Umeå University's logo

When studying attitudes toward the welfare state or evaluations of welfare reforms, research has tended to focus on what people think rather than how they think about specific issues. Moreover, the effects of the mobilizing efforts of political parties on attitudes and belief systems are often theorized separately from the normative institutional feedback effects common to the welfare state literature. In this paper, I propose that elite political rhetoric and institutional norms may exert dual pressures leading to partisan differences in the propensity to think ideologically among the mass public, defined as a positive relationship between holding internally consistent attitudes and taking a partisan issue position. Drawing on the case of welfare service privatization in Sweden, I point out how the rhetoric of the right – emphasizing choice and private property – frequently contradicts norms about universality long espoused by the Swedish welfare state, while the rhetoric of the left – emphasizing equality of access and outcomes – is better aligned with such institutional norms. The analysis of survey data demonstrated that centre-right sympathizers, the prime receivers of conflicting elite versus institutional messages, frequently took a middling position, being neither positive nor negative, to the consequences of welfare service privatization, and that, unlike centre-right politicians and sympathizers and politicians of left parties, this position did not differ according to attitude consistency. Furthermore, political interest enhanced this relationship among right sympathizers but was of little consequence to left sympathizers, implying that in the case of a conflict between institutional norms and political rhetoric, only the most attentive sympathizers are likely to engage in ideological thinking on the basis of partisanship.

Previous research has highlighted that decentralization is key to understanding the marketization of the Swedish welfare state, while local political factors are important to explaining the subnational differences in actual degrees of welfare service privatization. Other research has highlighted the impact of pragmatism rather than ideology in local government's decisions to outsource welfare services, including policy diffusion through geographical proximity to highly privatized municipalities. However, little research has been done on the role or type of political representation and whether this matters to the diffusion of welfare service privatization. Thus, there is little knowledge about whether local governments are primarily responsive to public preferences, the ideological position of the local government, or influences from neighboring municipalities. Drawing on the literature on political representation and policy diffusion, I test three hypotheses: that the local governments are primarily responsive to public preferences (sanction representation), that local governments are primarily responsive to their own ideological position (gyroscopic representation), or that local governments are primarily influenced by outsourcing in neighboring municipalities (contagion). Using a time-lagged correlational design with survey data covering both local politicians and ordinary municipal residents, as well as public accounts of municipal outsourcing, I find that public preferences play a negligible role to the privatization process. A minor part of the between-municipal variation in welfare service privatization can be attributed to the preferences of local politicians (gyroscopic representation), while a more substantial part is due to pressures from outsourcing among municipal neighbors (contagion).

The gender gap in welfare state attitudes is the tendency of men to be less positive toward an encompassing welfare state than women. To study attitudinal gender differences at the individual level, this paper synthesizes prior explanations, focused on self-interest and norms, with a social identity perspective, centered on the process of social identification with a gender group. With representative survey data (n = 1515), covering social spending preferences in Sweden, this study uses a psychometric instrument to gauge the emotional and psychological centrality of gender to individuals’ concept of self—thus distinguishing between men and women with different degrees of attachment to their gender group (strength of gender identification). The results show a strong gender identification is negatively related to social spending preferences for men, but not for women. The findings are discussed in the light the influence of gender norms and masculinity threat, highlighting the structuring and normative implications of social policy for gender differences in attitudes toward the Swedish welfare state.

Background This thesis explores differences in the attitudes that men and women hold toward the welfare state by investigating previously neglected areas concerning how attitudes differ between welfare states, as well as the role played by emotional and psychological attachment to a gender group. The studies analyze how gender differences in welfare state attitudes relate to social policies and prevailing gender relations, as well as to the process of social identification with a gender group. They also provide evidence on the longitudinal development of attitudinal gender differences in Sweden.

Methods All four studies rely on survey data. One part of this thesis consists of a comparison between countries in Europe that utilizes a multilevel analysis to examine how the interaction between family policy and gender (in)equalities in the division of unpaid labor is related to gender differences in support for the government’s responsibility to provide social welfare. A second part consists of analyzing trends in multiple attitudes toward the Swedish welfare state, covering both normative and evaluative aspects of welfare state support for the years 1981–2018. A third part consists of examining welfare state attitudes in Sweden during the year 2018. Here, the focus is on social identification with a gender group and its potential role as an intermediary factor in the relationship between gender and welfare state attitudes. 

Results The gender gap in people’s support for the government’s role in providing social welfare varies among European countries, with attitudes differing most in countries where men and women share more equally in performing unpaid care and domestic labor. Conversely, men and women do not display differences in their welfare state attitudes in countries where inequalities in the division of unpaid labor are widespread. However, the relationship between gender (in)equality in unpaid labor and welfare state attitudes is shaped by the institutional design. In countries where family policies subsidize women’s caregiving within families without public alternatives—thus normatively conveying the resulting gender inequalities as corresponding to inherent differences in caregiving capabilities—this relationship does not exist. The last four decades of attitudes toward the Swedish welfare state demonstrate no clear trends revealing whether gender differences are diverging or converging; nevertheless, the correlational evidence of contextual variation in the attitudinal gender gap speaks in favor of progression in gender equality as being coupled with larger attitudinal differences. Regarding social identification with a gender group, this process is not connected with observed gender differences in people’s suspicion of welfare overuse in Sweden. However, when compared with both women and other men, men with a strong gender identification are less willing to increase social spending in Sweden. The observed relationships match the predictions made when theorizing social identification with a gender group as enhancing attentiveness to gendered self-interest among men under conditions of potential masculinity threat and thus increasing the likelihood of adopting stereotypically masculine attitudes toward equality and social welfare. 

