Suchergebnisse

Welfare state attitudes are often studied from the perspective of the individual's characteristics and/or national or regime-type contexts. This thesis instead seeks explanations for individuals' varying attitudes towards the welfare state at the level of local contexts (municipalities). Sweden is used as a case for testing whether there are such contextual effects. The general aim is to find out whether social, political, and institutional aspects of local context influence the attitudes of individuals. Since the general aim of this thesis is to examine how background characteristics of individuals and characteristics of local contexts simultaneously act in shaping individuals' attitudes, I use multilevel modelling in order to handle individual-level and contextual-level data simultaneously. Latent-class analysis (LCA) is also employed in the analyses to explore the patterning of variables. This is mainly done in order to create dependent variables and to distinguish between categories of municipalities sharing similar characteristics. The data consist of Swedish survey data, which have been complemented by municipal-level data. The findings indicate that the social and political context of municipalities can matter for individuals' attitude formation. Variation across municipalities in terms of the prevalence of social problems and risks seems to influence how individuals view the welfare state. Local municipal contexts characterized by many social problems and risks tend to be associated with more welfare state friendly attitudes among the local inhabitants, after taking individual-level determinants into account. Support for high social spending is greater in such milieus as is the tendency to view welfare beneficiaries with less suspicion regarding the potential abuse of welfare policies. Regarding the influence of local public service provision on attitudes, no evidence was found for feedback effects on individuals' attitudes toward public service privatization. In their attitudes towards the welfare state, individuals are to some extent influenced by their local environment. There seems to be a 'built in' thermostat in the Swedish welfare state. Local circumstances characterized by social problems and risks tend to be associated with a local citizenry having more welfare state-friendly attitudes.

While previous research shows that environmental policy attitudes depend on trust in government, existing studies have either focused exclusively on trust in politicians and democratic institutions (political trust) or conflated such measures with trust in a wider range of impartial government institutions and actors. In this study, we distinguish between trust in partial institutions that enact laws and policies on the one hand, and trust in impartial institutions that exercise government authority and enforce policies on the other, and systematically analyse their respective influence on climate policy preferences. In addition to investigating the direct influences of trust, we also focus on how trust in government institutions moderates the relationship between climate change concern and climate policy attitudes cross-nationally. Using European Social Survey data from 2016, we demonstrate that individual-level trust in both partial and impartial government institutions constitutes an important determinant of climate policy attitudes. Moreover, while we find no evidence of direct effects of trust at the country level, we demonstrate that individuals who are concerned about climate change are more likely to hold positive attitudes towards climate policies in high-trust countries, particularly where trust in impartial institutions such as the legal system and the police is high. Key policy insights Individuals' tendency to favour climate policies depends on their trust in both partial government institutions that enact policies (e.g. parliament, politicians) and impartial institutions that enforce these policies (e.g. legal system, police). At the country level, trust in impartial institutions plays a particularly crucial role for the translation of individuals' climate change concern into support for climate policies. A climate policy platform with broad public support not only relies on a trustworthy political system that enacts sound climate policies, but also on well-functioning and trustworthy government institutions that ultimately enforce these policies.

Previous research consistently finds a relatively weak relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, as environmentally concerned individuals often fail to act pro-environmentally, both in the private and public spheres. While the strength of the concern–behavior relationship varies considerably across countries, existing research has yet to provide a complete account of these cross-national differences. In this study, we add to previous cross-national research on the concern–behavior relationship by focusing on the quality of government. Using multilevel analysis and data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), we demonstrate that people who are environmentally concerned are more likely to act pro-environmentally (in the public sphere), in countries where government institutions are fair, effective and impartial. We also find that people are generally more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior in both the private and public sphere in countries where the quality of government is high.

This article focuses on working and living conditions among local politicians in Sweden, and on their experiences of combining political work and family life. Applying a sociological perspective on representation, we first map the working and living conditions represented among politicians, with a specific focus on gender and age. We then examine experiences of work-family conflict and subjective well-being, and investigate how these outcomes are related to gender, age, and working and living conditions. The main findings show significant gender differences in working and living conditions, and substantially higher levels of work-family conflict among young female politicians.

While it is becoming increasingly evident that environmental problems such as climate change and global warming constitute existential threats to human societies, these problems will very likely per- sist and even intensify unless governments enact effective and potentially costly environmental poli- cies. However, government policies and spending ultimately rely on public support, thus underscoring the need to increase present knowledge about the processes underlying citizens' policy attitudes. In this study, we focus on the relationship between citizens' normative views about govern- ment responsibility and their support for government spending on the environment. While people who think that, as a general principle, it ought to be the government's responsibility to protect the environment should be more likely to support increasing government spending on the environment, we argue that this relationship is dependent on the quality of government. Using multilevel analysis and data from the most recent ISSP "Role of Government" module, we show that people who think that it is the government's responsibility to protect the environment are more likely to support increasing government spending on the environment in countries where government institutions are fair, effective, and non-corrupt. This suggests that the role of government in protecting the environment stretches far beyond designing effective environmental policies, since an overall ineffective and corrupt government appears to undermine public support for critical environmental policymaking.

This article ties in with a growing international literature examining the link between party politics and welfare service privatization in modern welfare states. In recent decades, a central aspect of policy change in Sweden is that private actors have come to produce publicly financed welfare services on a more regular basis. This overall privatization trend is furthermore characterized by substantial geographical variation across Sweden's 290 municipalities. The ideological attitudes of local politicians have been recognized as particularly important for understanding this development. This article examines the extent to which local politicians' ideological attitudes regarding welfare service privatization are best explained with a partisan approach emphasizing between‐party polarization as opposed to a critical perspective that points to the proclaimed significance of ideological consensus between left and right parties in certain municipal contexts. Using multilevel modelling and survey data collected from elected politicians in municipal governments, the empirical findings show substantial differences in attitudes between Conservatives and Social Democrats, irrespective of municipal characteristics – most notably the degree of welfare service privatization. Hence, the results strongly indicate that the partisan approach is much more fruitful compared to the consensus approach as a general explanation for local politicians' attitudes towards welfare service privatization in Sweden. Accordingly, a conclusion is that comparisons at the subnational level within countries are important as a complement to country‐comparative studies when attempting to understand the link between political partisanship and welfare service privatization in modern welfare states.

