Welfare state reform in times of austerity is notoriously difficult because most citizens oppose retrenchment of social benefits. Governments, thus, tend to combine cutbacks with selective benefit expansions, thereby creating trade-offs: to secure new advantages, citizens must accept painful cutbacks. Prior research has been unable to assess the effectiveness of compensating components in restrictive welfare reforms. We provide novel evidence on feasible reform strategies by applying conjoint survey analysis to a highly realistic direct democratic setting of multidimensional welfare state reform. Drawing on an original survey of Swiss citizens’ attitudes toward comprehensive pension reform, we empirically demonstrate that built-in trade-offs strongly enhance the prospects of restrictive welfare reforms. Our findings indicate that agency matters: governments and policy makers can and must grant the right compensations to the relevant opposition groups to overcome institutional inertia.
Ballard-RosaC.MartinL.ScheveK. (2017). The structure of American income tax policy preferences. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 1-16.
2.
BechtelM. M.GenoveseF.ScheveK. F. (2017). Interests, norms, and support for the provision of global public goods: The case of climate cooperation. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000205
3.
BechtelM. M.HainmuellerJ.MargalitY. (2014). Preferences for international redistribution: The divide over the Eurozone bailouts. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 835-856.
BonoliG. (2000). The politics of pension reform: Institutions and policy change in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BonoliG. (2005). The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states. Policy & Politics, 33, 431-449.
7.
BonoliG.NataliD. (Eds.). (2012). The politics of the new welfare state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BornschierS. (2015). The new cultural conflict, polarization, and representation in the Swiss party system, 1975–2011. Swiss Political Science Review, 21, 680-701.
9.
BrooksC.ManzaJ. (2008). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
10.
BusemeyerM. R.GarritzmannJ. L. (2017). Public opinion on policy and budgetary trade-offs in European welfare states: Evidence from a new comparative survey. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 871-889.
11.
BusemeyerM. R.NeimannsE. (2017). Conflictive preferences towards social investments and transfers in mature welfare states: The cases of unemployment benefits and childcare provision. Journal of European Social Policy, 27, 229-246.
12.
CoxR. H. (2001). The social construction of an imperative: Why welfare reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics, 53, 463-498.
13.
Esping-AndersenG. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
GallegoA.MarxP. (2017). Multi-dimensional preferences for labour market reforms: A conjoint experiment. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1027-1047.
15.
GigerN.NelsonM. (2011). The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: Blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity?European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 1-23.
16.
GigerN.NelsonM. (2013). The welfare state or the economy? Preferences, constituencies, and strategies for retrenchment. European Sociological Review, 29, 1083-1094.
17.
GingrichJ. (2014). Visibility, values, and voters: The informational role of the welfare state. The Journal of Politics, 76, 565-580.
18.
GreenP. E.KriegerA. M.WindY. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, 56-73.
19.
HackerJ. S. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98, 243-260.
20.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 2395-2400.
21.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 529-548.
22.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1-30.
23.
HäusermannS. (2010). The politics of welfare state reform in continental Europe: Modernization in hard times. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HemerijckA. (2013). Changing welfare states. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
HoriuchiY.SmithD. M.YamamotoT. (2018). Measuring voters’ multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 election. Political Analysis, 26(2), 190-209.
26.
HuberE.StephensJ. D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
HuberE.StephensJ. D. (2015). Postindustrial social policy. In Be-RamendiP.HäusermannS.KitscheltH.KriesiH. (Eds.), The politics of advanced capitalism (pp. 112-132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ImmergutE. M.AndersonK. M.SchulzeI. (2007). The handbook of west European pension politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
JensenC. (2012). Labour market-versus life course-related social policies: Understanding cross-programme differences. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 275-291.
30.
KitscheltH. (2001). Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment: When do politicians choose unpopular policies? In PiersonP. (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 265-302). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
KnotzC.LindvallJ. (2015). Coalitions and compensation: The case of unemployment benefit duration. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 586-615.
32.
KuhnleS. (2002). Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. The Survival of the European welfare state. London, England: Routledge.
33.
LevyJ. D. (1999). Vice into virtue? Progressive politics and welfare reform in continental Europe. Politics & Society, 27, 239-273.
34.
LindvallJ. (2017). Economic downturns and political competition since the 1870s. The Journal of Politics, 79, 1302-1314.
35.
LuskinR. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 331-361.
36.
MutzD. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
NataliD.RhodesM. (2004). Trade-offs and veto players: Reforming pensions in France and Italy. French Politics, 2(1), 1-23.
38.
PalierB. (2010). Changing Welfare States. A long goodbye to Bismarck? The politics of welfare reforms in continental Europe. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
39.
PiersonP. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.
40.
PiersonP. (2001a). Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. In PiersonP. (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 410-456). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
PiersonP. (2001b). The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
RehmP. (2016). Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Risk inequality and welfare states: Social policy preferences, development, and dynamics (1st ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
RehmP.HackerJ. S.SchlesingerM. (2012). Insecure alliances: Risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state. American Political Science Review, 106, 386-406.
44.
RhodesM. (2001). The political economy of social pacts: Competitive corporatism and European welfare reform. In PiersonP. (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 165-196). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45.
VailM. (2010). Recasting welfare capitalism: Economic adjustment in contemporary France and Germany. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
46.
Van OorschotW. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23-42.
47.
VisB. (2016). Taking stock of the comparative literature on the role of blame avoidance strategies in social policy reform. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 18, 122-137.
48.
WallanderL. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38, 505-520.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
