2004
Volume 94, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

The Netherlands has changed in many ways over the past two decades: Duties have become more central in the ‘participation society’, there are fierce debates about the arrival of immigrants, and the aging society and the economic crisis are sharpening debate about redistribution and social provisions. How have the feelings of solidarity of Dutch citizens developed in this changing context? We know from previous studies that, in general, people feel most involved with the elderly and the sick and disabled, and are less concerned about the standards of living of the unemployed and immigrants. This ‘ranking’ in feelings of solidarity with target groups of social policy is explained by deservingness theory and is suggested to be invariable over time. But is that indeed the case? In this article, changes in solidarity views of Dutch citizens with regard to different target groups of social policy are analysed, using data from three waves of the European Values Study (1999/2008/2017) and taking into account individual background characteristics and cohort effects. Results show an invariable deservingness ranking and relatively stable feelings of solidarity. Solidarity with the elderly and the sick and disabled seems to be mostly depending on cohort effects: People from younger cohorts feel much less concerned with the living conditions of the elderly. Solidarity with immigrants instead, is largely determined by people’s political preference and education, while solidarity with the unemployed appears to be dependent on both individual characteristics and cohort effects. These effects do not get stronger (or weaker) over time. Despite the stability in feelings of solidarity the past decades, the strong cohort effects might predict change in the deservingness ranking in the future.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2019.4.006.ROOS
2019-11-01
2021-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albrekt Larsen, C.(2006). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
  2. Andreß, H. J., & Heien, T.(2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17(4), 337-356.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J.(2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter?Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 283-299.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J.(2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies a comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 415-427.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bovens, M., Dekker, P., & Tiemeijer, W.(2014). Gescheiden werelden? Een verkenning van sociaal-culturele tegenstellingen in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau en Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
  6. Bovens, M., & Wille, A.(2011). Diplomademocratie: Over de spanning tussen meritocratie en democratie. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
  7. Buss, C., Ebbinghaus, B., & Naumann, E.(2017). Support for the conditionality of unemployment benefits in 23 European countries, 1990-2008. Pp. 167-188 in W.Van Oorschot, F.Roosma, B.Meuleman & T.Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook, F. L.(1979). Who should be helped? Public support for social services. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  9. Coughlin, R.(1980). Ideology, public opinion and welfare policy; attitudes towards taxes and spending in industrial societies. Berkely: University of California Press.
  10. De Swaan, A.(1988). In care of the state: Health care, education, and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Edlund, J., & Svallfors, S.(2011). Cohort, class and attitudes to redistribution in two liberal welfare states: Britain and the United States, 1996-2006. Pp. 228-246 in P.Vanhuysse & A.Goerres (Eds.), Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies. Abington, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fridberg, T., & Ploug, N.(2000). Public attitudes to unemployment in different European welfare regimes. Pp. 334-350 in D.Gallie & S.Paugam (Eds.), Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gielens, E., Roosma, F., & Achterberg, P.(2019). Deservingness in the eye of the beholder: A vignette study on the moderating role of cultural profiles in supporting activation policies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 28(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goerres, A., & Tepe, M.(2010). Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: A comparative analysis of older people's attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research, 49(6), 818-851.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goul Andersen, J.(1999). Changing labour markets, new social divisions and welfare state support: Denmark in the 1990s. Pp. 13-33 in S.Svallfors & P.Taylor-Gooby (Eds.), The end of the welfare state? Responses to state retrenchment. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Inglehart, R.(1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. New York: Princeton University Press.
