Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T22:17:37.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United We Stand? A Household Perspective On The Impact of Public Employment on Attitudes towards Retrenchment of Welfare Spending

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

Troels Fage Hedegaard
Troels Fage Hedegaard*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Society, Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies (CCWS), Aalborg University, Denmark, E-mail: troelsfh@dps.aau.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the impact of public sector employment on attitudes to retrenchment of social spending from a household perspective. The idea the employees of the public sector will stand together to preserve public spending exists throughout the literature on support for and persistence of the welfare states. The empirical evidence for this link, however, has been poor. In this article, I show that this link can be established when studying it from a household perspective. Using a nationally representative survey from Denmark I show that people living in a household where one or both are employed in the public sector are more willing to spend more on the public sector. This effect is, however, only for some policies – unemployment benefit, social assistance, education grant, and integration services – which were generally the least popular policies in the eyes of the public.

Keywords

Public employmentwelfare attitudeshouseholdretrenchment
Type
Article
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 357 - 370
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. J. and Tverdova, Y. V. (2003) ‘Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91–109.10.1111/1540-5907.00007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arapis, T. and Bowling, C. (2020) ‘From maximizing to minimizing: a national study of state bureaucrats and their budget preferences’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30, 1, 144–60.10.1093/jopart/muz011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, Y. and Hansen, K. M. (2013) ‘Public employees lining up at the polls – the conditional effect of living and working in the same municipality’, Public Choice, 156, 3-4, 611-29.10.1007/s11127-012-9919-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. and Dion, S. (1991) The Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, M. R., Goerres, A. and Weschle, S. (2009) ‘Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 19, 3, 195–212.10.1177/0958928709104736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. L. (2012) ‘Policy makes mass politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333–51.10.1146/annurev-polisci-012610-135202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F. G. (2008) ‘What welfare states do: a disaggregated expenditure approach’, Journal of Social Policy, 38, 1, 45–62.10.1017/S0047279408002547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. and Postel-Vinay, F. (2009) ‘Job security and job protection’, Oxford Economic Papers, 61, 2, 207–39.10.1093/oep/gpn017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, J. (2002) ‘The Budget minimizing bureaucrat? Empirical evidence from the senior executive service’, Public Administration Review, 62, 1, 42–50.10.1111/1540-6210.00153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy, Boston: Little, Brown.10.7249/CB156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1972) ‘Up and down with ecology: the issue attention cycle’, Public interest, 28, 1, 38–50.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1979) ‘The urban basis of political alignment: social class, domestic property ownership and state intervention in consumption processes’, British Journal of Political Science, 9, 4, 409–43.10.1017/S0007123400001915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1980a) ‘The political implications of sectorial cleavages and the growth of the employment: Part 1. The analysis of production of cleavages’, Political Studies, 28, 3, 364–83.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb00475.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1980b) ‘The political implications of sectorial cleavages and the growth of the employment: Part 2, cleavage structures and political alignment’, Political Studies, 28, 4, 527–49.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb01257.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1986) ‘The growth of sectoral cleavages and the stabilization of state expenditures’, Society and Space, 4, 2, 129–44.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (2014) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Approaches in Political Science, London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315835228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlund, J. (2007) ‘Class conflicts and institutional feedback effects in liberal and social democratic welfare regimes’, in Svallfors, S. (ed)., The Political Sociology of the Welfare State, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Flora, P. (1989) ‘From industrial to postindustrial welfare state?’, Annals of the Institute of Social Science, special issue, Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, 154.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. N. and Page, E. C. (1984), ‘A critique of the consumption cleavage approach in British voting studies’, Political Studies, 32, 4, 521–36.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb01543.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garand, J. C., Parkhurst, C. T. and Seoud, R. J. (1991) ‘Bureaucrats, policy attitudes, and political behavior: extension of the bureau voting model of government growth’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 2, 177–212.Google Scholar
