Dr. Laura Valadez Martinez, [email protected] Dr. Filipe … · 2014. 5. 7. ·...

1

Who deserves what and why.

A study of public perceptions of welfare deservingness in Portugal1

Paper to be presented in:

7th

ECPR General Conference

4-7 September 2013, Sciences-Po, Bordeaux

Section “The Consequences of Crisis for Southern Europe”

Panel “Crisis and Welfare Retrenchment”

Dr. Laura Valadez Martinez, [email protected]

Dr. Filipe Carreira da Silva, [email protected]

Abstract

This paper examines public perceptions of welfare deservingness in times of austerity in Portugal.

Specifically, the paper looks at whether social attitudes on deservingness of education, health, social

security, and housing are related to need-based or effort-based characteristics of welfare recipients

as well as the extent to which social rights consciousness of the informant shapes these views. The

analysis also takes into consideration the influence that political ideology and demographic and

socio-economic characteristics of the respondent may have in shaping opinion on welfare

deservingness.

Data was obtained from a specifically designed survey applied to a representative sample of the

Portuguese adult population. Results indicate that around one third of the sample people think that

everybody deserves access to social security, health, education, and housing, regardless of their level

of need and even if the government had to reduce social spending. Regression models suggest that

arguing that everybody deserves access to all four rights is not explained by a particular profile of

respondents. However, results also indicate that around 55% of the sample think that everybody

deserves access to health, or health combined with education or social security. The likelihood of

having these types of thinking (discriminating between rights when deciding if everybody deserves

access to social rights) seems to be related to preconceived ideas of citizenship, need, and

contribution, as well as to some socio-economic characteristics.

1 The survey and this paper are part of the project “Promessas por cumprir: As origens políticas da desigualdade

socioeconómica em Portugal, 1960-2010”, financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PTDC/CPJ-

CPO/101290/2008).

2

I. Introduction

In times of austerity, the extension, size, and legitimacy of welfare states are often put into question.

The current financial crisis is no exception for Europe, where economic and fiscal austerity has

triggered a heated debate on welfare retrenchment. In bailed-out Portugal, this has taken the form

of discussions around the sustainability of the education, health, pensions, and social benefits

systems – a topic that is particularly sensitive given the historical overlap between the instauration

of the democratic regime and the creation of a universal welfare state. Unsurprisingly, in Portugal as

in many other European countries, questions of whether welfare systems should be insulated from

change, dismantled, or reconfigured resonate far beyond academia and policy circles into the

general public.

Amidst the debates on welfare state reconfiguration, the issue of welfare deservingness has gained

renewed momentum. This is, questions of who should contribute and who should benefit from the

welfare state have gained a central place in public debates. In fact, there is mounting evidence that

the general public’s preferences regarding welfare provision seem amenable to change in difficult

times (e.g. Taylor-Gooby, 2011; Häusermann and Schwander, 2010).

This recent increase in the public awareness of welfare deservingness has not passed unnoticed by

welfare state experts, who have revisited the topic of who should benefit from welfare provision in

times when social spending is being reduced. Some studies, which could classified as “macro-

structural” studies, have analyzed public attitudes on welfare deservingness from the perspective of

the type of welfare regime (Jaeger, 2009; Larsen, 2005). Another strand in the literature has tried to

account for public attitudes on deservingness in terms of group-level or individual attributes. Here

one finds studies that have explored the criteria that people take into consideration while assessing

social rights deservingness (De Swaan, 1988; van Oorschot, 2000), the ways in which personal

experience and socio-economic characteristics are associated with people´s perception on who

deserves to benefit from the welfare state (Jeene, van Oorschot, and Uunk, 2013; León, 2012; van

Oorschot, 2008), and the extent to which the mass media portray social benefits frame or shape

people´s opinion on who should benefit from social rights (Appelbaum, 2012; Petersen et al, 2010;

Slothuus, 2007).

The research that looks into public opinion on welfare provision in times of austerity and that

explores perception on social rights deservingness has increased significantly in recent years.

However, there is still surprisingly little evidence on whether the type of social right impacts public

perceptions on deservingness: although it is plausible to assume that people would distinguish

between who deserves to benefit from health, education, pensions, and housing when social cuts

are about to take place, as far as we know there is virtually no empirical analysis available on this

issue. Furthermore, even though some studies have examined the criteria that people use for

determining whether someone deserves to benefit from the welfare system, virtually none has

explored the association between consciousness of social rights and perception on deservingness of

education, health, social security, and housing.

This paper aims to contribute in filling these gaps in the literature by looking into the Portuguese

case. This study looks at welfare deservingness in times of austerity by exploring people´s opinion of

which social rights should be guaranteed to all citizens independently of their level of need in a

context of economic crisis. The research questions that drive the analysis are: To what extent do

3

public perceptions of welfare deservingness in times of austerity vary according to the type of social

right? And, what explains differences in public perceptions on social rights deservingness?

To address these questions, this paper explores public perceptions on deservingness of the right to

social security, education, health, and housing in times when the government is announcing budget

cuts. Firstly, this piece of work examines whether people discriminate by areas of welfare provision

while assessing deservingness. Secondly, this study explores possible drivers of such decisions.

Utilising data from a recent survey data (Spring 2013) in Portugal, the analysis evaluates the

importance that people in this country give to need and contribution in relation to social rights

deservingness. Additionally, the analysis incorporates the influence that social rights consciousness,

ideology, and personal socio-economic characteristics may have in shaping the respondent´s

opinion.

The examination is conducted with regression analyses. The dependent variable, public opinion on

welfare deservingness, is operationalised through public opinion on what right or combination of

rights should be universally guaranteed regardless of the level of need of the recipient. Explanatory

factors include five groups of variables: 1) need-based elements, which are related to the recipient´s

condition of vulnerability; 2) effort-based elements, which include paying taxes and social security

contributions and being a good citizen; 3) social rights consciousness, which includes the recognition

that citizenship bears the enjoyment of social rights; 4) ideology, and 5) socio-economic controls.

The examination extracts data from a nationally-representative survey, specifically designed for this

project, that explores public attitudes on citizen rights, citizen responsibility, governmental action,

welfare provision, and ideology in Portugal.

This article is organised as follows: Section II reflects on the notion of deservingness as a crucial

component of the welfare state. Section III reviews some of the literature that has delineated the

criteria behind public perception of welfare deservingness. Then, Section IV reflects on need,

contribution, and social rights consciousness in times of austerity. Section V describes the data and

methodology utilised for the analysis. After that, Section VI presents and analyses the results.

Finally, Section VII offers the discussion and conclusions.

II. Deservingness at the Core of the Welfare State

The issue of who deserves to benefit the most from social welfare provisions has long been a core

topic in the welfare state literature. If the role of the welfare state is to grant social security and

protection from risk, to ensure equality of opportunity and/or of outcomes, and to promote social

inclusion (Roosma, Gelissen, and van Oorschot, 2012; Taylor-Gooby, 2011), the definition of who is

entitled to these benefits lies at the heart of social provision systems. Furthermore, the issue of who

are the recipients of social programmes becomes important in practical terms. That is, when social

policies are designed and implemented, the issue of who is entitled to benefit from them is crucial in

terms of budgeting and defining administrative procedures.

One way through which the welfare state pursues social security, equality, and social inclusion is the

redistribution of goods (Evans, 1998; Jaeger, 2009; Kangas, 2000; Korpi and Palme, 1998). Von

Hayek (2006) argued that if governments want to ensure that everybody attains certain living

4

standards and social rights, the welfare state “controls most of the income of the community and

allocates it to individuals in the forms and quantities which it thinks they need or deserve” (p. 93).

Embedded in the redistribution of goods, is the definition of who needs and who deserves to benefit

from such process. In fact, it has been argued that part of the welfare state legitimacy is based on

public support for social spending and redistribution, which “are an important constituent of the

legitimacy of mature welfare states” (Stegmueller et al, 2012, p. 482). An important component of

welfare state legitimacy is people’s perceptions of a correct implementation of programs: those who

deserve to benefit from it do and those who are not, do not.