Conclusions Gender differences in welfare state attitudes are not universal. An integrated theory of gender differences in welfare state attitudes should account for the interplay between structuring aspects of the welfare state and prevailing gender norms, and how these relate to psychological aspects of gender as a social identity. Attitudinal gender differences should therefore be understood in terms of what type of welfare state men and women are expressing their attitudes toward and how this welfare state affects gender relations. Attachment to their gender group seems to be of special importance for men’s attitudes. However, this is only true for dimensions where the welfare state can be viewed as a threat to masculinity by undercutting the normative connection between masculinity and breadwinning. 

In this study, we explore individual differences in suspicion of welfare overuse in Sweden. Focusing on previously underdeveloped areas, we find that the hitherto observed negative relationship between political interest and suspicion of welfare overuse is only valid for those who sympathize with political parties to the left (and to a lesser extent the Green Party). Conversely, individuals who sympathize with centre‐right parties or right‐wing populists differ little internally depending on their level of political interest. We also find a strong positive correlation between anti‐immigrant attitudes and suspicion about welfare overuse. Finally, we find that women are less suspicious of welfare overuse than men are, and that this cannot be attributed to gender differences in material risks or resources, education, experiences of welfare services, general trustfulness, anti‐immigrant sentiment or political orientation. Neither do gender differences vary according to strength of gender identification. Thus, being suspicious about welfare overuse is not likely to be perceived as a typically masculine or feminine posture. Based on our findings, we argue that future studies exploring partisan or ideological differences in perceptions of welfare overuse need to consider these in conjunction with political interest and political context; that rising anti‐immigrant sentiments pose a particularly serious threat to the legitimacy of welfare states, given their strong connectedness to suspicion of welfare overuse; and that gender differences in perceptions of welfare overuse are more fruitfully addressed through a lens of gender relations, rather than gender role stereotypes.

The Gender-Equality-Personality Paradox (GEPP) is the finding that gender differences in personality are at their largest in the most gender equal countries. Previous known studies have not examined this relationship over time. Examining this linkage is crucial to our understanding of gender differences and personality development. In the present study, we contrast evolutionary perspectives predicting a gender divergence in personality due to progression in gender equality against biosocial perspectives predicting convergence. Using data from all eight rounds of the European Social Survey (n = 235,339) across 32 European countries, we report three findings. First, in accordance with the evolutionary perspective, country-level gender equality is positively associated with gender differences in basic human values. Second, in accordance with the biosocial perspective, we find evidence supporting gender convergence in basic human values. Third, contradicting both evolutionary and biosocial assumptions, we find no evidence that gender equality causes gender differences in values. We argue that there is a need to explore alternative explanations to the observed cross-sectional association between gender equality and personality differences, as well as gender convergence in personality over time.

Previous research has shown a prevailing 'modern gender gap' in socio-political attitudes in advanced capitalist economies. While numerous studies have confirmed gender differences in attitudes toward the welfare state in Europe, few have addressed the reason for this rift in men's and women's views about the role of government in ensuring the general welfare of citizens. In this paper, I examine the relationship between gender equality in unpaid labour, family policy and the gender gap in welfare state attitudes. Based on data from 21 countries participating in the European Social Survey (ESS) round 4, and using a mix of country- and individual-level regression models and multilevel models, I find that there is a clear relationship between country-level gender equality in unpaid labour and gender differences in support of an encompassing welfare state. A more equal distribution of unpaid care and domestic work correlates with women being increasingly supportive of a large and encompassing welfare state, in comparison with men. This pattern holds when controlling for individual-level economic risk and resources, cultural factors such as trust and social values traditionally related to support of an encompassing welfare state, and beliefs about welfare state efficiency and consequences for society in general. This pattern is evident for countries with a low level of familistic policies, while no distinguishable pattern is discernible for highly familistic countries. These findings have implications for the perception of gender as an emergent social cleavage with respect to welfare state attitudes. The results are discussed in the light of institutional theories on policy feedback, familism, social role theory and previous findings relating to modernization theory and 'gender realignment'.

The aim of this article is to investigate the relationship between values and white-collar crime. The analyses draw on pooled survey data covering 14 European countries. The value constructs are derived on the basis of the theory of basic human values and seven value constructs are tested in relation to three types of white-collar crime: tax evasion, insurance fraud and bribery. The results show that a majority of the value constructs are statistically significantly related to white-collar crime in the expected direction. The relationships between values and white-collar crime are particularly clear-cut regarding tax evasion and insurance fraud but more mixed regarding bribery. The value constructs ‘universalism/benevolence’, ‘power/achievement’ and ‘stimulation’ yield consistent results across all three crime types. ‘Universalism/benevolence’ levels are negatively associated, while ‘power/achievement’ and ‘stimulation’ levels are positively associated, with odds of having committed white-collar crime. The results suggest that values are relevant predictors when trying to account for variation in white-collar offending.