  17. Jeene, M., & Van Oorschot, W.(2013). The relative deservingness of the unemployed in the eyes of the European public. Pp. 95-116 in L.Halman & W.Arts (Eds.), Value contrasts and consensus in present-day Europe: Painting Europe's moral landscape. The Hague: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jeene, M., Van Oorschot, W., & Uunk, W.(2013). Popular criteria for the welfare deservingness of disability pensioners: The influence of structural and cultural factors. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1103-1117.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jeene, M., Van Oorschot, W., & Uunk, W.(2014). The dynamics of welfare opinions in changing economic, institutional and political contexts: An empirical analysis of Dutch Deservingness opinions, 1975-2006. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 731-749.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jensen, C., & Bang Petersen, M.(2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68-83.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kallio, J., & Kouvo, A.(2015). Street‐level bureaucrats' and the general public's deservingness perceptions of social assistance recipients in finland. Social Policy & Administration, 49(3), 316-334.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kootstra, A.(2016). Deserving and undeserving welfare claimants in Britain and the Netherlands: Examining the role of ethnicity and migration status using a vignette experiment. European Sociological Review, 32(3), 325-338.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kootstra, A.(2017). Us versus them: Examining the perceived deservingness of minority groups in the British welfare state using a survey experiment. Pp. 263-280 in W.Van Oorschot, F.Roosma, B.Meuleman & T.Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kotlikoff, L. J., & Burns, S.(2005). The coming generational storm: What you need to know about America's economic future: MIT press.
  25. Laenen, T.(2019). Welfare deservingness and welfare policy. New perspectives on popular deservingness opinions and their interaction with welfare state policies. Leuven: KU Leuven – Centrum voor Sociologisch Onderzoek (CeSO).
  26. Laenen, T., & Meuleman, B.(2017). A universal rank order of deservingness? Geographical, temporal and social-structural comparisons. Pp. 37-54 in W.Van Oorschot, F.Roosma, B.Meuleman & T.Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Laenen, T., & Meuleman, B.(2018). Public support for the social rights and social obligations of the unemployed: two sides of the same coin?. Norface Welfare States Futures thematic workshop: the social legitimacy of our future welfare state. International Journal of Social Welfare, 28(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Meuleman, B., Roosma, F., & Abts, K. (in print). Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: The CARIN deservingness principles scale. Social Science Research. doi: doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102352
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Otjes, S., Louwerse, T., & Timmermans, A.(2018). The Netherlands: The reinvention of consensus democracy. Pp. 53-71 in E.De Giorgi & G.Ilonszki (Eds.), Opposition Parties in European Legislatures. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pardos-Prado, S., & Dinas, E.(2010). Systemic polarisation and spatial voting. European Journal of Political Research, 49(6), 759-786.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pettersen, P. A.(1995). The welfare state: The security dimension. Pp. 198-233 in O.Borre & E.Scarbrough (Eds.), The scope of government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Reeskens, T., & van der Meer, T.(2019). The inevitable deservingness gap: A study into the insurmountable immigrant penalty in perceived welfare deservingness. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Svallfors, S.(1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283-304.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Svallfors, S.(2008). The generational contract in Sweden: Age-specific attitudes to age-related policies. Policy & Politics, 36(3), 381-396.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Svallfors, S.(2011). A bedrock of support? Trends in welfare state attitudes in Sweden, 1981-2010. SocialPolicy & Administration, 45(7), 806-825.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Van der Aa, M., Hiligsmann, Mickaël, Paulus, A., & Evers, S.(2017). Healthcare deservingness opinions of the general public and policymakers compared: A discrete choice experiment. Pp. 241-262 in W.Van Oorschot, F.Roosma, B.Meuleman & T.Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Lancker, W., Ghysels, J., & Cantillon, B.(2015). The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24(3), 210-222.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Oorschot, W.(2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Oorschot, W.(2006). Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Oorschot, W.(2008). Solidarity towards immigrants in European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(1), 3-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Oorschot, W., & Roosma, F.(2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness. Pp. 3-36 in W.Van Oorschot, F.Roosma, B.Meuleman & T.Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., Meuleman, B., & Reeskens, T.(2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2019.4.006.ROOS
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2019.4.006.ROOS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): : solidariteit; cohorteffecten; deservingness; European Values Study; verzorgingsstaat

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error