Another way through which the welfare state promotes protection from risk, equality, and inclusion

is the granting of social rights. Following T.H. Marshall´s (1950) work, Esping-Andersen stated that

the welfare state “must involve the granting of social rights” (1990, p. 21) along with a recognition

that the rights that the state provides must be understood as inter-related with social provision

within the market and the family. It is from the ways in which these three elements –state, market,

and family- interact in social welfare provision that ideal types of welfare regimes can be identified

(Esping-Andersen 1990). Much has been said about whether ideal welfare regime types exist or not

(Bambra, 200; Ebbinghaus, 2012). Nevertheless, regardless of the type of arrangement between

state, market, and family, it is reasonable to argue that in the granting of social rights lies the

definition of who is entitled to them.

The granting of social rights is an important part of the welfare state. Taking this line of thought

forward, the granting of social rights could be seen as only one side of the coin; the other side would

be the enjoyment of these rights by citizens. Social rights consciousness, or being aware that social

rights are an important component of citizenship (Silva, 2013) may shape the perception on what

the government´s responsibilities are in terms of welfare provision and on who should be entitled to

welfare benefits. Arguably, acknowledging that social rights are a core component of citizenship

would lead to consider that all citizens deserve to have full access to them. Furthermore,

acknowledging that social rights imply resources and co-responsibilities may lead to making

distinctions in terms of what rights should be enjoyed by whom and why.

III. Criteria for Defining Social Rights Deservingness

The criteria for defining who is entitled to take part of welfare systems is, on the one hand, defined

by governments, based on ideology, their policy programme, or political interests; “governance is

conducted through rules, and rules are composed of categories. Every rule divides people by their

identity, their behavior, or their situations, and then specifies how members of different categories

are treated differently” (Stone, 2005, p. ix). Definitions of who should benefit from welfare and who

should not go back to the 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law and the 1834 British Poor Law in the United

Kingdom, or the 1854 Dutch Armenwet in The Netherlands, which distinguished between the

deserving and underserving poor (van Oorschot, 2000; Walker and Chase, 2014). Nevertheless, not

only governments outline who is entitled to welfare rights and who deserves to benefit from social

provision. Citizens also make judgements of who needs and who deserves to benefit from welfare

provision: “when individuals form opinions about social welfare, a primary concern is whether

welfare recipients deserve the benefits they receive” (Petersen et al, 2012, p. 395). Ideas of who

5

needs help from the government or from non-governmental institutions as well as conceptions who

is entitled to enjoy social provision shape the public psyche about the European welfare state.

Some pieces of work have delineated the criteria that people apply while assessing whether

someone deserves to benefit from welfare. De Swaan´s (1988) work identified some of the

elements that are often taken into consideration while providing aid to those living in poverty. In

this author´s words, these elements “do not say much about the actual living conditions of the poor”

(pp. 15-16) but rather what society thinks of those who are in need. The criteria includes: (1)

disability, or that the person is not capable to attain a good standard of living by her own means; (2)

proximity, or that the person has a close relationship with oneself being by kinship or by residence;

and (3) docility, or the attitude that a person has in relation to providing a retribution for the benefit.

Another piece is Van Oorschot´s (2000) work, which identified the criteria that people apply in

defining welfare deservingness: (1) control over neediness: people who are seen as personally

responsible for their neediness are considered as less deserving; (2) level of need: higher need is

associated with higher deservingness; (3) identity: people in need who are closer to us is seen as

more deserving; (4) attitude: people who are more likeable, more grateful, and compliant with rules

and social structures are regarded as more deserving; and (5) reciprocity: people who have

contributed or who will contribute are seen as more deserving than those who do not.

The criteria identified in these two pieces of work are often found in the literature as the basis for

analysing public opinion on welfare deservingness (Jeene, van Oorschot and Uunk, 2013; Larsen,

2005; Rowlingson and Connor, 2011; Petersen et al, 2010; Stegmueller et al, 2012; Van Oorschot,

2006, 2008). One of the most recent examinations on welfare deservingness, which also touches on

the topic of welfare retrenchment, is León (2012). Using the European Social Survey 2008 for

twenty-two countries, this study found that public trust in governmental institutions was not

associated with support for redistribution. Hence, the author suggests that redistribution is rooted

in people´s opinion about what is right independent of the current political or economic situation.

"People appear less concerned about the political institutions that are currently responsible for

applying particular social policies, and more concerned about whether potential beneficiaries

deserve, need or would be better off with social benefits" (p. 207).

This leads us to ponder on the extent to which social rights consciousness influences perception on

deservingness. Social rights consciousness could be defined as “the ways in which people act

towards and think about rights” (Silva, 2013, p. 11). Therefore, consciousness of social rights could

be understood as the lenses through which welfare deservingness is perceived. Being conscious of

social rights could mean that one makes distinctions between health, education, social security, and

housing as areas of welfare that imply certain “rules of access”. On one extreme, if one considers

that all of these rights are inherent to our human nature or intrinsic parts of democracies, it is

possible to assume that all citizens deserve to fully enjoy them regardless of their level of need or

what they have done to gain them. On the other extreme, if one is aware that social rights imply

obligations, their enjoyment could be based on level of need or according to the extent to which one

has contributed to society. However, as Jeene, van Oorschot, and Uunk (2013) have stated, making

distinctions between those who favour universalistic welfare provision and those who favour

targeted welfare provision is simplistic. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the ways in which social

rights consciousness could explain differences in opinion in relation to what a specific right means

and who is entitled to it.

6

IV. Need, Contribution, and Social Rights Consciousness in

Times of Austerity

Welfare provision is based on a combination of both need and contribution. On the one hand, the

notion of solidarity in favour of those in need holds the European welfare state together and is very

much the sustain of the legitimacy of the welfare state (Ervasti 2012, Esping-Andersen, 2002,

Fridberg, 2012). On the other hand, contributing back to society in the form of taxes, social security

fees, and following the social rules of good citizenship has been at the core of the European welfare

state. Nevertheless, in recent times, need and contribution seem to have gained a renewed tone,

which is linked to times of economic crisis and fiscal austerity. Taking the United Kingdom as an

example, the Queen´s speech in May 2013 emphasised the need to reward those who work hard,

those who are responsible, those who contribute to the country (The Guardian, May 2013). In

practical terms, the United Kingdom has announced stricter rules for enjoying unemployment

benefits and child benefits, especially for non-citizens. Similarly, the Spanish government has

introduced a reduction in the unemployment benefit and an increase in the retirement age for all

citizens as well as tougher rules for accessing health services for those whose migratory condition in

the country is irregular. This last measure has been so contested that some regional governments

have decided not to follow these instructions.

On the one hand, the austerity measures currently taking place across the European Union have

ignited the debate about who truly needs to benefit from welfare systems among policymakers,

media circles, and citizens. The replacement of universal benefits to means tested programmes

directed towards those who need them the most is increasingly taking place across Europe. In a

situation where unemployment is a priority for the continent, questions of who is truly in a condition

of poverty or vulnerability arise. With regard to contribution, questions emerge in relation to extent

to which those who benefit from the welfare state make an effort to find a job and pay taxes and

social security fees. In times when pension systems are generally being shrunk, both in terms of a

reduction in the amount of money that pensioners get as well as in terms of an increase in retiring

age, questions related to fairness for those who have contributed all of their lives emerge (Frank,

2010). Furthermore, in times when youth unemployment persists and a large proportion of

youngsters have not had the opportunity to work and pay social contributions emerge, questions

related to the sustainability of the welfare state surface.

On the other hand, informal political participation in the European Union has increased during the

last decade (Inglehart and Catterberg, 2002). Amidst conditions of generalised crisis and

restructuration plans, the number of demonstrations, strikes, popular petitions, and civil acts across

the region continue to raise. In Portugal, numerous demonstrations and protests have taken place

since the 2011 bailout and participation has seen a particular increase after the call from the

Geração à Rasca in March 2011 (Baumgarten, 2013). It seems that there is increased awareness

among the Portuguese population of what social rights mean and what welfare provision implies.

