Numbers and attitudes towards welfare state generosity

Between pro-retrenchment politicians and segments of the media, exaggerated claims about the generous benefits enjoyed by those on welfare are relatively common. But to what extent, and under what conditions, can they actually shape attitudes towards welfare? This study explores these questions via a survey experiment conducted in the UK, examining: (1) the extent to which the value of the claimed figure matters; (2) if the presence of anchoring information about minimum wage income has an impact; and (3) whether these effects differ based on egalitarianism and political knowledge. Results suggest that increasing the size of the claimed figure decreases support in a broadly linear fashion, with anchoring information important only when (asserted) benefit levels are modestly above the minimum wage income. Egalitarianism, in turn, primarily matters when especially low figures are placed alongside information about minimum wage, while low-knowledge respondents were more susceptible to anchoring effects than high-knowledge ones

Numbers and attitudes towards welfare state generosity

Between pro-retrenchment politicians and segments of the media, exaggerated claims about the generous benefits enjoyed by those on welfare are relatively common. But to what extent, and under what conditions, can they actually shape attitudes towards welfare? This study explores these questions via a survey experiment conducted in the UK, examining: (1) the extent to which the value of the claimed figure matters; (2) if the presence of anchoring information about minimum wage income has an impact; and (3) whether these effects differ based on egalitarianism and political knowledge. Results suggest that increasing the size of the claimed figure decreases support in a broadly linear fashion, with anchoring information important only when (asserted) benefit levels are modestly above the minimum wage income. Egalitarianism, in turn, primarily matters when especially low figures are placed alongside information about minimum wage, while low-knowledge respondents were more susceptible to anchoring effects than high-knowledge ones

Peeping at the corpus – What is really going on behind the equality and welfare items of the Manifesto project?

The Comparative Manifestos Project (CMP) data set quantifies how much parties emphasize certain topics and positions and is very popular in the study of political parties. The data set is also increasingly applied in comparative political economy and welfare state studies that use the welfare-specific items rather than the CMP’s left–right scale to test hypotheses on the impact of political parties on social policies, (in)equality and the welfare state. But do these items provide a valid basis for descriptive and causal inferences? What do the items precisely capture? To answer these questions on concept validity, we use the new manifesto corpus data for German parties 2002–2013 and, to provide a further test, for US parties 2004–2012. Corpus data are the digitalized, originally hand-annotated and coded texts of electoral programmes. We assess the validity of the codings directly at the level of quasi-sentences by re-categorizing and subcategorizing the originally coded statements on equality, social justice and welfare state expansion. Although concept validity concerns about the data seem exaggerated, we find that theoretically relevant and meaningful variation is ‘hidden’ behind the original categories. Hence, our approach allows researchers to assess the substantive meaning of the CMP data directly, and we offer an efficient new strategy for testing more specific hypotheses on the impact of political parties on policy

Political parties and social groups: New perspectives and data on group and policy appeals

This article contributes to the literature on party appeals to social groups by introducing a new dataset on group and policy appeals in Scandinavia (2009–2015). In addition to coding to what social groups parties appeal, we collected information on what policies parties offer for the groups they mention and what goals and instruments they specify for such policies. The latter advance makes it possible to present new insights on the extent to which group appeals are actually substantial and meaningful. We find that left, centre, and right parties appeal to broad demographic categories rather than class. There are almost no appeals to the middle class, although the frequent reference to a category ‘all’ can be interpreted as a functional equivalent for middle class appeals. Finally, parties clearly still make substantial policy proposals and address concrete policy problems, but with only small differences in such appeals across the left-right spectrum

Motive attribution and the moral politics of the welfare state

This article explores the moral politics of the welfare state and the social conflicts that underlie them. We argue that existing research on the moralism of redistributive and social policy preferences is overly one-dimensional, with a longstanding concentration on attitudes toward welfare state beneficiaries. To widen our understanding of the phenomenon, we introduce the concept of motive attribution: that is, how people answer the question “what drives others to take the positions that they hold?” Doing so allows us to shift the subject of moralistic attitudes, with a move toward uncovering what citizens think of those who hold a given social policy stance. The article then lays out a first systematic overview of motive attributions using an original dataset built from nationally representative surveys conducted in ten Western democracies. Comparing responses across these countries, we draw out important cross-national differences in ascribed motives, including within welfare state regime types

The illusion of class in welfare state politics?