Small enterprises are often highlighted by politicians as important engines of economic growth and job creation. However, previous research suggests that self-employment might not be equally beneficial for individuals in terms of their income compared to regular employment. Several studies have in fact found that the self-employed may face a substantially higher poverty risk than do regular employees. The aim of the present study is to investigate to what extent income poverty is a good predictor of actual living standards among the self-employed. Is the relationship between income poverty and living standards different for self-employed compared to the regularly employed? To investigate this question we use a unique Swedish survey dataset including regularly employed (n 2,642) as well as self-employed (over-sampled, n 2,483). Income poverty is defined as living in a household with less than 60% of the median household income. Living standards are measured with a deprivation index based on 29 consumption indicators. The results show that even though income poverty is more prevalent among the self-employed than among the regularly employed, no evidence can be found suggesting that the self-employed have a lower standard of living than the regularly employed. Furthermore, when specifically comparing income poor self-employed with income poor regularly employed, we find that the income poor self-employed score significantly lower on the deprivation index even after the compositional characteristics of both groups are taken into account. The conclusion is that poverty measures based on income data underestimate the actual living standard of the self-employed.

AbstractThis article examines the potential impact of institutional change on popular welfare support. The encompassing welfare state of Sweden provides an interesting case where the privatization of social service delivery has been widespread over the last decades. We use survey data from five rounds of the Swedish Welfare State Survey (1992, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2010) in order to study how public preferences for the financing and organization of welfare services have changed over time. Based on a theory describing an ideal‐typical pattern of public support for an encompassing welfare model, we derive three types of public preferences: support for a pure state model, a pure market model and a mixed model (welfare services are funded by taxes but provided by private firms). We begin by tracking the development of these ideal‐typical attitude patterns between 1992 and 2010. We then investigate how preference patterns vary across municipalities displaying different degrees of privatization of social service delivery. Our results show that welfare support among Swedes over the last decades is better characterized as dynamic rather than stable. Swedes seem to take an overall more ideologically based position on the role of the welfare state over time. The share of respondents expressing such ideologically based preferences has increased from 54 per cent in 1992 to 78 per cent in 2010. This change is principally manifested in increased support for the state and mixed models. This trend seems to be parallel to the increasing share of private welfare service providers over the last decade. We also find a link between the municipal degree of privatization and support for our three ideal‐typical welfare models. Public support for a mixed welfare model and, to some extent, a market model, is comparatively stronger in municipalities where welfare services to a large extent are carried out by private actors. Conversely, data shows that public support for the traditional Swedish state model is more widespread in municipalities having a low degree of welfare services privatization. Lastly, we discuss some theoretical implications of our findings.

This article examines the occurrence of political non‐attitudes in Sweden and identifies the population segment possessing a 'something for nothing' (SFN) mentality regarding social spending. Sweden – often regarded as epitomizing the advanced welfare state – constitutes an analytically interesting case, providing a useful counterpoint to the predominantly American‐based evidence on the subject. It is argued here that national political institutions fundamentally affect the prevalence – and social base – of the SFN segment. To identify SFN sentiments, two question batteries measuring social spending preferences are used. One battery contains 'priced' items emphasizing the cost of public spending, while the other set of 'unpriced' items does not explicitly connect increased public spending with increased taxes. The patterning of attitudes across these items is explored in order to determine whether SFN sentiments are common in the Swedish electorate. The observed attitude patterns are then linked to broader sets of attitudes to the welfare state, testing whether the degree of ideological coherence differs fundamentally between the SFN segment and other groups. The analysis then explores the individual‐level determinants associated with different attitude patterns. The overall results show that: SFN sentiments are not dominant among the Swedish citizenry; the quality of the SFN segment's belief system, in terms of ideological coherence, does not represent a deviant case; and the background characteristics associated with SFN sentiments suggest that members of this segment should rather be viewed as free riders in economically vulnerable positions than ignorant and politically confused citizens.

In this study, we explore individual differences in suspicion of welfare overuse in Sweden. Focusing on previously underdeveloped areas, we find that the hitherto observed negative relationship between political interest and suspicion of welfare overuse is only valid for those who sympathize with political parties to the left (and to a lesser extent the Green Party). Conversely, individuals who sympathize with centre‐right parties or right‐wing populists differ little internally depending on their level of political interest. We also find a strong positive correlation between anti‐immigrant attitudes and suspicion about welfare overuse. Finally, we find that women are less suspicious of welfare overuse than men are, and that this cannot be attributed to gender differences in material risks or resources, education, experiences of welfare services, general trustfulness, anti‐immigrant sentiment or political orientation. Neither do gender differences vary according to strength of gender identification. Thus, being suspicious about welfare overuse is not likely to be perceived as a typically masculine or feminine posture. Based on our findings, we argue that future studies exploring partisan or ideological differences in perceptions of welfare overuse need to consider these in conjunction with political interest and political context; that rising anti‐immigrant sentiments pose a particularly serious threat to the legitimacy of welfare states, given their strong connectedness to suspicion of welfare overuse; and that gender differences in perceptions of welfare overuse are more fruitfully addressed through a lens of gender relations, rather than gender role stereotypes. ; Välfärdsopinion 2017