This state of consciousness of social rights during times of austerity is precisely one of the objects of

interest of this study.

7

Social rights consciousness is examined along with perception of need and perception of

contribution as elements that may shape public opinion on welfare deservingness. The context of

economic crisis and welfare retrenchment is of particular importance in this study given that

fieldwork took place in times when governmental decisions on welfare cuts were made and when

citizens were constantly exposed to news about welfare retrenchment in Europe and more

specifically in Portugal2. Details about this are explained in the Methodology section, next.

V. Methodology

The research questions are addressed with regression analyses. This section describes the sample,

the dependent variables, and the independent variables. The survey questions utilised in this

analysis are summarised in Table 1.

[Table 1 goes here]

Data collection & sample

Information is extracted from a Portuguese survey especially designed for this project, which

explores people´s opinion on citizen rights, citizen obligations, governmental responsibility in terms

of welfare and social provision, and ideology. The survey replicates some of the questions on

welfare deservingness that have been used in the literature and complements it by exploring social

rights consciousness and people´s opinion on citizenship and governmental responsibility in relation

to welfare provision. The questionnaire includes 62 closed questions, some of which are based on

the European Social Survey 2008 and the International Social Survey Programme 2004 to allow for

future comparisons with other European countries.

Data was collected in the Spring of 2013, which is crucial to take into consideration in the analysis.

After the announcement in 2011 that Portugal was almost in a state of bankruptcy and the

subsequent bailout, the government has adopted a series of measures to comply with the rules of

the rescue plan. Austerity measures during these last couple of years include reduction of public

service size and a reduction of public servants´ wages, freezing of pensions and a delay in retirement

age, lowering the duration of unemployment benefits, containing the minimum wage, introducing

caps on health, education, and housing allowances, increasing taxes for certain products, introducing

measures to make the labour market more flexible, and privatisations (BBC News, 2011).

Importantly, the fieldwork coincided with the Constitutional Court’s ruling that previously-

authorised budget cuts were unconstitutional (6 April 2013), that the Prime Minister announced

further cuts to meet the deficit given that the country is in a state of “national emergency” ( 8 April

2013), and that new measures were introduced to meet the bailout conditions (18 April 2013).

The sample is comprised of 1,258 adults across Continental Portugal. The sample has been weighted

to be representative at the national and regional level for the following areas: North, Centre, Lisboa,

Alentejo, and Algarve. In each region, informants were randomly selected to be interviewed, which

2 A strand of literature has examined the ways in which welfare benefits are portrayed influence people´s opinion on deservingness

(Appelbaum, 2012; Slothuus, 2007; Petersen et al, 2010). These pieces of work have found that different framings of social issues in media

influence perception on whether a recipient is regarded as entitled to enjoy welfare benefits. Despite the important contribution of these

insights, this type of literature seems to be less useful for the analysis in this paper because the context examined here is basically one of

constant bombarding of news about crisis and welfare readjustments.

8

also followed quotas for gender, age, level of education, and occupation. Interviews were

conducted at respondents´ homes by a survey company especially hired and trained to conduct this

survey. A pre-test, comprised of 15 interviews in Lisbon and Porto, was carried out in March 2013.

Fieldwork took place between 8 and 30 April 2013.

Descriptive statistics of the sample are: 45.8% of the sample are male and 54.2% are female; 9.3%

are between 18 and 24 years of age, 16.7% are between 25 and 34 years, 17.7% are between 35 and

44 years, 18.3% are between 45 and 54 years, 15.5% are between 55 and 64 years, and 22.5% are

older than 65 years of age. With regard to education, 9.4% have finished up to primary school, 26%

have completed up to secondary education, 14% have finished high school, 28.2% have finished

general or technologic studies, 13.4% have some technical specialisation, and 9% have finished

higher education. The geographical distribution of the sample is as follows: almost 40% live in towns

of 2,000 inhabitants or less; 19% live in towns where the population is between 2,000 and 9,999;

another 30.4% live in towns of between 10,000 and 99,000 inhabitants; 4.6% live in cities with more

than 100,000; 1.6% of the sample live in Porto and 4.8% of the sample live in Lisbon. Descriptive

statistics of the sample are summarised in Table 2.

[Table 2 goes here]

Dependent variable

Public perception on deservingness is operationalised through the following survey question: “If the

government had to reduce social spending, which of the following rights do you consider should be

guaranteed to all citizens regardless of their level of income: social security, education, health,

housing” (Question P14). This question allowed free-answering for one or various elements, so

people could choose none, one, two, three, or four rights. Assuming that level of income implies

level of need, responses are understood as people´s perceptions on deservingness of a specific right

or set of rights. This question allows us to explore whether people discriminate entitlement of

welfare by type of social right. Hypothetically, arguing that all social rights from the list should be

guaranteed to everybody implies that everybody deserves to benefit from those rights. Conversely,

arguing that only certain rights should be universally guaranteed to everybody implies some cut-off

point where someone deserves to benefit from that particular right and someone does not.

Responses are used to build the dependent variables, which are dummy variables based on which

right or combination of rights were argued that should be universally guaranteed to everybody. Five

models are run for each dependent variable: where the four rights were chosen; where only health

was chosen; where both social security and health were chosen; where both education and health

were chosen; and where social security, education, and health were chosen3.

3 Out of the sixteen possible answers (one where no rights were chosen, four where only one right was chosen,

six combinations of two rights, four combinations of three rights, and one where all of the four rights were

chosen), only these five had sufficient cases to allow for regression analysis.

9

Independent variables

All of the models include three groups of independent variables that are hypothesized to explain

public opinion of which social right or combination of rights should be guaranteed to all citizens,

regardless of their level of need, in times of welfare cuts (what we are defining as social right

deservingness). These groups are variables related to need of welfare recipients, contributions

made by welfare recipients, and variables related to social rights consciousness of the respondent.

The models also control for respondent´s ideology and socio-economic characteristics. These

variables follow the theoretical framework presented above. Furthermore, many of these variables

have been previously found to be associated with ideas about the ways in which the government

should provide welfare (Algan, Cahuc, and Sangnier, 2011; Foster and Kaminska, 2012; Häusermann

and Schwander, 2011; Roosma, Gelissen, and van Oorschot, 2012), with support for redistribution

(Jaeger, 2009; León, 2012; Stegmueller et al, 2012), with support for measures taken by the

government in relation to fostering equality, security, and opportunity (Taylor-Gooby, 2011) and

with other specific aspects of welfare provision.

The variables related to need include: preferences for universal-vs-targeting welfare (categorical

scale 1 to 7 from completely disagree to completely agree that only those who need help must

receive benefits from the government); opinion on governmental responsibility to guarantee

employment for those who want to work, to guarantee health care to those who are sick, to

guarantee a good life for the elders, and to guarantee a good life for the unemployed (continuous

10-point scale from no responsibility at all to total responsibility); and opinion on the pensions and

unemployment insurance that those who earn low wages should get (categorical variables with

options: those who earn more should get higher pensions/unemployment benefit, everybody should

get the same, those who earn less should get higher pensions/unemployment benefit, or none of

these options).

The variables that aim to measure effort and contribution from those who receive welfare benefits

include: opinion on whether enjoyment of education, health, and social security should be

proportional to taxes and social security fees paid (categorical variables with 7-point scale of

agreement); level of agreement with the statement that social rights should only be enjoyed if we do

or give something in exchange (7-point categorical scale); opinion on what constitutes being a good

citizen: always vote in elections, participate in political or social organisations, help those who live

worse than oneself, and call the police when seeing trouble (7-point categorical scales).

The third group of explanatory variables, which also lies within the theoretical framework of this

analysis, refer to social rights consciousness of the informant. This group includes: opinion on what

elements have contributed to the state of social rights in Portugal: the Constitution, workers´ efforts

to gain them, democracy, social-democrat governments, socialist governments, unions, pacts

between government, unions, and the private sector, integration to the European Union; frequency

in which the respondent thinks or talks about welfare issues and frequency in which the respondent

follows the news on social rights (4-point continuous scales). This group of variables also includes

issues related to political and civic participation, given that the latter is assumed to be part of what

being a good citizen and contributing back to society is. Variables that measure participation are

membership of a political party, and whether the informant has contacted a politician, worked in a

10

party, signed a petition, been to a manifestation, gone on strike, or written in social media about

social rights during the last 12 months (dummy yes/no variables).

