In recent decades, European welfare states have adopted demanding active labour market policies (ALMPs), aimed at increasing labour market participation through imposing stricter work-related obligations and benefit cuts in case of job offer rejection. This article investigates whether support for such demanding ALMPs is driven by risk perceptions of future unemployment and negative stereotypes about unemployed persons. Insights into the role of risk perceptions and stereotypes offer opportunities to gain a better understanding of the impact of structural variables. Drawing on data from the European Social Survey 2016 in 21 European countries, the analysis reveals that higher subjective risk of unemployment decreases support for these ALMPs substantially, whereas negative perceptions of the unemployed increase support. However, these factors play at the individual level only and do not explain country-level differences in support of demanding ALMPs. The notable cross-national variation in support of activation policies is found to be unrelated to economic factors and to the strictness of activation requirements for unemployment benefits.
AndreßH-JHeienT (2001) Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review17(4): 337–356.
2.
BengtssonMde la PorteCJacobssonK (2017) Labour market policy under conditions of permanent austerity: any sign of social investment?Social Policy and Administration51(2): 367–388.
3.
BonoliG (2010) The political economy of active labor-market policy. Politics & Society38(4): 435–457.
4.
BothfeldSBetzeltS (2011) Activation and labour market reforms in Europe: challenges to social citizenship – introduction. In: BetzeltSBothfeldS (eds) Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–14.
5.
BuffelVVan de VeldeS (2018) Comparing negative attitudes toward the unemployed across European countries in 2008 and 2016: the role of the unemployment rate and job insecurity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research31(3): 419–440.
6.
BussC (2018) Public opinion towards targeted labour market policies: a vignette study on the perceived deservingness of the unemployed. Journal of European Social Policy29(2): 228–240.
7.
BussCEbbinghausBNaumannE (2017) Making deservingness of the unemployed conditional: changes in public support for the conditionality of unemployment benefits. In: van OorschotWRoosmaFMeulemanB, et al. (eds) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 167–185.
8.
CarrieroRFilandriM (2018) Support for conditional unemployment benefit in European countries: the role of income inequality. Journal of European Social Policy29(4): 498–514.
9.
CusackTIversenTRehmP (2006) Risks at work: the demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy22(3): 365–389.
10.
DaguerreA (2007) Active Labour Market Policies and Welfare Reform: Europe and the US in Comparative Perspective. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
DanckertB (2017) Facing unemployment: personal and vicarious unemployment experiences generate favourable perceptions of unemployed people. European Sociological Review33(6): 779–790.
12.
Diez-RouxAV (1998) Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health88(2): 216–222.
13.
DingeldeyI (2007) Between workfare and enablement – the different paths to transformation of the welfare state: a comparative analysis of activating labour market policies. European Journal of Political Research46(6): 823–851.
14.
EichhorstWKaufmannOKonle-SeidlR, et al. (2008) Bringing the jobless into work? An introduction to activation policies. In: EichhorstWKaufmannOKonle-SeidlR (eds) Bringing the Jobless into Work? Experiences with Activation Schemes in Europe and the US. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1–16.
15.
European Social SurveyRound 8 Data (2016) Data file edition 2.2. NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESSdata for ESS ERIC. doi:10.21338/NSD-ESS8-2016.
16.
FossatiF (2018) Who wants demanding active labour market policies? Public attitudes towards policies that put pressure on the unemployed. Journal of Social Policy47(1): 77–97.
17.
FuråkerBBlomsterbergM (2003) Attitudes towards the unemployed: an analysis of Swedish survey data. International Journal of Social Welfare12(3): 193–203.
18.
FurnhamA (1983) Attitudes towards the unemployed receiving social security benefits. Human Relations36(2): 135–149.
19.
GanzeboomHBGde GraafPMTreimanDJ (1992) A standard international socio-economic occupational status. Social Science Research21(1): 1–56.
20.
HandlerJF (2009) Welfare, workfare, and citizenship in the developed world. Annual Review of Law and Social Science5: 71–90.
21.
HenkensK (2005) Stereotyping older workers and retirement: the managers’ point of view. Canadian Journal on Aging24(4): 353–366.
22.
HoutmanD (1997) Welfare state, unemployment, and social justice: judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed. Social Justice Research10(3): 267–288.