Goul Andersen, J. (1992) ‘Sources of welfare-state support in Denmark: self-interest or way of life?’, International Journal of Sociology, 22, 4, 25–48.10.1080/15579336.1992.11770045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedegaard, T. F. (2014) ‘The policy design effect: proximity as a micro-level explanation of the effect of policy designs on social benefit attitudes’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 37, 4, 366–84.10.1111/1467-9477.12022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedegaard, T. F. (2015) The Dynamics of Stability: How Processes of Policy Feedback Help Reproduce Support For The Nordic Welfare Model, Videnbasen for Aalborg UniversitetVBN.Google Scholar
Hedegaard, T. F. (2018) ‘Thinking inside the box: how unsuccessful governments, corruption and lock-in effects influence attitudes towards government spending on public healthcare and public old age pensions across 31 countries’, Acta Politologica, 10, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hoel, M. and Knutsen, O. (1989) ‘Social class, gender, and sector employment as political cleavages in Scandinavia’, Acta Sociologica, 32, 2, 181–201.10.1177/000169938903200204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenworthy, L. (2009) ‘The effect of public opinion on social policy generosity’, Socio-Economic Review, 7, 4, 727–40.10.1093/ser/mwp014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511622014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, O. (1986) ‘Social-classes and political values in Norway – the middle-class in the public sector and the new class’, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 27, 4, 263–87.Google Scholar
Knutsen, O. (1995) ‘Value orientations, political conflicts and left-right identification: a comparative study’, European Journal of Political Research, 28, 1, 63–93.10.1111/j.1475-6765.1995.tb00487.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, O. (2005) ‘The impact of sector employment on party choice: a comparative study of eight West European countries’, European Journal of Political Research, 44, 4, 593–621.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00240.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, O. (2013) ‘Structural determinants of party choice: the changing impact of socio-structure variables on party choice in comparative perspective’, in Müller, W. and Narud, H. (eds.), Party Governance and Party Democracy, Springer, 175–203.10.1007/978-1-4614-6588-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T. and Englund, S. (2013) ‘Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in western countries re-examined’, Social Politics, 20, 1, 1–40.10.1093/sp/jxs028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, E. G. (2017) ‘Welfare retrenchments and government support: evidence from a natural experiment’, European Sociological Review, 34, 1, 40–51.10.1093/esr/jcx081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, C. (2010) ‘Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it’, European Sociological Review, 26, 1, 67–82.10.1093/esr/jcp006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, W. A. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1985) Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, Cambridge: Mit Press.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1996) Modernity and the State, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, M. J. (2013) ‘Public service motivation and attraction to public versus private sector employment: academic field of study as moderator?’, International Public Management Journal, 16, 3, 357–85.10.1080/10967494.2013.825484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996) ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics, 48, 2, 143–79.10.1353/wp.1996.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001) The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattsø, J. and Sørensen, R. J. (2016) ‘Public–private political cleavage: what happens after retirement?’, Public Choice, 166, 3-4, 315-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosma, F., van Oorschot, W. and Gelissen, J. (2014) ‘The preferred role and perceived performance of the welfare state: European welfare attitudes from a multidimensional perspective’, Social Science Research, 44, 200–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svallfors, S. (1995) ‘The end of class politics? Structural cleavages and attitudes to Swedish welfare policies’, Acta Sociologica, 38, 1, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1997) ‘Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: a comparison of eight western nations’, European Sociological Review, 13, 3, 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S., Kulin, J. and Schnabel, A. (2012) ‘Age, class, and attitudes towards government responsibilities’, in Svallfors, S. (ed.), Contested Welfare States. Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond, 1st edn, 158–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, C. S. (2003) ‘Information processing and public opinion’, in Sears, D. O., Huddy, L. and Jervis, R. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 433–76.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1986) ‘Consumption cleavages and welfare politics’, Political Studies, 34, 4, 592–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepe, M. (2012) ‘The public/private sector cleavage revisited: the impact of government employment on political attitudes and behaviour in 11 west European countries’, Public Administration, 90, 1, 230–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TV2 (2019) ‘Unloaded horse manure at the steps of the Department of Moderization, sorry about the cleaning job’, https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2018-04-23-laessede-hestepaerer-af-foran-moderniseringsstyrelsen-men-beklagede-overfor [accessed 23.04.2019].Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1986) ‘The politics of blame avoidance’, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 4, 371–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, L. R. and Szücs, S. (1996) ‘The public/private cleavage in a welfare state: attitudes toward public management reform’, Governance, 9, 1, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar