Suchergebnisse

AbstractAlthough a basic income (BI) has already been widely debated, the COVID-19 crisis further intensified the discussion about this periodic cash payment that is unconditionally delivered to all. However, it remains unclear whether the crisis spurred a wave of public support for its introduction. To investigate this, we aim to answer two research questions: (1) How did support for a BI evolve in reaction to the COVID-19 crisis? and (2) To what extent did the evolution in support differ across regional contexts and social groups with varying levels of deprivation? We rely on a natural experiment by analysing data from the Belgian National Elections Study that was collected both before and during the pandemic. The results indicate an increase in support for a BI due to the pandemic, although it seems short lived and not necessarily specific to a BI. Importantly, however, the increase in popularity is only observable in the high-unemployment French-speaking region of Belgium and among relatively deprived groups.

AbstractPerceptions that others will contribute their fair share are fundamental to the legitimacy of the political system. To better understand how these perceptions take shape beyond the influence of political narratives and socializations, this paper investigates the role of the formative personal experiences of benefit recipiency and income changes in explaining views on welfare abuse as well as tax evasion. Theoretically, both increasing identification or 'othering' could occur when these experiences lead to new group adherence. To test this empirically, three‐wave Norwegian panel data (2014–2017) are analysed. Within‐ as well as between‐group analyses show that becoming dependent on benefits leads to lower perceptions of welfare abuse, while positive income changes prompt higher perceptions of tax evasion, albeit mostly among those with lower income levels. Overall, this article shows that formative personal experiences affect views that are fundamental to the perceived fairness, legitimacy and sustainability of the social and political system.

The refugee question occupied centre stage at every political debate in Europe since 2015. Starting from the "long summer of migration", the polarization of opinions and attitudes towards asylum seekers among citizens of the EU has grown increasingly. The divergence between hospitality and hostility has also become evident in political reactions.

AbstractResearch either focused on self‐interest or left–right ideology to explain support for demanding active labour market policies (ALMPs). This article focuses instead on how attitudes towards these policies are rooted in the underlying policy paradigm. We link attitudes towards ALMPs to two pillars of the activation paradigm: distributive justice and unemployment attributions. Structural equational modeling is employed on the Belgian National Election Study data of 2014 (N = 1901). Individuals supporting the principles of need and equity and who blame the unemployed are more in favour of demanding activation. These frameworks and hence the policy paradigm thus have substantial predictive power.

The past two decades saw an increase in political populism, set against the backdrop of turbulent economic and political developments. This is associated with a rise in workers worrying about job loss as well as an increase in individuals holding politicians and politics in disrepute. This study investigates whether these two processes are linked. Being concerned about maintaining one's job may be related to the experience of distributive injustice, which reflects people's perception that they do not get what they deserve. These injustice perceptions may, consequently, bring about a cynical attitude towards the political system. Using three‐wave longitudinal data in a sample of 857 British employees, we found that job insecurity was indeed indirectly related to feelings of political cynicism via the experience of distributive injustice. This study underscores the relevance of workplace experiences for the development of political (dis)engagement.

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.