Social class, with its potentially pivotal influence on both policy-making and electoral outcomes tied to the welfare state, is a frequent fixture in academic and political discussions about social policy. Yet these discussions presuppose that class identity is in fact tied up with distinct attitudes toward the welfare state. Using original data from ten surveys fielded in the United States and Western Europe, we investigate the relationship between class and general stances toward the welfare state as a whole, with the goal of determining whether class affects how individuals understand and relate to the welfare state. Our findings suggest that, although class markers are tied to objective and subjective positional considerations about one's place in the society, they nevertheless do not seem to shape stances toward the welfare state. What is more, this is equally true across the various welfare state types, as we find no evidence that so-called ‘middle-class welfare states’ engender more positive middle-class attitudes than other regimes. Based on our analysis, we propose that researchers would do better to focus on household income rather than class; while income may not be a perfect predictor of attitudes toward the welfare state, it is a markedly better one than class

Yardsticks of inequality: Preferences for redistribution in advanced democracies

This article explores how preferences for redistribution among voters are affected by the structure of inequality. There are strong theoretical reasons to believe that some voter segments matter more than others, not least the so-called median-income voter, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to directly analysing distinct income groups’ redistributive preferences. In addition, while much of the previous literature has focused on broad levels of inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, it is likely that individuals respond to different types of inequality in different ways. To rectify this gap, we use data from the European Social Survey and Eurostat to examine the interactive effect of income deciles and various measures of inequality. Results suggest that inequality especially affects the middle-income groups – that is, the assumed median-income voters. Moreover, not all inequality matters equally: it is inequality vis-à-vis those around the 80th percentile that shapes redistributive preferences

The broad-appeal strategy and policy representation

Political parties frequently appeal broadly to different groups of voters with diverse preferences. However, the policy implications of this strategy are not yet understood. On the one hand, governments that appeal broadly may overextend their policy program and be unable to deliver on their promises. On the other hand, broad-appealing governments may focus on presenting different groups of voters with policy packages that are deliverable in order not to be punished by them in future elections. This article tests between these possibilities with data on social policy outputs, comparative manifesto data, and four different measures of government broad-appeals. The empirical analysis demonstrates that there is clear correspondence between what governments say they will do and what they actually do, regardless of how broadly they appeal. This suggests that the broad-appeal strategy does not undermine the democratic mandate theory’s vision of how democracy should work.</p

The Gait Deviation Index Is Associated with Hip Muscle Strength and Patient-Reported Outcome in Patients with Severe Hip Osteoarthritis—A Cross-Sectional Study

<div><p>Background</p><p>The Gait Deviation Index summarizes overall gait ‘quality’, based on kinematic data from a 3-dimensional gait analysis. However, it is unknown which clinical outcomes may affect the Gait Deviation Index in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between Gait Deviation Index as a measure of gait ‘quality’ and hip muscle strength and between Gait Deviation Index and patient-reported outcomes in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis.</p><p>Method</p><p>Forty-seven patients (34 males), aged 61.1 ± 6.7 years, with BMI 27.3 ± 3.4 (kg/m²) and with severe primary hip osteoarthritis underwent 3-dimensional gait analysis. Mean Gait Deviation Index, pain after walking and maximal isometric hip muscle strength (flexor, extensor, and abductor) were recorded. All patients completed the ‘Physical Function Short-form of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-Physical Function) and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales for pain (HOOS-Pain) and quality-of-life (HOOS-QOL).</p><p>Results</p><p>Mean Gait Deviation Index was positively associated with hip abduction strength (p<0.01, <i>r</i> = 0.40), hip flexion strength (p = 0.01, <i>r</i> = 0.37), HOOS-Physical Function (p<0.01, <i>r</i> = 0.41) HOOS-QOL (p<0.01, <i>r</i> = 0.41), and negatively associated with HOOS-Pain after walking (p<0.01, <i>r</i> = -0.45). Adjusting the analysis for walking speed did not affect the association.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Patients with the strongest hip abductor and hip flexor muscles had the best gait ‘quality’. Furthermore, patients with higher physical function, quality of life scores and lower pain levels demonstrated better gait ‘quality’. These findings indicate that interventions aimed at improving hip muscle strength and pain management may to a moderate degree improve the overall gait ‘quality’ in patients with primary hip OA.</p></div

Descriptive outcome data for the patients: mean Gait Deviation Index, hip muscle strength and pain for the affected limb and patient-reported outcome measures.

<p>Descriptive outcome data for the patients: mean Gait Deviation Index, hip muscle strength and pain for the affected limb and patient-reported outcome measures.</p