Finally, the models also control for ideology and socio-economic characteristics. The variables that

reflect ideology are: self-identification with the political spectrum (left, centre-left, centre, centre-

right, right); and opinion on whether the government should reduce income gaps and on whether

homosexuals should live their lives as they please (7-point continuous scales). Socio-economic

controls include age in years, a combined measure of gender and occupation (according to stable or

unstable employment or unemployment); maximum level of education achieved (6 categories:

primary education, secondary education, high school, general or technologic studies, specialisation,

and higher education), children in the household (dummy yes/no variable), equivalised household

income (continuous variable), and perceived income insecurity for the next 12 months (scale from 1

to 4).

VI. Results

Overview of responses

Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the analysis are provided in Tables 3.1, 3.2, and

3.3.

[Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 here]

An overview of responses for the independent variables indicates that Portuguese people

overwhelmingly tend to favour redistribution and social policies designed to help those in need.

Specifically, only 2.6% of the sample disagrees with the statement that the government should

reduce income differences, 3% is indifferent about it, and an outstanding 94% agrees with that.

Also, results indicate that, in 2013, people in Portugal tend to give large responsibility to the

government in specific areas. Around 43% of the sample states that the government should have

total responsibility for guaranteeing jobs for those who seek; 65% states that the government should

have total responsibility for guaranteeing health care; 68% indicates that the government should

have total responsibility for guaranteeing a decent life for the elders; and 38% think that the

government should have total responsibility for guaranteeing a decent life for the unemployed.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to favour those who are in need over an absolutely egalitarian

view: around 46% of the sample strongly or completely agrees that only those who need, and not

everybody, should benefit from social rights. On the contrary, only around 20% of the sample

strongly or completely agrees that everybody should benefit from social rights.

At the same time, there is an important proportion who tend to favour contribution-based social

welfare over egalitarian welfare. With regard to pensions, 54.5% of the Portuguese sample

indicated that those who earn more should receive higher pensions; 28.5% think that everybody

should receive the same level of pension; and 8% agree that those who earn less should receive

higher pensions. On this respect, León´s study (2012) found that, in twenty-two European countries,

almost 71% of respondents agreed with the idea that governments should reduce income

differences. Also, almost 50% agreed that pensions should be proportional to contributions. It is

11

important to bear in mind that León´s study uses data for 2008 and the sample in this study uses

data for 2013, and the population may have changed their opinion during this time, particularly

because the 2008 crisis and the 2011 bail-out took place in this period.

Results also show that around 40% of the sample strongly or completely agrees that citizens should

enjoy education in proportion to their taxes and contributions; and that almost 30% strongly or

completely disagrees with that statement. With regard to health, around 41% of the sample

strongly or completely agrees that citizens should enjoy health care in proportion to their taxes and

contributions; and that around 31% strongly or completely disagrees with that statement. Finally,

around 57% of the sample strongly or completely agrees that citizens should enjoy pensions and

social benefits in proportion to their taxes and contributions; and only around 12% strongly or

completely disagrees with that statement.

These figures are one first approach to illuminate how preconceived ideas of governmental

responsibility and about redistribution, need, and contribution shape people´s perception of welfare

deservingness. Importantly, these figures show a complex scenario of perceptions in relation to

governmental responsibility and who should benefit from social rights. This is aligned with Jeene,

van Oorschot, and Uunk´s (2013) statement that public perceptions of welfare deservingness are

more complex than a universal-or-universalist view. In fact, results here are also aligned with León´s

(2012) findings; the author states that the homo reciprocans, the name given to the theory that

people´s motivations are rooted in reciprocity and generosity, support meritocracy as well as

redistribution: meritocracy rewards those who contribute and redistribution ensures basic levels of

living. In the Portuguese case, these results show that the tendency to give large responsibility to

the government, to help those in need, and to reward contribution coexist.

Addressing the research questions

The first research question reads: Do perceptions of welfare deservingness, if the government had to

cut social spending, vary according to the type of right? The short answer is: yes, there are different

opinions of what social right or combination of rights are deserved by all citizens. There is variation

in opinions of what rights should be guaranteed to all citizens regardless of their level of need, if the

government had to reduce social spending. Specifically, an important proportion of the sample,

28%, states that all four rights (social security, education, health, and housing) should be

guaranteed to everybody, regardless of income level. More than 15% of the respondents think that

only health should be guaranteed to all citizens, if the government had to cut welfare spending.

Those who think that both education and health should be guaranteed to all citizens regardless of

need represent almost 13% of the sample. Around 10% think that both social security and health

should be guaranteed to all citizens. Around 17% of respondents think that three rights should be

guaranteed to everybody: education, health, and social security.

The second question aims to explain the differences in responses on welfare deservingness.

Responses for what right or combination of rights respondents think should be guaranteed to

everybody, regardless of their level of need (welfare deservingness) are used as the dependent

variables in five binary logistic regression models. Table 4 summarises the variables that appear to

be significant explanatory factors of the dependent variables in each of the five models. This table

12

includes the exponential of Beta and significance level for variables that are significant at .05 level or

lower.

[Table 4 goes here]

Model A refers to the opinion that everybody deserves access to all of the four rights listed in the

survey (education, health, social security, and housing) independently of level of need or

contribution. The likelihood of thinking in such manner is explained in a statistically significant way

by some ideas on contributions and participation, but mainly by socio-economic characteristics.

With regard to contribution, expectedly, those who completely disagree that we can only enjoy

social rights if we do or give something in exchange are 2.8 times more likely to choose the four

rights as universal guarantees if the government had to cut social spending. This suggests that

choosing the four rights is associated with a universalistic view of welfare, where everybody is

assumed to deserve access to health, education, social security, and housing in equal ways.

Results also indicate that those who strongly disagree that people should benefit from health in

proportion to taxes and contributions are 80% less likely to choose the four rights than those who

completely agree. This suggests that, even though disagreement with the statement that the

enjoyment of health should be linked to taxes and contributions may reflect a universalist

preference of welfare provision, some people tend to discriminate between rights that should be

guaranteed universally. In fact, by looking at Model D (below), it is possible to infer that those who

strongly disagree that health should be enjoyed in proportion to taxes and contributions tend to

choose education and health as the rights that should be guaranteed to everybody, if the

government had to make cuts in social spending.

With regard to participation, thinking that it is important to get involved in social organisations is

associated with 29% higher likelihood of thinking that education, health, social security, and housing

should be guaranteed to everybody.

In Model A, nevertheless, the socio-economic controls are the ones with the largest explanatory

power in this model. Specifically, age is positively associated with choosing the four rights: each year

a person is older is associated with 3% higher likelihood of choosing the four rights. Also, being a

mature male in a situation of unemployment or unstable employment is associated with 2.6 times

higher likelihood to choose the four rights. This is similar to Häusermann and Schwander (2010)

study, where outsiders, or those who are unemployed or who have atypical employment histories,

tended to “prefer policies that allocate resources based on need, rather than contribution-

payments” (p. 3). One possible explanation for the effects of this last indicator is the self-interest

argument, which “claims that those who are or are likely to become recipients of welfare state

benefits/ programmes are likely to hold more positive attitudes towards these policies than those

who are less likely to receive them” (Blekesaune, 2007, p. 394). Unemployment or employment

instability could certainly be argued to be good reasons to ask for the government to guarantee the

four rights to everybody. Also in this model, those who have a house with the pre-1990 type of rent

are 8 times more likely to choose the four rights than those who live in others´ house without paying

anything for it. Following the same self-interest argument, it is possible to infer that those who

13

already are benefitting from the welfare system with fixed rent schemes are likely to ask for

universal access to all social rights. An intriguing issue results from the fact that feeling insecure

about the financial future of the own household is associated with a 30% less likelihood to choose

the four rights. However, it is possible to infer that feelings of financial insecurity are not necessarily

related to completely universalists views. Perhaps, despite a situation of perceived financial

insecurity, people reflect on which rights should really be guaranteed to everybody and tend to

choose specific rights to be guaranteed. In fact, Model D indicates that perceived financial

insecurity is associated with discriminating rights and choosing education and health as the rights

that should be guaranteed to everybody.

Model B refers to arguing that only health should be guaranteed to everybody. This opinion is

explained in a statistically significant way by the following variables: ideas on universalism versus

targeting for those in need, ideas on enjoying welfare benefits in proportion to taxes and

contributions, social rights consciousness, and some socio-economic controls. With regard to need,

those who slightly disagree that only those who need to benefit from social rights are 74% less likely

to choose only health, compared to those who completely agree that social rights should be

available only those who need it. Possibly, those who disagree with the statement that only those

who need should benefit from social rights choose more rights than only health from the answer list.

With regard to contribution, those who completely disagree that one should benefit from social

rights only if we do or give something in exchange are 86% less likely to choose only health than

those who completely agree with the former statement. Again, and as Model A showed, the group

of people who completely disagree that we can only enjoy social rights if we do or give something in

exchange are more likely to choose the four rights: education, health, social benefits, and housing.

A similar case is for being a mature male with unstable employment or unemployed; they are 87%

less likely to choose only health as a right to be guaranteed to everybody, and 2.6 times more likely

to choose the four rights (see Model A).

With regard to what constitutes being a good citizen, in a scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7

(extremely important), each point increase in thinking that telling the police about trouble is an

important component of citizenship is associated with around 40% less likelihood to choose only

health. Perhaps, ideas about participation and being a good citizen make people to think that the

state should provide more rights and not only health – and hence choose more rights and not only

health from the list of options-, in exchange for good citizenship. Actually, part of the explanation

could derive from ideas about the roots of the welfare state in Portugal: results indicate that

thinking that social rights in Portugal exist because they are guaranteed in the Constitution is

associated with 60% less likelihood of choosing only health; and thinking that social rights in the

country exist because workers have fought to gain them is associated with 52% less likelihood to

choose only health. One could assume that thinking that social rights in Portugal are guaranteed in

the Constitution and exist because workers have gained them make people think that not only

health should be guaranteed to everybody, but also education, housing, pensions, and other

benefits.

Finally, thinking or talking about welfare issues is positively associated with choosing health as a

right that should be guaranteed to everybody, if the government had to cut social spending. In

concrete, in a 1 to 4 scale, each point increase in the frequency of thinking or talking about welfare

issues is associated with 45% higher likelihood to choose health as a right to be kept and enjoyed by

14

all citizens regardless of their level of income. Perhaps, thinking and talking about the current

situation of the country, the economic problems, and the fiscal austerity measures imposed on

Portugal have made people more aware of the need to make cuts in social spending and more likely

to choose only one right as to be universally guaranteed. Taking Slothuus (2007) study as

background, which has found that exposure to media influences perception on welfare

deservingness, it is possible to assume that larger exposure to media and higher awareness of the

current situation in Portugal has to some extent led people in Portugal to choose only health as a

right to be guaranteed to all citizens.

Model C looks into possible explanations for arguing that both social security and health should be

guaranteed to everybody, independently of level of need and if the government had to cut social

spending. Here, some ideas on need and some ideas on contribution, as well as social rights

consciousness, ideology, and socio-economic controls, are significant predictors of the likelihood of

choosing these two rights. With regard to need, those who strongly agree that only those who need

and not everybody should benefit from social rights are 4 times more likely to choose social security

and health than those who completely agree with the former statement. Also, each 10% increase in

agreeing that the government should be responsible for guaranteeing jobs for everybody is

associated with 2 times more likelihood of choosing social security and health.

With regard to contribution, those who strongly agree that we can only enjoy social rights if we do

or give something in exchange are 90% less likely to choose only these two rights than those who

completely agree. Furthermore, in a scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important),

each point increase in thinking that it is important to help those who are living worse than oneself is

associated with 40% less likelihood of thinking that all citizens should benefit from social security

and health.

With regard to social rights consciousness, two ideas about the roots of the Portuguese welfare state

are also significantly associated with the dependent variable: One, those who think that social rights

in Portugal exist thanks to having social-democrat governments are 6.4 times more likely to state

that all citizens should benefit from social security and health than those who do not think so. And

two, those who think that social rights in Portugal exist thanks to pacts between the government,

the private sector, and unions are 2.5 times more likely to choose both social security and health

than those who do not think so. Additionally, thinking or talking about the welfare state is

negatively associated with the likelihood of choosing both social security and health if the state had

to cut social spending: In a 1 to 4 scale, each point increase in the frequency of thinking or talking

about welfare issues is associated with 60% less likelihood to choose both social security and health

as a right to be kept and enjoyed by all citizens regardless of their level of income.

Finally, mature females, independently of their employment status, are less likely to choose social

security and health as the rights that should be guaranteed to everybody. Specifically, females over

40 years of age and with stable employments are 90% less likely; and females over 40 years of age

with unstable employments or unemployed are 89% less likely to think this way. One way to read

this evidence is that women have consistently been found more likely to favour redistribution and

higher governmental involvement than men (Baslevent and Kirmanoglu, 2011; van Oorschot,

Reeskens, and Meuleman, 2012), which in turn explains the higher likelihood to choose all rights

(Model A), especially in a situation of employment vulnerability.

15

Model C also shows that age is positively associated with the dependent variable; each year of age is

associated with a 5% increase in the likelihood of choosing social security and health. This is similar

to the findings in Baslevent and Kirmanoglu (2011). Also, those who live in houses with pre-1990

rent agreement are 96% less likely to choose only these two rights. As Model A has shown, they are

8 times more likely to choose health, education, pensions, and housing as the rights that should be

guaranteed to everybody regardless of level of need.

Model D also includes a dependent variable where two social rights were argued to be guaranteed

to all citizens, but here the rights are education and health. In this model, results indicate that those

who strongly agree that only those who need, and not everybody, should benefit from social rights

are 64% less likely to choose these two rights, compared to those who completely agree with the

former statement. Also, each 10% increase in agreeing that the government should be responsible

for guaranteeing jobs is associated with 20% less likelihood to choose education and health as the

rights that should be guaranteed to everybody. On this same line, each 10% increase in agreeing

that the government should be responsible for guaranteeing a good life for the unemployed is

associated with 20% less likelihood to choose these two rights. Possibly, those who favour higher

governmental involvement in guaranteeing jobs and guaranteeing a decent life for the unemployed

tend to choose other rights or would prefer measures to create employment rather than education

or health policies.

With regard to contribution, those who strongly disagree that health should be enjoyed in

proportion to contributions and taxes are 9.3 times more likely, compared to those who completely

agree, to choose education and health as the rights that should be guaranteed to everybody if the

government had to cut social spending. Strangely, also those who slightly agree that citizens should

enjoy health services in proportion to the taxes and contributions they pay are 6 times more likely to

argue that education and health should be guaranteed to all citizens than those who completely

agree with the former statement. Also, those who slightly disagree that social benefits should be

enjoyed in proportion to contributions are 4.3 times more likely to choose education and health as

the rights that should be universally guaranteed, compared to those who completely agree with the

former statement.

With regard to the roots of the Portuguese welfare state, thinking that social rights in Portugal exist

thanks to the workers who have fought to gain them is associated with 3 times higher likelihood of

stating that all citizens should benefit from education and health, compared to those who do not

think that the role of workers was important. Those who think that social rights in Portugal exist

thanks to pacts between the government, the private sector, and unions are 2.7 times more likely to

choose both social security and health than those who do not think so.

