Labourism Versus Social Democracy? Attitudes to Inequality in Australia and Sweden

Among the countries which form the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Sweden and Australia are often seen as belonging to opposite ends of the spectrum. While the levels of taxes and government spending in Sweden are the highest in the OECD, Australia is amongst the lowest taxers and spenders. Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study also reveals considerable differences in the distribution of economic well-being, with Sweden having the most equal income distribution and Australia coming towards the bottom of the income inequality ranking of countries included in the Study. This report asks to what extent these and other differences between Australia and Sweden have been accompanied by distinctly different attitudes to inequality. Using data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) various dimensions of attitudes to inequality are mapped and analysed

Riots, demonstrations, strikes and the Coalition programme

The current UK government’s policies include headlong spending cuts and a far-reaching restructuring of public provision. State welfare arguably contributes to political legitimacy and social stability, as well as to better social conditions and economic prosperity. The fact that current policies bear disproportionately on lower income groups may damage legitimacy. This article analyses a dataset covering 26 countries for more than two decades to show that spending cuts, privatisation and increases in poverty undermine legitimacy. It uses a direct measure of legitimacy in terms of the frequency of riots and political demonstrations and strikes rather than the usual indirect measures in terms of attitudes and trust in government. Findings in relation to the increased work-centredness of the benefit and labour market reforms are more equivocal: a stricter benefit regime may not undermine legitimacy

Support for Redistribution in Western Europe: Assessing the role of religion

Previous sociological studies have paid little attention to religion as a central determinant of individual preferences for redistribution. In this article we argue that religious individuals, living in increasingly secular societies, differ in political preferences from their secular counterparts. Based on the theory of religious cleavages, we expect that religious individuals will oppose income redistribution by the state. Furthermore, in contexts where the polarization between religious and secular individuals is large, preferences for redistribution will be lower. In the empirical analysis we test our predictions in a multilevel framework, using data from the European Social Survey 2002–2006 for 16 Western European countries. After controlling for a wide range of individual socio-economic factors and for welfare-state policies, religion plays and important explanatory role. We find that both Catholics and Protestants strongly oppose income redistribution by the state. The cleavage between religious and secular individuals is far more important than the difference between denominations. Using a refined measure of religious polarization, we also find that in more polarized context the overall level of support for redistribution is lower

Political legitimacy and welfare state futures: Introduction

Welfare attitudes are pivotal in understanding the preferences and demands of citizens to help shape future policy reforms in welfare states. Accordingly, and due to the availability of large scale comparative survey data on attitudes, large numbers of studies of welfare attitudes have emerged during the past few decades. However, some limitations still exist in the field, such as the background assumptions informing the questionnaire design and top down framing of issues, the population represented and finally limitations in teasing out the causal mechanisms of relationships, especially pertaining to that of policy reform. This regional issue brings together papers that address some of these issues and others in welfare attitude research to provide some guidance for future studies. This paper first summarises the existing studies on welfare attitudes to identify some of the key limitations, and introduces the five articles in this special issue. It concludes with some suggestions for future studies in welfare attitudes

Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom

The development of shale gas in the United Kingdom (UK) using hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as ‘fracking’, remains in its infancy. Yet understanding public attitudes for this fledgling industry is important for future policy considerations, decision-making and for industry stakeholders. This study uses data collected from the University of Nottingham UK nationwide online survey (n=3,823) conducted in September 2014, to consider ten hypothesises about the UK public’s attitudes towards shale gas. From the survey data we can see that 43.11% of respondents support shale gas extraction in the UK. Furthermore, our results show that women, class DE respondents, non-Conservative party supporters, and respondents who positively associate shale gas with water contamination or earthquakes are less likely to support the extraction of shale gas in the UK. We also discuss potential policy implications for the UK government arising from these findings

To what extent did the financial crisis intensify the pressure to reform the welfare state?

If ever there was momentum to roll back the welfare state, it is the (aftermath) of the financial crisis of 2008-09. All theoretical perspectives within comparative welfare state research predict radical reform in this circumstance, but does it also happen? Our data indicate that - at least so far - it does not. Focusing on a selection of advanced welfare states (the UK, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden), we find that these countries face similar problems and that their initial response to these problems is also similar. The latter is surprising because, theoretically, we would expect varying responses across welfare state regime types. Rather than retrenchment, we observe a first phase of emergency capital injections in the banking sector and a second of Keynesian demand management and labour market protection, including the (temporary) expansion of social programmes. Continuing public support for the welfare state was a main precondition for this lack of immediate radical retrenchment. However, the contours of a third phase have become apparent now that budgetary constraints are forcing political actors to make tough choices and introduce austerity policies. As a result, the question of who pays what, when, and how will likely give rise to increasingly sharp distributional conflicts. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Poor ‘Sociological Imagination’ of the Rich: Explaining Attitudinal Divergence towards Welfare, Inequality and Redistribution

Quantitative research has tended to explain attitudinal divergence towards welfare and redistribution through self-interested rationalities. However, such an approach risks abstracting individuals from the structural determinants of resource allocation and biographical experience. With that in mind, this paper draws on a qualitative study of fifty individuals experiencing relative deprivation and affluence in the UK and New Zealand to examine how lived experiences of inequality affect attitude formation towards welfare and redistribution. Scenario-driven vignettes were used to stimulate an applied discussion of abstract principles pertaining to welfare and inequality. Use of this methodological device proffered novel insight into the phenomenological effects of material position on public attitudes and policy preferences in a comparative context. The findings suggest that affluent individuals are less likely to acknowledge systemic features shaping socio-economic life. As a result, they exhibit a poor sociological imagination that is deployed in distinct and patterned ways to make sense of, and at times justify, economic restructuring. By contrast, those living in relative deprivation are more likely to advance accounts of intergroup relations and social location that emphasise the structuration of (dis-) advantage. Based on the findings, policy and political implications are considered for welfare and redistribution amidst rising structural inequality