This article explores public preferences for European unemployment programs explicitly discussed in actual policymaker debate. European policymakers have been considering European-level Unemployment Risk Sharing (EURS) to stabilize member-state economies and provide a safety net for the unemployed. Using a conjoint experiment conducted in 13 European member states, we analyze public support across six crucial policy dimensions of EURS. The findings reveal that (a) overall support for EURS policies is broad and substantial, but sensitive to particular policy mixes; (b) citizen support is conditional on the program being generous and on coverage being limited to countries providing education and training and individual beneficiaries looking for and accepting work; and (c) cross-country variation is modest and most prominent with respect to cross-country redistribution.
AbramsonSFKoçakKMagazinnikA (2019) What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments?. 1–24. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
ArmingeonK (2021) Fiscal solidarity: The conditional role of political knowledge. European Union Politics22(1): 133–154.
3.
ArnoldMNGBarkbuMBBTureHE, et al. (2018) A Central Fiscal Stabilization Capacity for the Euro Area. Staff Discussion Notes No. 18/03. Washington: International Monetary Fund. ISBN/ISSN: 9781484348178/2221-030X
4.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2020) Using conjoint experiments to analyze elections: The essential role of the average marginal component effect (AMCE). 1–34. Unpublished manuscript.
5.
BarnesL (2015) The size and shape of government: Preferences over redistributive tax policy. Socio-economic Review13(1): 55–78.
6.
BauteSMeulemanBAbtsK, et al. (2018a) European integration as a threat to social security: Another source of Euroscepticism?European Union Politics19(2): 209–232.
7.
BeaudonnetL (2013) Preferences for European social policy in times of crisis. Politique européenne (4): 96–123.
8.
BeblavýMLenaertsK (2017) Feasibility and Added Value of a European Unemployment Benefits Scheme. Brussels, BE: CEPS, ISBN: 978-94-6138-576-5
9.
BechtelMHainmuellerJMargalitM (2014) Preferences for international redistribution: The divide over the Eurozone bailouts. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 835–856.
10.
BechtelMHainmuellerJMargalitM (2017) Policy design and domestic support for international bailouts. European Journal of Political Research56: 864–886.
11.
BeramendiP (2007) Inequality and the territorial fragmentation of solidarity. International Organization61(4): 783–820.
12.
BremerBGenschelPJachtenfuchsM (2020) Juncker’s curse? identity, interest, and public support for the integration of core state powers. Journal of Common Market Studies58(1): 56–75.
13.
BusemeyerMGarritzmannJNeimannsE, et al. (2018) Investing in education in Europe: Evidence from a new survey of public opinion. Journal of European Social Policy28(1): 34–54.
14.
BussCEbbinghausGNaumannE (2017) Making deservingness of the unemployed conditional: Changes in public support for the conditionality of unemployment benefits. In: van OorschotWRoosmaFMeulmanB (eds) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 167–188.
15.
CavailléCTrumpK (2014) The two facets of social policy preferences. The Journal of Politics77(1): 146–160.
16.
DeutschmannEDelheyJVerbalyteM, et al. (2018) The power of contact: Europe as a network of transnational attachment. European Journal of Political Research57(4): 963–988.
17.
De VriesCE (2018) Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
DollsMWehrhöferN (2021) Attitudes towards euro area reforms: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment. European Journal of Political Economy67: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101971
19.
European Commission (2017) Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union. 31 May 2017 (COM(2017) 291).
20.
European Commission (2020) Proposal for a council regulation on the establishment of a European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE) following the COVID-19 outbreak. 2 April 2020 (COM (2020), 139 final).
21.
FerreraMPellegataA (2017) Can Economic and Social Europe Be Reconciled? Citizens’ View on Integration and Solidarity. Policy Report, University of Milan.
22.
FranchinoFSegattiP (2019) Public opinion on the Eurozone fiscal union: Evidence from survey experiments in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy26(1): 126–148.
23.
GallegoAMarxP (2017) Multi-dimensional preferences for labour market reforms: A conjoint experiment. Journal of European Public Policy24(7): 1027–1047.
24.
