2

Furthermore “variation between this ‘social model’ allows for the study of different contexts in a controlled setting” (Fraile and Ferrer, p.6).

Studying the effects on welfare spending cuts in different welfare regimes that distribute provisions differently between the state, market, and the family (Esping-Andersen 1990, pp. 69-77) allows an even more detailed analysis of attitudes towards social security. According to Eurostat (2006) statistics, there has been a decrease in social benefits as a % of GDP for unemployed in Germany, United Kingdom and Sweden from 1996-2003 affecting big public concerns following welfare state reforms in these three countries (The Swedish Institute 2005; ILO 1997). The different extent of welfare retrenchment within these countries in that time period allows a good comparison of its effects on social security felt by young people with low education.

According to EU statistics (The European Union Online 1996) virtually the same percentage of low-educated young people were unemployed in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom in 1995. This enables an analysis of the social security felt by young people with lower education, rather than a comparative analysis being influenced by absolute numbers of unemployed. The comparison of attitudes towards different welfare systems and their social security provided can therefore be assured.

The question raised in this comparative study is of major importance. Throughout Europe, unemployment rates are higher among young people than among the general population. In 2000, the rate of youth unemployment within EU was around 16%, more than twice the rate experienced by adults (7%). This makes the youth unemployment problem even more acute than that of overall employment (Eurostat 2004). Of particular concern are those young people in the EU that are low-qualified as the rate of unemployment amongst them can be up to four times that of their peers who have a higher education level (The European Union Online 1996). This clearly shows that people with a lower education are more dependent on social security, namely unemployment benefits, provided by the welfare state. In this era of welfare retrenchment that cuts back social benefits (Esping-Andersen 2002; Clayton and Pontusson 1998), it is most significant to identify people’s attitudes that are most reliant on welfare state support, namely young people with low education level that are likely to become unemployed themselves.

Analysing the influence of a decrease in welfare spending on the sense of security provided in different welfare regimes could furthermore give indications for the ability of different welfare states to respond effectively to current concerns; this ability “will inevitably differ due both to their inherent strengths and weaknesses” (Esping-Andersen 2002, p.13).

3

Section 2: The existing state of knowledge

Though the research question has not been addressed yet, some of the research done can be of major importance when trying to identify the influence of welfare retrenchment on how secure the welfare system makes young people with low education feel. Although the existing literature does not offer conclusive evidence on how age influences support for social security, Yang and Barrett (2006) argue that people’s attitudes towards the social security system certainly vary among different age groups. Blekesaune and Quadagno (2003), as well as Yang and Barrett (2006) support the argument that attitudes toward welfare policies are influenced by self-interest. This implies that people in a lower social location that possess less resources of their own are heavily dependent on social security are more likely to hold supportive attitudes towards the system, while those in a higher social position who have more resources and a lower degree of social security dependencies are less likely to do so (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003). Furthermore results from a multivariate analysis by Yang and Barrett (2006) clearly indicate that the better educated and the more affluent are less supportive of social security. There is a significant negative relationship between education and support for contributory programmes. Jæger (2006) highlights that total public social expenditure is positively correlated with support for redistribution, thereby indicating that in the two samples of 13 countries the bigger the total scope of the welfare state, the higher the probability of respondents expressing support for redistribution.

Considering the research done in this particular area, it shows that the parameters set in this comparative research have considerable influence on people’s attitude towards welfare states. Age, educational level, as well as the amount of welfare spending, remain important influences. But it also reveals the gap still prevailing in research on welfare state attitudes. As a subject of intense and passionate debate and one of the most important social issues of our times (Esping-Andersen 2002), the welfare state issue is well-researched. But “(…) unfortunately the literature on welfare regimes (is) somewhat discounted within comparative research on public attitudes towards the welfare state.” There has been very little research on why individuals hold different attitudes toward social security (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003).

Regarding contemporary existing research on this topic it becomes clear that “comparative research on welfare state attitudes has failed to establish a link between welfare regimes and popular support for redistribution” (Jæger 2006).

In addressing the research question, it would be of high relevance to clarify if the structural features of welfare states across the Western, industrialised countries, as conceptualised in the concept of welfare regimes, are systematically related to citizens’ attitudes towards the welfare state and its security provided. As Jæger (2006) argues the evidence from the existing comparative literature on welfare regimes and public support tends to be inconclusive.

4

Therefore an adequate research would require an analysis of a countries’ degree of membership of the different welfare regimes along a range of theoretically defining regime type indicators rather than treating countries as a priori ‘perfect’ representations of welfare regimes.

If doing so this comparative study would be able to enhance the existing knowledge by further findings, especially as it assumes, by analysing the same group of people in different countries, that the formation of public attitudes towards welfare state policies is both an individual-level and a national-level phenomenon (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003).

Section 3: Theoretical Approach

In order to explain which theoretical approach is most appropriate to the question raised in this comparative study, it is first of all necessary to get an idea of the perspectives that have been dominating sociological thinking. Each approach gives different explanations of society and its members.

Symbolic-interaction, being concerned with the micro-level, envisages society as shaped by interactions of people (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.26). In contrast to the research question which tries to identify changes in attitudes due to an actual decrease in money transfer, symbolic interactionism makes a major contribution to beliefs and values to change society and is therefore not appropriate to the question. Functionalism emphasises social integration and regards society as a whole being comprehensible, orderly and stable (…) having a natural order” (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.26). But as the research aims to analyse social patterns that apparently vary from country to country and are influenced over time by policy decisions, the functionalist approach is insufficient.

The feminist methodology focuses on the “social aspects of differences and hierarchies between female and male” (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.62). Though this comparative research does not take differences in gender into account, as recent research has shown, gender plays a part in analysing attitudes towards the welfare state. Women in general hold more positive attitudes toward welfare state policies than men (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003).

The conflict perspective, in contradiction to functionalism, highlights not solidarity but division based on inequality. It investigates how factors such as social class are linked to uneven distribution of money, power, education and social prestige whereby benefiting some people more than others (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.26). Though this proposal does not directly examine class conflict it is important to take it into account. There is persistent evidence of class and status group differences in attitudes toward the welfare state. (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003). As lower educated young people mostly come from a weak background (Eurostat 2004) it becomes clear that young people’s attitudes towards