How does economic globalisation influence individuals’ welfare state preferences? Moving beyond the unidimensional understanding of globalisation exposure, we intersect two dimensions of exposure perceptions (gain vs loss and individual vs societal impacts) and propose a novel typology: collective winner, lone winner, lone loser and collective loser. We then explain the preference gap among losers (collective losers vis-à-vis lone losers) and among winners (collective winners vis-à-vis lone winners) by considering three distinct motivations for welfare state support: compensation, risk-pooling and inequality reduction. We illustrate the usefulness of our typology using an original survey in South Korea. We find that lone winners are far more supportive of welfare spending than collective winners. At the same time, collective losers are found to be much more supportive of welfare spending than lone losers. We provide some first-cut evidence that the insurance-seeking motivation common to lone winners and collective losers drive their welfare state support.
AarøeLPetersenMB (2014) Crowding out culture: Scandinavians and Americans agree on social welfare in the face of deservingness cues. Journal of Politics76(3): 684–697.
2.
AnMYPengI (2016) Diverging paths? A comparative look at childcare policies in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Social Policy & Administration50(5): 540–558.
3.
BélandDCoxRH (2016) Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy23(3): 428–445.
BurgoonB (2001) Globalization and welfare compensation: Disentangling the ties that bind. International Organization55(3): 509–551.
6.
BurgoonB (2012) Partisan embedding of liberalism: How trade, investment, and immigration affect party support for the welfare state. Comparative Political Studies45(5): 606–635.
7.
BusemeyerMRGarritzmannJL (2017) The effect of economic globalization on compensatory and social investment policies compared: A multi-level analysis of OECD countries. DaWS Working Paper Series, No. 2, 29 November. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
8.
CaoXPrakashAWardMD (2007) Protecting jobs in the age of globalization: Examining the relative salience of social welfare and industrial subsidies in OECD countries. International Studies Quarterly51(2): 301–327.
9.
ColantoneIStanigP (2018) The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science62(4): 936–953.
10.
CusackTIversenTRehmP (2006) Risks at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy22(3): 365–389.
11.
DimickMRuedaDStegmuellerD (2017) The altruistic rich? Inequality and other-regarding preferences for redistribution. Quarterly Journal of Political Science11(4): 385–439.
12.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Estévez-AbeMKimY-S (2014) Presidents, Prime Ministers and politics of care: Why Korea expanded childcare much more than Japan. Social Policy & Administration48(6): 666–685.
14.
GarrettG (1995) Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy. International Organization49(4): 657–687.
15.
GingrichJAnsellB (2012) Preferences in context: Micro preferences, macro contexts, and the demand for social policy. Comparative Political Studies45(12): 1624–1654.
16.
HaE (2008) Globalization, veto players, and welfare spending. Comparative Political Studies41(6): 783–813.
17.
HaggardSKaufmanRR (2008) Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
HallPASoskiceD (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
HaysJCEhrlichSDPeinhardtC (2005) Government spending and public support for trade in the OECD: An empirical test of the embedded liberalism thesis. International Organization59(2): 473–494.
20.
HwangWLeeH (2014) Globalization, factor mobility, partisanship, and compensation policies. International Studies Quarterly58(1): 92–105.
21.
JægerMM (2009) United but divided: Welfare regimes and the level and variance in public support for redistribution. European Sociological Review25(6): 723–737.
22.
KangSHKimJH (2010) Estimating the economic impact of the 2008 Ham-Pyeong world butterfly and insect expo Korea-using regional input-output model. Korean Journal of Local Government and Administration Studies24(1): 61–78.
23.
KerrWR (2014) Income inequality and social preferences for redistribution and compensation differentials. Journal of Monetary Economics66: 62–78.
24.
KimSY (2007) Openness, external risk, and volatility: Implications for the compensation hypothesis. International Organization61(1): 181–216.
25.
KorpiWPalmeJ (1998) The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review63: 661–687.
26.
KosterF (2014) Economic openness and welfare state attitudes: A multilevel study across 67 countries. International Journal of Social Welfare23(2): 128–138.
27.
KuhnleS (2004) Productive welfare in Korea: Moving towards a European welfare state type. In: MishraRKuhnleKGilbertN, et al. (eds) Modernizing the Korean Welfare State: Toward the Productive Welfare Model. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp.47–64.
28.
LarsenCA (2007) How welfare regimes generate and erode social capital: The impact of underclass phenomena. Comparative Politics40(1): 83–101.