GarritzmannJLBusemeyerMNeimannsE (2018) Public demand for social investment: New supporting coalitions for welfare state reform in Western Europe?Journal of European Public Policy25(6): 844–861.
25.
GelissenJ (2000) Popular support for institutionalised solidarity: A comparison between European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare9(4): 285–300.
26.
GenschelPJachtenfuchsM (2016) More integration, less federation: The European integration of core state powers. Journal of European public policy23(1): 42–59.
27.
GerhardsJLengfeldHIgnáczZS, et al. (2020) European Solidarity in Times of Crisis. Insights from a Thirteen-Country Survey. London, UK: Routledge.
28.
GigerNNelsonM (2011) The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: Blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity?European Journal of Political Research50(1): 1–23.
29.
HahmYHilpertDKönigT (2019) Institutional reform and public attitudes toward EU decision making. European Journal of Political Research59(3): 599–623.
30.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJYamamotoT (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis22(1): 1–30.
31.
HäusermannSKurerTTraberD (2019) The politics of trade-offs: Studying the dynamics of welfare state reform with conjoint experiments. Comparative Political Studies52(7): 1059–1095.
32.
HoogheLMarksG (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 1–23.
33.
JeannetA-MHeidlandTRuhsM (2021) What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment. European Union Politics2021: 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165211006838
34.
KanthakLSpiesDC (2018) Public support for European Union economic policies. European Union Politics19(1): 97–118.
35.
KleiderHStoeckelF (2019) The politics of international redistribution: Explaining public support for fiscal transfers in the EU. European Journal of Political Research58(1): 4–29.
36.
KnotzCLindvallJ (2015) Coalitions and compensation: The case of unemployment benefit duration. Comparative Political Studies48: 586–615.
37.
KuhnTKammA (2018) The national boundaries of solidarity: A survey experiment on public support for national and European unemployment policies. European Political Science Review11(2): 179–195.
38.
LahusenCGrassoMT (2018) Solidarity in Europe: A comparative assessment and discussion. In: LahusenCGrassoMT (eds) Solidarity in Europe. Citizens’ Responses in Times of Crisis. Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillan, 253–281.
39.
LeeperTJHoboltSBTilleyJ (2020) Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis28(2): 207–221.
40.
LengfeldHKleyFK (2021) Conditioned solidarity: EU citizens’ attitudes towards economic and social austerities for crisis countries receiving financial aid. Acta Politica56(2): 330–350.
41.
LupuNPontussonJ (2011) The structure of inequality and the politics of redistribution. American Political Science Review105(2): 316–336.
42.
RehmPHackerJSchlesingerM (2012) Insecure alliances: Risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state. American Political Science Review106(2): 386–406.
43.
RuedaDStegmuellerD (2019) Who Wants What?: Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
ScharpfFW (2002) The European social model. Journal of Common Market Studies40(4): 645–670.
45.
SchmidG (2019) European unemployment insurance?. A more modest approach in the short term, more ambition in the long term. OSE Opinion Paper No.20, ISSN 1994-28.
46.
SinnHWOchselW (2003) Social union, convergence and migration. Journal of Common Market Studies41(5): 869–896.
47.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.
48.
TsebelisGGarrettG (2001) The institutional foundations of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the European union. International Organization5(2): 357–390.
49.
VandenbrouckeFLuigjesC (2016) Institutional Moral Hazard in the Multi-Tiered Regulation of Unemployment and Social Assistance Benefits and Activation. A Summary of Eight Country Case Studies. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies. doi:10.2767/320452
50.
Van OorschotWRoosmaFMeulemanB (2017) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
51.
Van RompuyHBarrosoJMJunckerJC, et al. (2012) Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union. (December). Brussels: European Commission.
52.
VasilopoulouSTalvingL (2019) Poor versus rich countries: A gap in public attitudes towards fiscal solidarity in the EU. West European Politics43(4): 1–25.
53.
Von der LeyenU (2019) My Agenda for Europe: Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2019–24. Luxembourg, LU: Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/interim_en (accessed April 2021)
54.
WratilC (2019) Territorial representation and the opinion–policy linkage: Evidence from the European Union. American Journal of Political Science63(1): 197–211.
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.
