Suchergebnisse

Published online: 05 April 2017 ; The literature addressing attitudes about social policy and the welfare state has been telling us for decades that welfare interventions are supported by those individuals who benefit from a specific measure. The diffusion of 'demanding' active labour market policies (ALMPs), however, challenges this relationship. Using a novel dataset, I analyse which individual- and country-level factors explain public support for demanding ALMPs in five Western European countries. The results show that labour market risk and ideological orientation influence public attitudes towards these ALMPs. Thereby, unemployed individuals sympathising with the political right are more strongly opposed to demanding measures than employed individuals with the same political preferences. Moreover, aggregate support is found to be correlated with the country's ALMP legacy, varying from high levels in Germany and the UK to low levels in Denmark and France. The findings suggest that most ALMPs are in fact implemented despite the opposition of their beneficiaries.

Through the analysis of 22 European countries and Canada, this article seeks to investigate the assumption that political macro level variables such as welfare state systems and immigration regimes shape the conditions encountered by young immigrants and thus have an impact on their school performance. The results show that native students benefit from social-democratic welfare states and immigration-friendly integration regimes, whereas immigrant students underperform under these types of regimes. Thus, while the finding for native students supports the argument found in the body of literature, claiming that social-democratic welfare states lead to a reduction in inequality and to less stratification, the findings for immigrant students suggest that positive discrimination may under some circumstances lead to a counterproductive result. The argument is tested with a multilevel modelling procedure on three levels (student, school and country) based on different data sources.

AbstractDisasters create challenges for governments as they need to design effective and legitimate policy instruments to deal with the crisis. In this paper, we analyze social acceptance of regulations and financial investments in crisis governance, taking the example of the COVID‐19 pandemic. By using data from two survey experiments in Switzerland, we show that respondents support rules that temporarily centralize decision‐making power to the national level but object to regulations that would make contact tracing efforts mandatory. The data shows also that citizens support financial investments of tax money to prevent future crises. Those who are afraid of the health consequences of the crisis are especially favorable to stricter regulations and financial investment, whereas economic worries related to the crisis specifically and political ideology in general barely explain variance in support for crisis responses. In general, this research contributes to our understanding of how survey experiments can be used to analyze social acceptance of policy instrument design.

In the wake of the recent increase in the inflows of refugees to Europe, governments have made considerable investments in public policies aimed at facilitating the labour market integration of refugees. Despite these efforts, the labour market participation of refugees remains low. This situation raises the question of whether employers actually appreciate these public policies and whether refugees' participation in specific active labour market policies (ALMPs), such as work practice or wage subsidies, increases their likelihood of being hired. In this article, we take a novel approach and combine employers' evaluations of specific ALMPs with their attitudes towards refugees. We argue that these labour market policies can only be successful when employers hold positive attitudes towards refugees in the first place. We investigate this question by means of a factorial survey experiment with employers in Austria, Germany and Sweden. Our results show that, indeed, employers' evaluations of fictional refugee candidates who participated in ALMPs are influenced by their attitudes towards this group. Participation in these policy measures is regarded positively only by those employers who already hold positive attitudes towards refugees.

AbstractWhether participation in active labour market programmes (ALMPs) pushes individuals back into employment depends on the programme's characteristics. On the basis of encompassing registry data that allow us to control for usually unobserved employability, we find evidence of a systematic access bias whereby jobcentre caseworkers in Switzerland assign unemployed persons to activation measures based on a competition logic that is mainly driven by an economic rationale and the jobcentre's performance evaluation. This practice seems problematic because it results in an overrepresentation of immigrants in measures with little efficacy rather than in measures that could compensate for employability disadvantages. Conversely, Swiss citizens are more likely to enter beneficial human‐capital‐intensive measures. It is plausible that this discrepancy in programme participation amplifies the general labour market disadvantages of immigrants.