Finally, Model E includes as dependent variable choosing education, health, and social security (but

not housing) as rights that should be guaranteed to everybody. Results indicate that only elements

related to social rights consciousness and socio-economic characteristics are significant explanatory

factors. With regard to social rights consciousness, as expected, thinking that social rights in

Portugal exist because they are guaranteed in the Constitution is associated with 2.1 times higher

likelihood to choose these three rights to be universally guaranteed. On this respect, it has been

argued that the Portuguese Constitution is one of the most detailed ones in terms of social rights

(Ben-Bassat and Dhan, 2008). Therefore, it is possible to infer that being certain that health,

16

education, and social security are constitutional rights that have existed for almost four decades is

expected to result in stating that these rights should be guaranteed to everybody.

Also in Model E, thinking that social rights in the country exist thanks to pacts between the

government, the private sector, and unions is associated with 60% less likelihood to choose these

three rights. Following the Constitutionalist view, it could be possible to infer that people who chose

education, health, and social security as rights that should be guaranteed to everybody are more

convinced about the legal sustain of the rights than about the arrangements between the unions,

the private sector, and the government.

With regard to the socio-economic characteristics, being a mature female with stable employment is

associated with 2.7 times the likelihood of choosing social security, education, and health as rights

that should be guaranteed to everybody regardless of level of need. Also education is negatively

associated with the likelihood of choosing social security, education, and health. In other words,

lower levels of education are associated with higher likelihood of choosing these rights: finishing the

6th

grade is associated with 6 times the likelihood; finishing the 9th

grade is associated with 3.6 times

the likelihood; and finishing technological education is associated with 3.3 times the likelihood of

choosing social security, education, and health, compared to those who finished higher education.

Finally, those who self-identify with the centre-left in the political spectrum are 3.2 times more likely

to choose social security, education, and health than those who self-identify with the right.

Main findings

The main finding that emerges from these models is that there are two contrasting profiles of

respondents. On the one hand, some people (around 28% of the sample) do not discriminate

between rights and think that everybody deserves access to social security, health, education, and

housing, regardless of their level of need and even if the government had to reduce social spending.

For this type of opinion, regression models suggest that arguing that everybody deserves access to

all four rights (social security, health, education, and housing) is not explained by a particular profile

of respondents. That is, the independent variables that are associated with the dependent variable

are a not only a few but also show weak statistical power. Three possible explanations could be

raised: Perhaps this group of respondents did not give careful thought to the question, perhaps this

group of respondents in fact do not discriminate between rights when thinking of who should

deserve to benefit from them, or perhaps these four rights are taken for granted and there is no

previous reflection on this issue. The crucial observation is that around one third of the sample still

prefers high governmental involvement and argues that health, education, pensions, and housing,

should universally be guaranteed, independently of level of need. Possibly, it is true that “at least

in Europe, we do not face a welfare state legitimacy crisis. The majority of people will support the

welfare state and the government´s responsibility to redistribute life chances” (Roosma, Gelissen,

and van Oorschot, 2012, p. NA).

On the other hand, people who discriminate between rights appear to previously have clear ideas of

other issues (ideology, citizenship, need, contribution), which make them think carefully and choose

one or two rights that the government should guarantee to everybody. Regression models suggest

that ideas about social contribution or being a good citizen as well as social rights consciousness are

17

significantly associated with choosing this one right. Specifically: the higher the disagreement that

education should be enjoyed in proportion to taxes and contributions paid, the higher likelihood to

think that only health should be guaranteed to everybody. Also, the higher the disagreement that

citizens can only benefit from social rights if they do or give something in exchange, the higher

likelihood to think that only health should be guaranteed to everybody. Finally, thinking that it is

important to participate in political or civic organisations is related to higher likelihood to think that

all citizens should be guaranteed access to health regardless of their income. This suggest that those

who have preconceived ideas of need and contribution and about the importance of participation

tend to argue that everybody deserves access to health, regardless of their level of need, if the

government had to cut social spending.

A second finding is that discriminating between rights that should be guaranteed to everybody is

associated with ideas on need, contribution, and citizenship in a stronger way than with socio-

economic characteristics. This is, arguing that the four rights should be guaranteed to everybody

(Model A) is explained by household income, type of housing, age of respondent, ideology, and only

one variable related to contribution and one variable related to social rights consciousness. On the

contrary, arguing that only health should be guaranteed to everybody regardless of level of income

(Model B) is explained by one variable related to need and by a large amount of variables related to

contribution, social rights consciousness, as well as by ideology and political participation. In this

model, gender is the only socio-economic characteristic that is a statistically significant predictor.

This is a similar case for Model C and Model D: even though the specific variables related to need,

contribution, and social rights consciousness that are significantly associated with the dependent

variables vary from one model to another, age is the only socio-economic characteristic that is a

significant predictor.

In fact, in Models B, C, and D, the effects of socio-economic indicators on the dependent variables

disappear when including the variables related to need, contribution, and social rights

consciousness4. This is similar to what Fridberg (2012) found when adding legitimacy into a model

that seeks to explain support for the welfare state: “the legitimacy questions contribute more than

the socio-demographic variables, the general social attitudes and the political orientation variables

to an explanation of the support for the welfare state at the individual level” (Fridberg, 2012; p.

150).

In sum, regression models suggest that those who have clear ideas about need and contribution in

relation to the enjoyment of social rights, and who are aware that social rights as part of citizenship,

tend to have a clear idea of what right or combination of rights should be guaranteed to everybody.

Related to this, Kangas stated that “deservingness and undeservingness are deeply rooted in

people´s mental maps when they evaluate whether somebody should be given support or not [...].

The central criteria on which people seem to base their judgement of the justice and fairness of

benefits and redistribution is the degree to which the claimants in need can control their need”

(2003, p. 739). Similarly, León (2012) argued that people have ideas of what is right, and about what

rights should be guaranteed to all citizens, independently of the current situation. Results in this

sample point to this same direction: those who have predefined ideas of how need and contribution

4 Models not included here; available upon request from the authors.

18

play a role in guaranteeing access to health, education, and pensions appear to be significant

predictors in discriminating between rights that should be universally guaranteed, even if the

government had to make cuts in social spending derived from the current crisis.

Looking at all the models, results suggest that people´s judgement of who deserves access to social

rights and that choosing between rights that should be guaranteed to everybody regardless of level

of need imply complex processes. “An individual may hold preferences toward the welfare state,

which appear at first sight internally inconsistent [...]. In this way, divergent answers do not

necessarily indicate ambivalence but merely reflect different types of welfare attitudes and the

interconnectivity of attitudes” (Giger and Nelson, 2012, p.3).

VII. Conclusions

The restructuration carried on by various members of the European Union to meet the EU deficit

targets has triggered questions of who needs social assistance and to benefit from welfare among

citizens. Questions of who should benefit from the welfare state in times of austerity and

retrenchment seem to permeate political circles and civil society. This study explored public

perception of what social rights should be guaranteed to everybody, if the government had to make

social cuts. The examination looked at whether opinion on deservingness is related to need-based

or effort-based characteristics of welfare recipients as well as the extent to which social rights

consciousness and political participation shape these views. The analysis also took into

consideration the influence that political ideology and demographic and socio-economic

characteristics of the respondent may have in shaping opinion on welfare deservingness.

Welfare deservingness was operationalised through asking what right or combination of rights

people think should be guaranteed to everybody regardless of their level of income, if the

government had to reduce spending in social welfare. Results indicate that a good proportion of

people (around 28% of the sample) think that all citizens deserve access to education, health, social

security, and housing, regardless of need or contributions. However, around 15% of the sample

argued that only health should be guaranteed to everybody; around 10% argued that both social

security and health should be guaranteed to everybody; another 13% stated that education and

health should be guaranteed to everybody; and around 17% indicated that social security, health,

and education but not housing should be guaranteed to everybody.

Regression analyses indicate that some perceptions of need and some perceptions of contribution

are explanatory factors for the likelihood of discriminating between rights that should be universally

guaranteed. Furthermore, opinion on the roots of social rights in Portugal and social rights

consciousness are significant explanatory factors for the likelihood of choosing only one or some of

the rights. On the contrary, the likelihood of choosing the four rights to be universally guaranteed is

explained mainly by socio-economic variables. This suggests that reflecting on the welfare state and

higher awareness of social rights and the situation of welfare provision in Portugal is expected to

influence people´s perception on what rights should be guaranteed.

