Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis essay argues that several ongoing and future developments are likely to undermine the broad public support welfare states historically and currently enjoy. These developments—skill-biased technological change, privatization of pensions, higher rates of assortative mating, and the information revolution—can be expected to increase risk inequality, the predictability of risk, income and wealth inequality, and the overlap between income and risk. As a result, a plausible prediction is that intense polarization about social policy programs will replace their current broad appeal, pitting an increasing share of people with no jobs or poor jobs and little upward mobility against an increasing share of people with few incentives to support mandatory risk pooling because they can self-insure.

Why are unemployment benefits more generous in some countries? This article argues that citizens trade off the redistributive and insuring effect of social insurance. As a result, the distribution of risk in a society has important consequences via popular demand for social policy-making. At the microlevel, the article shows that, in addition to income, the risk of unemployment is a key predictor of individual-level preferences for unemployment benefits. Based on the microlevel findings, the article argues that at the macrolevel the homogeneity of the risk pool is an important determinant of benefit generosity: the more equally unemployment risk is distributed, the higher unemployment replacement rates are. Empirical testing at both levels finds support for this account of social policy by popular demand. (World Politics / SWP)

Why are unemployment benefits more generous in some countries? This article argues that citizens trade off the redistributive and insuring effect of social insurance. As a result, the distribution of risk in a society has important consequences via popular demand for social policy-making. At the microlevel, the article shows that, in addition to income, the risk of unemployment is a key predictor of individual-level preferences for unemployment benefits. Based on the microlevel findings, the article argues that at the macrolevel the homogeneity of the risk pool is an important determinant of benefit generosity: the more equally unemployment risk is distributed, the higher unemployment replacement rates are. Empirical testing at both levels finds support for this account of social policy by popular demand.

Why has the American political landscape grown more partisan since the 1970s? This article provides a novel account of the determinants of partisanship. The author argues that partisanship is not only shaped by the traditionally suggested socio-economic factors, but also by the uncertainty of future income (risk exposure): rich individuals facing a high degree of risk exposure (or poor people facing low risk exposure) are 'cross-pressured'; while their income suggests that they should identify with the Republicans, their income prospects make them sympathize with the Democrats. These two traits have overlapped increasingly since the 1970s. Those with lower incomes tend to be also those with higher risk exposure (risk inequality increased). This has led to a sorting of the American electorate: more citizens have become 'natural' partisans. Adapted from the source document.

Why has the American political landscape grown more partisan since the 1970s? This article provides a novel account of the determinants of partisanship. The author argues that partisanship is not only shaped by the traditionally suggested socio-economic factors, but also by the uncertainty of future income (risk exposure): rich individuals facing a high degree of risk exposure (or poor people facing low risk exposure) are 'cross-pressured'; while their income suggests that they should identify with the Republicans, their income prospects make them sympathize with the Democrats. These two traits have overlapped increasingly since the 1970s. Those with lower incomes tend to be also those with higher risk exposure (risk inequality increased). This has led to a sorting of the American electorate: more citizens have become 'natural' partisans.

Much of the disagreement in the debate about globalization and its present or absent effects on the welfare state stems from competing assumptions about the individual-level determinants of redistributional preferences. This article calls for and provides testing of these causal mechanisms at the individual level. Traditional accounts suggest that risks at the industry level are important determinants of redistributional preferences. This article argues that risks at the occupational level should also be considered. A comprehensive new data set is used to test whether and what types of risks in the labor market play an important role in shaping preferences. Statistical analyses of public opinion surveys (European Social Survey) show strong evidence for the assumed causal mechanism. Contrary to much of the literature, but in line with this article's claims, it is the occupational, rather than the industry level, that is most important. The article lays out implications of these findings.

This paper explores the determinants of individual level support for income redistribution by the government. It argues that there are two sources of preference formation when it comes to redistribution. People are either in favor of income redistribution because they are disadvantaged, or they favor redistribution as a means to insure against income shocks. The paper explores both logics, but focuses on the latter. Four risk factors are hypothesizes to influence an individual's preferences over income redistribution: a) structural change; b) exposure to international competition; c) specificity of skills; and d) occupational unemployment. Some of these measures are novel. The paper relies on the European Social Survey 2002/2003 in order to test the formulated hypotheses. The results show that a) skill specificity and occupational unemployment are important determinants of individual preferences over redistribution whereas b) structural change and exposure to international competition are not. ; Diese Arbeit untersucht die Ursachen von Unterstützung für staatliche Einkommens- Umverteilung, auf der individuellen Ebene. Es wird argumentiert dass es zwei Quellen für Präferenzen für Umverteilung gibt. Man ist entweder für Einkommens- Umverteilung weil man benachteiligt ist. Oder man ist dafür, weil Umverteilung als Versicherung gegen bestimmte Einkommens-Fluktuationen dient. Die Arbeit untersucht beide Quellen, konzentriert sich aber auf die Logik von Umverteilung als Risiko- Absicherung. Es werden vier Risiko-Faktoren vorgeschlagen, die einen Einfluss auf individuelle Präferenzen für Einkommens-Umverteilung einen Einfluss haben könnten: a) struktureller Wandel; b) internationale Konkurrenz; c) spezialisiertes Humankapital und d) Arbeitslosigkeit innerhalb von Berufsgruppen. Einige dieser Faktoren werden in neuartiger Weise operationalisiert. Um die formulierten Hypothesen zu testen, benutzt die Arbeit das 'European Social Survey 2002/2003'. Die Resultate ergeben dass a) spezialisiertes Humankapital und Arbeitslosigkeit innerhalb von Berufsgruppen wichtige Ursachen für Präferenzen für Umverteilung sind. Hingegen können b) struktureller Wandel und internationale Konkurrenz nicht als wichtige Faktoren für Präferenzen hinsichtlich von Einkommens-Umverteilung etabliert werden.

A core principle of the welfare state is that everyone pays taxes or contributions in exchange for universal insurance against social risks such as sickness, old age, unemployment, and plain bad luck. This solidarity principle assumes that everyone is a member of a single national insurance pool, and it is commonly explained by poor and asymmetric information, which undermines markets and creates the perception that we are all in the same boat. Living in the midst of an information revolution, this is no longer a satisfactory approach. This book explores, theoretically and empirically, the consequences of 'big data' for the politics of social protection. Torben Iversen and Philipp Rehm argue that more and better data polarize preferences over public insurance and often segment social insurance into smaller, more homogenous, and less redistributive pools, using cases studies of health and unemployment insurance and statistical analyses of life insurance, credit markets, and public opinion.