29.
LeeJ-S (2011) Economic impact of Andong mask-dance festival-using regional input-output model. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association11(1): 371–378.
30.
LimSBurgoonB (2020) Globalization and support for unemployment spending in Asia: Do Asian citizens want to embed liberalism?Socio-Economic Review18(2): 519–553.
31.
LimSTanakaS (2019) Work disincentive perceptions and welfare state attitudes: A survey experiment in South Korea. Governance32(3): 457–473.
32.
LimSTanakaS (2020) The paradoxical effect of welfare knowledge: Unveiling income cleavage over attitudes to welfare in South Korea. International Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 4 March. DOI: 10.1177/0192512120906009.
33.
LüXScheveK (2016) Self-centered inequity aversion and the mass politics of taxation. Comparative Political Studies49(14): 1965–1997.
34.
LüXScheveKSlaughterMJ (2012) Inequity aversion and the international distribution of trade protection. American Journal of Political Science56(3): 638–654.
35.
MargalitY (2011) Costly jobs: Trade-related layoffs, government compensation, and voting in us elections. American Political Science Review105(1): 166–188.
36.
MoeneKOWallersteinM (2001) Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution. American Political Science Review95(4): 859–874.
37.
NewmanBJ (2014) My poor friend: Financial distress in one’s social network, the perceived power of the rich, and support for redistribution. Journal of Politics76(1): 126–138.
38.
NooruddinISimmonsJW (2009) Openness, uncertainty, and social spending: Implications for the globalization—Welfare state debate. International Studies Quarterly53(3): 841–866.
39.
NortonMIArielyD (2011) Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1): 9–12.
40.
ParkB-G (2008) Uneven development, inter-scalar tensions, and the politics of decentralization in South Korea. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(1): 40–59.
41.
PotrafkeN (2019) The globalisation—Welfare State Nexus: Evidence from Asia. The World Economy42(3): 959–974.
42.
PritchettL (2005) A lecture on the political economy of targeted safety nets. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series 501, January. Washington, DC: World Bank.
43.
RehmPHackerJSSchlesingerM (2012) Insecure alliances: Risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state. American Political Science Review106(2): 386–406.
44.
RickardSJ (2012) Electoral systems, voters’ interests and geographic dispersion. British Journal of Political Science42(4): 855–877.
45.
RickardSJ (2015) Compensating the losers: An examination of congressional votes on trade adjustment assistance. International Interactions41(1): 46–60.
46.
RodrikD (1997) Has globalisation gone too far?California Management Review39(3): 29–53.
47.
RodrikD (1998) Why do more open economies have bigger governments?Journal of Political Economy106(5): 997–1032.
48.
RudraN (2002) Globalization and the decline of the welfare state in less-developed countries. International Organization56(2): 411–445.
49.
RudraN (2007) Welfare states in developing countries: Unique or universal?The Journal of Politics69(2): 378–396.
50.
RuedaDStegmuellerD (2016) The externalities of inequality: Fear of crime and preferences for redistribution in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science60(2): 472–489.
51.
RuggieJG (1982) International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization36(2): 379–415.
52.
SchafferLSpilkerG (2016) Adding another level individual responses to globalization and government welfare policies. Political Science Research and Methods4(2): 399–426.
53.
ScheveKSlaughterMJ (2004) Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 662–674.
54.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) Globalization and the Perceptions of American Worker. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
55.
Schmidt-CatranAW (2016) Economic inequality and public demand for redistribution: Combining cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Socio-Economic Review14(1): 119–140.
56.
SchwarzeJHärpferM (2007) Are people inequality averse, and do they prefer redistribution by the state? Evidence from German longitudinal data on life satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics36(2): 233–249.
57.
ShayoM (2009) A model of social identity with an application to political economy: Nation, class, and redistribution. American Political Science Review103(2): 147–174.
58.
StolperWFSamuelsonPA (1941) Protection and real wages. The Review of Economic Studies9(1): 58–73.
59.
YangJJ (2013) Parochial welfare politics and the small welfare state in South Korea. Comparative Politics45(4): 457–475.
60.
WalterS (2010) Globalization and the welfare state: Testing the microfoundations of the compensation hypothesis. International Studies Quarterly54(2): 403–426.
61.
WalterS (2017) Globalization and the demand-side of politics: How globalization shapes labor market risk perceptions and policy preferences. Political Science Research and Methods5(1): 55–80.
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.