19

Further investigations could complement this study by looking into how people regard specific

groups of vulnerable people in relation to deservingness of social rights. This is, by incorporating

into the analysis the issues included in De Swaan´s (1988) and Van Oorschot´s (2000) work, it would

be possible to explore whether public opinion in Portugal prioritise deservingness of social rights

according to age, disability, unemployment, or other situations that denote vulnerability.

Nevertheless, this study has helped in providing some light about what rights people argue to be

universally guaranteed, implying that all citizens would deserve access to those rights even if the

government had to cut social spending. If one reads that the discrimination of rights is some

distinction about who deserves access, based on need and on contribution, results in this paper

suggest that being in need is a main factor for arguing that someone should receive certain right.

References

Appelbaum, L. (2002). “Who deserves help? Students´ opinions about the deservingness of different

groups living in Germany to receive aid”. Social Justice Research. Vol. 15. No. 3. pp. 201-225.

Baslevent, C. and Kirmanoglu, H. (2011). “Discerning Self-interested Behaviour in Attitudes towards

Welfare State Responsibilities across Europe”. International Journal of Social Welfare. No. 20. pp.

344-352

Baumgarten, B. (2013). “Geracao a Rasca and beyond: mobilizations in Portugal after 12 March

2011”. Current Sociology. DOI: 10.1177/0011392113479745.

Ben-Bassat, A. and Dahan, M. (2008). “Social rights in the constitution and in practice”. Journal of

Comparative Economics. No. 36. pp. 103-119.

De Swaan, A. (1988). In Care of the State. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Evans. G. (1998). “Britain and Europe: Separate Worlds of Welfare?”. Government and Opposition.

Vol. 33. Issue 2. Pp. 183-198.

Foster, F. and Kaminska, M. (2012). “Welfare State Values in the European Union, 2002-2008. A

Multilevel Investigation of Formal Institutions and Individual Attitudes”. Journal of European Public

Policy. Vol. 19. No. 6. pp. 900-920

Fridberg, T (2012). “Legitimacy of the system and support for the welfare state”, Torben.; in Ervasti,

H. et al. (eds) The Future of the Welfare State. UK/USA: Edward Elgar.

Giger, N. And Nelson, M. (2012). “The Welfare State or the Economy? Preferences, Constituencies,

and Strategies for Retrenchment”. European Sociological Review. DOI:10.1093/esr/jcs082 pp. 1-

12.

20

Häusermann, S. and Schwander, H. (2010-2011). “Explaining Welfare Preferences in Dualized

Societies”. Paper presented at the 17th Conference of Europeanists at Montréal, CA; and at the

Oxford/Science Po Joint Doctoral Seminar at Paris, France.

Inglehart, R. And Catterberg, G. (2002). “Trends in political action: the developmental trend and the

post-honeymoon decline”. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 43. pp. 300-316.

Jeene, M., van Oorschot, W., and Uunk, W. (2013). “Popular Criteria for the Welfare Deservingness

of Disability Pensioners: The Influence of Structural and Cultural Factors”. Social Indicators Research.

Vol. 110, issue 3, pp. 1103-1117.

Kangas, O. (2003). “The grasshopper and the ants: popular opinions of just distribution in Australia

and Finland”. Journal of Socio-Economics. No. 31. pp. 721-743.

Larsen, C. (2005). “How Welfare Regimes Influence Judgement of Deservingness and Public Support

for Welfare Policy”. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association RC19 Conference

in Chicago, USA.

León, F. (2012). “Reciprocity and Public Support for the Redistributive Role of the State”. Journal of

European Social Policy. Vol. 22. No. 2. pp. 198 – 215

Petersen, M., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., and Togeby, L. (2010). “Deservingness versus values in

public opinion on welfare: the automaticity of the deservingness heuristic”. European Journal of

Political Research. Vol. 50. pp. 24-52.

Petersen, M., Sznycer, D., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (2012). “Who deserves help? Evolutionary

psychology, social emotions, and public opinion about welfare”. Political Psychology. Vol. 33. No. 3.

pp. 395-418.

Roosma, F., Gelissen, J. and van Oorschot, W. (2012). “The Multidimensionality of Welfare State

Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study”. Social Indicators Research. DOI 10.1007/s11205-012-

0099-4.

Silva, F. (2013). “Outline of a social theory of rights: A neo-pragmatist approach”. European Journal

of Social Theory. DOI: 10.1177/1368431013484001.

Slothuus, R. (2007). “Framing Deservingness to Win Support for Welfare State Retrenchment”.

Scandinavian Political Studies. Vol. 30. No. 3. pp. 323-344

Stone, D. (2005). “Foreword”; in Schneider, A. And Ingram, H. (eds). Deserving and Entitled. Social

Constructions and Public Policy. United States: State University of New York.

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). “Security, Equality, and Opportunity: Attitudes and the Sustainability of

Social Protection”. Journal of European Social Policy. 21. pp. 150-163.

Van Oorschot, W. (2008). "Solidarity Towards Immigrants in European Welfare States". International

Journal of Social Welfare. No. 17. pp. 3-14

21

Van Oorschot, W., Reeskens, T. and Meuleman, B. (2012). “Popular Perceptions of Welfare State

Consequences: A Multilevel, Cross-national Analysis of 25 European Countries”. Journal of European

Social Policy. Vol. 22. No. 2. pp. 181-197.

Walker, R. and Chase, E. (2014). “Separating the Sheep from the Goats: Tackling Poverty in Britain

for Over Four Centuries”; in Gubrium, E., Pellissery, S. and Lødemel, I. The Shame of It: Global

Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policies. United Kingdom: Policy Press.

22

Table 1. List of variables included in the analysis

Questions

Need-based Contribution-

based

Social rights

consciousness

Ideology Socio-Economic

Controls P13 Only those who really

need them, and not

everybody, should

benefit from social rights

of education, health, and

social security

P15 each person should

benefit from of

education services

according to his or her

own contributions and

taxes

P18 Today, all citizens in

Portugal have access

to health, education,

and pensions. Which of

the following factors

have contributed to

that?

P57 The government

should take

measures to reduce

income differences

inoutyype Combined

indicator of

age, gender,

and

occupational

status

P36 What is the level of

responsibility that the

government should have

in guaranteeing

employment for those

who want to work


benefit from health

services according to

his or her own

contributions and

taxes

P24 Thinking or talking

about the future of the

welfare state is

something that I do

(always/since the 2011

financial

rescue/rarely/never)

P58 Homosexuals should

be free to live their

lives as they want

P5 Level of

education




in providing health

services to those who

are sick


benefit from pensions

and unemployment

benefits according to

his or her own

contributions and

taxes

P26 Read about the news

related to health,

education, and

pensions is something

that I do (never / 1 or 2

times per week/daily)

P59 In politics it is

common to talk

about left and right;

in a scale where 0

represents left and

10 represents right,

where would you

position yourself?

P4 Housing

condition

(owned,

renting...)




in providing a good life

to the elders

P22 we only can enjoy

social rights of health,

education, and social

security if we give or

do something in

exchange

P12 Household

income

(equivalised)




in providing a good life

to those who are

unemployed

P28 To be a good citizen,

how important is it to

always vote in

elections

Participation chihh Children in

the

household

(yes/no)

P47 Those who earn less

should have higher

pensions than those who

earn more because they

have higher needs



take part in social,

neighbourhood,

school, work, or

political organisations

P62 Enrolled in a political

party (yes/no)

P56 Insecurity

about the

future

P48 Those who earn less

should have higher

unemployment benefits

than those who earn

more because they have

higher needs



help those who live

worse than oneself

P63 In the last 12 months,

in relation to health,

education, social

security, or housing,

has done any of the

following: contact a

politician, work in a

political party, signed a

petition, participated

in manifestations,

went on strike, wrote

on blogs, twitter....



call the police when

there is vandalism or

law infractions

Dependent variable: P14: If the government had to reduce social spending, which of the following rights do you consider should be guaranteed to

all citizens regardless of their level of income: social security, education, health, housing. Possible answers: none, one, two, three, or the four rights.

