Search results

Although theoretically contentious, most empirical studies contend that electoral-political factors structure the welfare state. In practice, most studies concentrate on 'government partisanship', that is the ideological character of the government. We agree thatpolitics mattersbut also seek to expand our understanding of what 'politics' should be taken to mean. Drawing on recent comparative research on agenda-setting, we study the impact of whether welfare state issues were broadly salient in the public sphere during the election campaign that produced the government. We formulate hypotheses about how suchsystemiccampaign salience and government partisanship (separately and interactively) affect welfare generosity. We also consider how such effects might have changed, taking into account challenges to standard assumptions of representative democracy coming from the 'new politics of the welfare state' framework. We combine well-known, but updated, data on welfare state generosity and government partisanship, with original contextual data on campaign salience from 16 West European countries for the years 1980–2008. We find thatcampaigns matterbut also that their impact has changed. During the first half of the examined period (the 1980s and early 1990s), it mainly served tofacilitategovernment partisanship effects on the welfare state. More recently, big-time campaign attention to welfare state issues results in some retrenchment (almost) regardless of who forms the postelection government. This raises concerns about the democratic status of the politics of welfare state reform in Europe.

SummaryThe existing literature on diversity and trust has focused on a unidimensional understanding of diversity. We argue that a unidimensional approach is theoretically and empirically problematic and use a recently developed multidimensional measure of social structure to investigate which aspects of diversity are associated with generalized trust. We run cross‐country regressions with up to 115 countries to explore the importance of fractionalization for average trust levels 1981–2008. Using several different measures of ethnic fractionalization, we do not find a general and robust relationship between ethnic fractionalization and trust. In line with expectations, however, we find a negative and significant association between ethnic fractionalization and trust for low levels of ethno‐religious cross‐cuttingness and cross‐fractionalization, illustrating the importance of multidimensionality.

Using survey data from Norway and Sweden, we assess people's attitudes toward gender equality. Previous studies argue that these attitudes are more egalitarian in Sweden than in Norway. Similar to previous research, we find that Swedes are more positive towards gender equality in general. However, we find no differences regarding views on egalitarian sharing of household responsibilities, and Norwegians are actually more supportive of government intervention to increase gender equality. This suggests that the lower support for gender equality in Norway is not as clear-cut as previously thought and that active state intervention to improve gender equality may be even more feasible in Norway than in Sweden.

Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable. Published: Online December 2019

Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of fire safe cigarette laws on fire mortality and cigarette-related fires in the USA. METHODS: We examined the gradual implementation of the laws to identify their average effects, using difference-in-differences analysis to account for common year effects, time-invariant state effects, state-specific trends and observable time-varying state-level covariates. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant effects on all-cause fire mortality, residential fire mortality or cigarette-caused fire rates. The estimates for cigarette-caused fire deaths were significant under some specifications, but were not robust to the inclusion of state-specific trends or comparisons to effects on other cause-determined fires. CONCLUSIONS: Given the mixed state of our results, we conclude that previous claims regarding the effects of fire safe cigarette laws may be premature.

Background: Differences in health care utilization across geographical areas are well documented within several countries. If the variation across areas cannot be explained by differences in medical need, it can be a sign of inefficiency or misallocation of public health care resources. Methods: In this observational, longitudinal panel study we use regional level data covering the 21 Swedish regions (county councils) over 13 years and a random effects model to assess to what degree regional variation in outpatient physician visits is explained by observed demand factors such as health, demography and socio-economic factors. Results: The results show that regional mortality, as a proxy for population health, and demography do not explain regional variation in visits to primary care physicians, but explain about 50% of regional variation in visits to outpatient specialists. Adjusting for socio-economic and basic supply-side factors explains 33% of the regional variation in primary physician visits, but adds nothing to explaining the variation in specialist visits. Conclusion: 50-67% of regional variation remains unexplained by a large number of observable regional characteristics, indicating that omitted and possibly unobserved factors contribute substantially to the regional variation. We conclude that variations in health care utilization across regions is not very well explained by underlying medical need and demand, measured by mortality, demographic and socio-economic factors.

Government authorities use resources on information campaigns in order to inform citizens about relevant policy changes. The motivation is usually that individuals sometimes are ill- informed about the public policies relevant for their choices. In a survey experiment where the treatment group was provided with public information material on the social security system, we assess the short- and medium-term knowledge effects. We show that the short run effects of the information on knowledge disappear completely within 4 months. The fi ndings illustrate the limits of public information campaigns to improve knowledge about relevant policy reforms.