1. A cultural polarization of welfare values? Peter Achterberg

2. Contextualizing in research Contextualizing as a means to extend research... Sometimes: Phenomenon y can be explained by x. Sometimes: Phenomenon y cannot be explained by x.

3. Is there ‘really’ a relationship? Yes!No! Number of studies showing the relationship Yes! No!

5. Some examples The degree to which class leads to tolerant values… The degree to which interethnic contact leads to ethnic exclusionism… The degree to which class determines voting… The degree to which income leads to happiness… The degree to which the influx of immigrants leads to downwards wage pressures…

6. THIS CALLS FOR…. More studies focusing on this particular relationship? NO!!!! One well-aimed study answering the question: How can be explained that sometimes x leads to y?

7. Opening the black box... of measurement: Apparently there’s something funny about the measurement of x and y... of context: Apparently there’s something funny about the context which causes these differences...

8. Measurement X Y X1X1 y1y1 YES y2y2 NO X2X2

9. Context X Y Z

10. Example: Distributive and retributive justice Literature: Chapter Houtman, Achterberg Derks (2008) Studies: class sometimes associated with support for the welfare state If much emphasis on obligations – no relationship between class and support If much emphasis on rights – there is a relationship between class and support

11. It depends on the measurement of support for the welfare state class Welfare state support C R YES O NO

12. Hypothesizing – two mechanisms Working class position Egalitarianism Support for rights of unemployed + + Cultural capital Authoritarianism - - Support for obligations of unemployed +

13. Hypothesizing – two mechanisms Working class position Egalitarianism Support for rights of unemployed + + Cultural capital Authoritarianism - - Support for obligations of unemployed + Support for rights vs. obligations of unemployed -

14. So, on the one hand: values on overcoming differences between the rich and poor

15. On the other hand values on overcoming the differences between ‘hard working people’ and the deviant ‘welfare scroungers’

16. Data and measurement Dutch data, 1997, Measures for class position, cultural capital, egalitarianism, authoritarianism Support for rights vs obligations of unemployed (composite measure, alpha =0.81)

17. Results: Class and support Deviations from mean presented No clear pattern in trend No statistically significant differences between the classes in their views on rights and obligations of the unemployed ClassSupport Class 1-.37 Class 2.05 Class 3-.09 Class 4.61 Class 5.37 Class 6-.35 Class 7.15 Eta.12(n.s.) N706

18. Explaining emphasis on the obligations of the unemployed (fig. 6.2, p 101) The economic mechanism is equally strong and opposite to the cultural mechanism Because of the a cross pressure mechanism at work class position cannot directly affect the dependent variable Class indicators Cultural capital indicators Egalitarianism authoritarianism Emphasis on obligations -0.24 0.25

19. Conclusion 1 Support for rights and obligations of the unemployed is not simply a matter of distributive justice It is also a matter of retributive justice By breaking open the measurement, and hypothesizing about it, we can now explain why sometimes class affects welfare support…

20. Example Contextualizing… A cultural polarization of welfare values in Great Britain Background: Hardening welfare attitudes, Tom Sefton (2003) X Y Z

21. Background, hardening welfare values British public increasingly thinks that the benefits for the unemployed are too high and that they discourage work Correlation 0.75; p<0.01, n=19

22. Background, hardening welfare values British public increasingly agrees that if benefits weren’t so generous people would learn to stand on their two feet Correlation 0.78; p<0.01, n=15

23. Background, hardening welfare values British public increasingly agrees that many social security claimants deserve no help Correlation 0.73; p<0.01, n=15

24. Background, Hardening welfare values? Among the British public welfare values are hardening Correlation 0.75; p<0.01, n=15

25. Background, Hardening among lower income groups Higher income groups’ values are tougher than those of lower income groups Among the lower income groups values are hardening Correlation -0.30 The question is: WHY? Apparently there’s something funny about the context which causes these differences...

26. Hypothesizing changes in time This ‘hardening’ of welfare values suggests that something may be changing in the way the distributional and retributional mechanism affect welfare values From class to culture Inglehart(1997), Hechter(2002), A new political culture Clark (1998) A politics of conduct Mead (1988; 1992) Class/ material issues no longer play a role of importance Egalitarian values may decreasingly affect welfare values Cultural / immaterial issues increasingly become salient Authoritarian values may increasingly affect welfare values

27. Schematic TIME Egalitarianism Authoritarianism ‘Hard’ Welfare values _ + + +

28. Results Explaining hardening welfare values in Great Britain 1987-2005. Multilevel analyses (Maximum Likelihood, entries are B’s, all variables were standardized using z-scores; N=27.627 in 15 years). # M1 M2M3M4M5M6M7M8M9 Constant Fixed effects -.04-.01 -.00.00 Year.21**.20**.19**.17**.15** Education-.05**.00-.00-.01 Income.05**.03** Authoritarianism.37**.38**.37**.38** Egalitarianism-.20** Interactions Year x authoritarianism.02* Year x egalitarianism Residuals.03** Individual level.95.94.81.77.76 Year level.06.02.01 Slope authoritarianism x 10 -2.06.03 Slope egalitarianism x 10 -2.17.07 Deviance768447682576745725367125371228712087120371196 Δ DF.12111111 *p<0.05; **p<0.01; # Due to missing values on the dependent variable in1988, 1990, 1992 these years is excluded from the analysis. Source: British Social Attitudes (1987-2005)

29. Summarizing Egalitarianism Authoritarianism

30. Once more: Why? Conclusion Egalitarianism decreasingly affects welfare values Authoritarianism increasingly affects welfare values The question is: WHY? Apparently there’s something funny about the context which causes these differences...

31. Welfare values in late-modern countries Declining inequality Poverty declines in the period under investigation, unemployment as well There is less need for egalitarian values Economic issues are no longer salient in contexts with little inequality Rising detraditionalization Beck, Giddens, Heelas: Institutions no longer structure life and behavior There is more need for values stressing order and debate about deviance Cultural issues are increasingly salient in highly detraditionalized contexts

32. Schematic INEQUALITY Egalitarianism Authoritarianism ‘Hard’ Welfare values _ + _ + SECULARIZATION

33. And… Interactions m9m10m11M12 Year x authoritarianism.02*.00 Year x egalitarianism.03**.01 Secularization x authoritarianism.02* Economic insecurity x egalitarianism -.03* Secularization x egalitarianism.01 Economic insecurity x authoritarianism.01

34. Conclusion 2 Due to declining inequality distributive justice plays a smaller role in determining welfare values Due to rising detraditionalization, retributive justice plays a larger role in determining welfare values By breaking open the context, and hypothesizing about it, we can now explain why sometimes egalitarianism and authoritarianism affect welfare support differently Moreover, we can also explain why welfare values are hardening…

35. Summary: I’ve opened the black box... of measurement: Either as rights or obligations And know why sometimes class is related to support for the welfare state of context: Decreasing inequality and increasing detraditionalization And know why sometimes egalitarianism and authoritarianism affect support for the welfare state differently