23

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the sample

Gender Male: 45.8%

Female: 54.1%

Age 18 to 24 years: 9.3%

25 to 34 years: 16.7%

35 to 44 years: 17.7%

45 to 54 years: 18.3%

55 to 64 years: 15.5%

65 years or more: 22.5%

Occupation Employed: 42.4%

Studying: 4.2%

Unemployed and searching for a job: 16.4%

Unemployed but not actively searching for a job: 2.3%

Permanent incapacity: 1.4%

Pensioner: 28.1%

Housekeeping (unpaid): 7.6%

Military service: 0.2%

Searching for first job: 0.7%

Level of education Finished primary school: 9.4%

Finished up to secondary school: 26%

Finished high school: 14%

Finished general or technologic studies: 28.2%

Finished some technical specialisation: 13.4%

Finished higher education: 9%

Type of housing Own and paid: 34.8%

Own and paying the credit: 24.2%

Rented (pre-1990 scheme): 11.1%

Rented (new scheme): 23.8%

Other: 6%

Children in the

household

No: 66%

Yes: 34%

Location Towns smaller than 2,000 inhabitants: 40%

Towns with population between 2,000 and 9,999 inhabitants: 19%

Towns with population between 10,000 and 99,000 inhabitants: 30.4%

Cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants: 4.6%

Porto: 1.6%

Lisbon: 4.8%

24

Table 3.1. Governmental responsibility

Government

responsibility for

guaranteeing jobs

Government

responsibility for

guaranteeing health

care

Government

responsibility for

guaranteeing a

decent life for the

elders

Government

responsibility for

guaranteeing a decent

life for the unemployed

Total

responsibility

43.2% 64.4% 67.5% 37.9%

High

responsiblity

34% 27% 25% 38%

Medium

responsibility

20% 6.5% 7% 21%

Nothing or

almost

nothing

2.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8%

Table 3.2. Benefits, depending on contributions

...pensions ... unemployment benefit Higher earners should get larger...

54.5% 48.2%

High and low earners same...

28.5% 35.3%

Lower earners should get larger...

7.9% 7.9%

Table 3.3. Enjoyment of rights according to contributions

Each citizen should enjoy... according to taxes and contributions paid (%)

Education Health services Pensions and benefits Completely disagree 22.8% 23.8% 7.3% Strongly disagree 7.6% 7.3% 4.4%

Slightly disagree 9.7% 10.0% 8.0% Neither agree nor disagree

4.1% 4.1% 5.7%

Slightly agree 15.4% 13.8% 17.5% Strongly agree 18.2% 16.1% 24.2% Completely agree 21.6% 24.5% 32.6%

25

Table 4. What right or combination of rights people think should be guaranteed to everybody

Right(s) Number of respondents %

Only health 195 15.5

Only either: education, social security,

or housing

117 9.3

Both: social security and health 129 10.3

Both: education and health 160 12.7

Three: health, education, and social

security

212 16.85

The four rights: health, education,

social security, and housing

345 27.42

Other responses 100 7.94

Total 1258 100

26

Table 5. Regression models

Model A:

The four

rights

Model B:

Only

health

Model C:

Both

social

security

and

health

Model D:

Both

education

and

health

Model E:

Three rights:

social

security,

education,

and health

.261 .361 .466 .396 .230 Nagelkerke R2

345 195 129 160 212 N

Socio-economic characteristics

Reference category: Students, pensioners, in permanent

disability

Male, younger than 40 years, stable employment

Male, over 40 years, stable employment

Female, younger than 40 years, stable employment

.10** 2.72** Female, over 40 years, stable employment

Male, younger than 40 years, unstable

employment/unemployed

2.63** .134** Male, over 40 years, unstable employment/unemployed

Female, younger than 40 years, unstable

employment/unemployed

.19** Female, over 40 years, unstable employment/unemployed

Household income

Housing reference category: other

Housing (own and paid)

Housing (own and paying for)

8.18*** .04** Housing (paying rent, pre-1990 scheme)

Housing (paying rent, new scheme)

Level of education reference category: higher education

No education up to 4th

grade

5.99*** Up to 6th

grade

3.60** Up to 9th

grade / commercial / industrial

3.31** Technological

Specialisation

1.03** 1.05** .95** age

.691** 1.58** subjective income insecurity

children in household

Need-based elements

Only those who need should benefit reference category: 7

(completely agree)

Only those who need should benefit: 1 (completely disagree)

Only those who need should benefit: 2 (strongly disagree)

.261** Only those who need should benefit: 3 (slightly disagree)

Only those who need should benefit: 4 (neither agree nor

disagree)

Only those who need should benefit: 5 (slightly agree)

4.18** .34** Only those who need should benefit: 6 (strongly agree)

2.02*** .794*** Gvmnt... jobs for those who seek

Gvmnt...health care for the sick

Gvmnt... good life for elderly

.80** Gvmnt ... good life to the unemployed

27

Earn more... higher/same/lower pensions reference category:

neither of these options

Earn more... should have higher pensions

Earn more... should have same level of pensions

Earn more... should have lower pensions

Earn more... higher/same/lower unemployment benefit

reference category: neither of these options

Earn more... should have higher unemployment benefit

Earn more... should have same level of unemployment

benefit

Earn more... should have lower unemployment benefit

Contribution-based elements

Education in proportion to contributions reference category:

7 (completely agree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 1 (completely

disagree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 2 (strongly

disagree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 3 (slightly disagree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 4 (neither agree nor

disagree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 5 (slightly agree)

Education in proportion to contributions: 6 (strongly agree)

Health in proportion to contributions reference category: 7

(completely agree)

Health in proportion to contributions: 1 (completely disagree)

.209** 9.32** Health in proportion to contributions: 2 (strongly disagree)

Health in proportion to contributions: 3 (slightly disagree)

Health in proportion to contributions: 4 (neither agree nor

disagree)

5.98** Health in proportion to contributions: 5 (slightly agree)

Health in proportion to contributions: 6 (strongly agree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions reference

category: 7 (completely agree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 1 (completely

disagree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 2 (strongly

disagree)

4.33** Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 3 (slightly

disagree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 4 (neither

agree nor disagree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 5 (slightly

agree)

Social benefits in proportion to contributions: 6 (strongly

agree)

... only if we do or give something in exchange reference

category: 7 (strongly disagree)

2.77** .141** ... only if we do or give something in exchange: 1 (completely

disagree)

... only if we do or give something in exchange: 2 (strongly

disagree)

... only if we do or give something in exchange: 3 (slightly

disagree)

... only if we do or give something in exchange: 4 (neither

agree nor disagree)

...only if we do or give something in exchange: 5 (slightly

agree)

28

.11*** ...only if we do or give something in exchange: 6 (strongly

agree)

Always vote in elections

1.29** Important to participate in organizations

.59** Help those who live worse than us

.693*** Tell police about problems

Social rights consciousness

0.42*** 2.10*** Rights are guaranteed in Constitution

0.48** 3.02*** Workers have gained rights

Democracy since 25 April 1974

6.38** Social-democrat governments

Socialist governments

Conquer of unions

2.46** 2.73** 0.39** Pact between government, private sector, unions

Portugal joined the EU

1.45** .34*** Think or talk about welfare

Follow the news on social rights

Political participation

Member of a political party

Last 12 months have signed petition, went on strike,

contacted politician, etc

Ideology

Government should reduce income gap

Homosexuals should be free to live as they please

Left – right reference category: right

Left

3.20** Centre-left

Centre

12.62** Centre-right

*** significant at .01 level ** significant at .05 level

(cont) = variable treated as continuous to achieve model convergence.

Figures shown are Exp(B) for binary logistic regression models.

Dr. Laura Valadez Martinez, [email protected] Dr. Filipe … · 2014. 5. 7. ·...

Documents

Transcript of Dr. Laura Valadez Martinez, [email protected] Dr. Filipe … · 2014. 5. 7. ·...