23.
HoxJvan de SchootRMatthijsseS (2012) How few countries will do? Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Survey Research Methods6(2): 87–93.
24.
IacobucciD (2012) Mediation analysis and categorical variables: the final frontier. Journal of Consumer Psychology22(4): 582–594.
25.
JægerMM (2006) What makes people support public responsibility for welfare provision: self-interest or political ideology? A longitudinal approach. Acta Sociologica49(3): 321–338.
26.
KananenJTaylor-GoobyPLarsenTP (2006) Public attitudes and new social risk reform. In: ArmingeonKBonoliG (eds) The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States; Adapting Post-war Social Policies to New Social Risks. London, UK: Routledge, 83–99.
27.
KnotzC (2018a) A rising workfare state? Unemployment benefit conditionality in 21 OECD countries, 1980–2012. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy34(2): 91–108.
28.
KnotzC (2018b) Why countries ‘get tough on the work-shy’: the role of adverse economic conditions. Journal of Social Policy48(3): 615–634.
29.
KootstraARoosmaF (2018) Changing public support for welfare sanctioning in Britain and the Netherlands: a persuasion experiment. Social Policy and Administration52(4): 847–861.
30.
LaenenTMeulemanB (2018) Public support for the social rights and social obligations of the unemployed: two sides of the same coin?International Journal of Social Welfare28(4): 454–467.
31.
LarsenCA (2008) The political logic of labour market reforms and popular images of target groups. Journal of European Social Policy18(1): 50–63.
32.
MaassenGDe GoedeM (1989) Public opinion about unemployed people in the period 1975‒1985: the case of the Netherlands. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences25(2): 97–113.
33.
MeulemanB (2019) Multilevel structural equation modeling for cross-national comparative research. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie71(1): 129–155.
34.
MeulemanBRoosmaFAbtsK (2020) Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: the CARIN Deservingness Principles scale. Social Science Research85: 102352.
NaumannEBussCBährJ (2016) How unemployment experience affects support for the welfare state: a real panel approach. European Sociological Review32(1): 81–92.
37.
NaumannEDe TavernierWNaegeleL, et al. (2020) Public support for sanctioning older unemployed: a survey experiment in 21 European countries. European Societies22(1): 77–100.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics45(4): 595–628.
41.
PreacherKJZyphurMJZhangZ (2010) A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods15(3): 209–233.
42.
RehmP (2016) Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ReszkeI (1996) Stereotypes of the unemployed in Poland. Polish Sociological Review115: 253–263.
44.
RossettiFAbtsKMeulemanB, et al. (2021) ‘First the grub, then the morals’? Disentangling the self-interest and ideological drivers of attitudes towards demanding activation policies in Belgium. Journal of Social Policy50(2): 346–366.
45.
RuelensAMeulemanBNicaiseI (2018) Examining measurement isomorphism of multilevel constructs: the case of political trust. Social Indicators Research140(3): 907–927.
46.
SachwehP (2016) Social justice and the welfare state: institutions, outcomes, and attitudes in comparative perspective. In: SabbaghCSchmittM (eds) Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research. New York, NY: Springer, 293–313.
47.
SeikelDSpannagelD (2018) Activation and in-work poverty. In: LohmannHMarxI (eds) Handbook on In-Work Poverty. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 245–260.
48.
UunkWvan OorschotW (2019) Going with the flow? The effect of economic fluctuation on people’s solidarity with unemployed people. Social Indicators Research143(3): 1129–1146.
49.
van OorschotW (2002) Individual motives for contributing to welfare benefits in the Netherlands. Policy and Politics30(1): 31–46.
50.
van OorschotW (2006) Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy16(1): 23–42.
51.
van OorschotWMeulemanB (2014) Popular deservingness of the unemployed in the context of welfare state policies, economic conditions and cultural climate. In: KumlinSStadelmann-SteffenI (eds) How Welfare States Shape the Democratic Public: Policy Feedback, Participation, Voting, and Attitudes. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 244–268.
52.
van OorschotWRoosmaFMeulemanB, et al. (eds) (2017) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
53.
WeishauptJT (2011) From the Manpower Revolution to the Activation Paradigm: Explaining Institutional Continuity and Change in an Integrating Europe. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
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.
