The results are even stable across left-wing, mainstream and radical right-wing voters; with the partial exception of radical right-wing voters in the UK. Finally, the article finds only a moderate association between individual characteristics and attitudinal variation across cash benefits and in-kind services.

It has been a general finding across Europe that very few job matches are facilitated by public employment services (PES). The article explains this failure by highlighting the existence of a double-sided asymmetric information problem on the labour market. It is argued that although a PES potentially reduces search costs, both employers and employees have strong incentives not to use PES. The reason is that employers try to avoid the 'worst' employees, and employees try to avoid the 'worst' employers. Therefore these services get caught in a low-end equilibrium that is almost impossible to escape. The mechanisms leading to this low-end equilibrium are illustrated by means of qualitative interviews with 40 private employers in six European countries. Adapted from the source document.

It has been a general finding across Europe that very few job matches are facilitated by public employment services (PES).The article explains this failure by highlighting the existence of a double‐sided asymmetric information problem on the labour market. It is argued that although a PES potentially reduces search costs, both employers and employees have strong incentives not to use PES. The reason is that employers try to avoid the 'worst' employees, and employees try to avoid the 'worst' employers. Therefore these services get caught in a low‐end equilibrium that is almost impossible to escape. The mechanisms leading to this low‐end equilibrium are illustrated by means of qualitative interviews with 40 private employers in six European countries.