Exploring Culture and Welfare Regimes: Can the examination of cross-national differences in societal...
21
@spsw spsw.yor k Department of Social Policy and Social Exploring Culture and Welfare Regimes Can the examination of cross-national differences in societal values help us to understand differences in welfare state activity? John Hudson University of York, UK Nam K. Jo SungKongHoe University, South Korea Antonia Keung University of York, UK Award ES/J00460X/1
-
Upload
university-of-york -
Category
Technology
-
view
399 -
download
0
description
Exploring Culture and Welfare Regimes: can the examination of cross-national differences in societal values help us to understand differences in welfare state activity? John Hudson*, Nam Jo** and Antonia Keung* Abstract Though culture is often suggested to be central to the understanding of cross-national differences in welfare state activity (Castles 1994, for instance, identified families of nations partly on this basis), there are few studies that have attempted to systematically analyse the influence of culture on welfare state types empirically. In part this is because both an absence of data and clear conceptions of culture have hampered such analyses. However, successive waves of both the European Values Survey and World Values Survey now provide us with detailed data on societal values stretching back over several decades. Moreover, recent debates about how this data might be used to identify stable societal values as a proxy measure of national culture (Jo, 2011) have provided us with the methodological and conceptual tools required to advance our understanding of the links between culture and welfare using cross-national quantitative data sets. This paper reports on the second stage of a project that builds on these advances in order to further our understanding of the links between culture and welfare. The first stage of the project (the main results of which are summarised here) used successive waves of the EVS and WVS to identify stable societal values in a sample of 59 countries from 1981 to the present. Using principal components analysis 10 societal values were identified in this phase of the analysis. The second stage, which forms the core focus of this paper, explores how far these cross national differences in societal values can be used help us understand how culture relates to the different typologies of welfare that have been at the heart of comparative social policy analysis since the publication of Esping-Andersen's ground breaking work (1990). Using a mixture of quantitative and fuzzy set methods (Ragin, 2000), we explore whether culture can be usefully incorporated within typologies of welfare both as one key aspect differentiating welfare systems cross-nationally and as one of the causal factors underpinning the development of distinctive long run path dependent trajectories of welfare states. Acknowledgement: This research is supported by the UK Economic Social Research Council award ES/J00460X/1. * = University of York, UK ** = Sungkonghoe University, South Korea
Transcript of Exploring Culture and Welfare Regimes: Can the examination of cross-national differences in societal...
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Exploring Culture and Welfare Regimes Can the examination of cross-national differences in societal values help us to understand differences in welfare state activity?
John Hudson University of York, UKNam K. Jo SungKongHoe University, South KoreaAntonia Keung University of York, UK
Award ES/J00460X/1
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
1. Background
Explore ‘culture matters’ for welfare thesis Often cited as important, typically in a loose manner
‘Macro’ perspective Broad conception, dominant beliefs, often post hoc explanations
‘Micro’ perspective Public opinion, specific issues, unstable
Much debate; advances in data, concepts and method
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Jo (2011) culture as stable societal values More concrete than macro More enduring than micro
Cultural context of social policy making Avoid cultural determinism Interplay of politics, economics, institutions and culture Not a decisive influence, but a significant one
1. Background
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
2. Societal Values
Extract examples of societal values: Data from successive waves EVS/WVS data 1981-2009 173 societal cases • 59 countries x max 4 time points • 243,975 responses Factor analysis of pooled data • manual inspection and reanalysis End goal: identify stable and distinct examples of societal values Built on work of Hofstede, Jo, Schwartz, van de Vijver et al
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
2. Societal Values
Societal Value Example Survey Item
Relgiosity God is important in my life
Conservative Social Norms Is divorce permissible?
Permissive Values on Adherence to Laws Justifiable to cheat on taxes?
Optimistic Values Satisfied with your life?
Traditional Family Values Is marriage an out-dated institution?
Interpersonal tolerance Would you not like heavy drinkers as your neigbours?
Political Activeness Do you participate in lawful demonstrations?
Political Orientedness Do you regularly discuss politics with friends?
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Independent variables Societal values Economic context (GDP per capita, growth, unemployment) Political context (cabinet composition) Historical Institutional context (welfare regime)
Dependent Variables: unemployment spending family policy spending maternity leave policy structures
Medium term averages
3. Regression Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
3. Regression Analysis
Unemp Exp (% PE)
Unemp Exp (% GDP)
Fam Pol Exp (% PE)
Fam Pol Exp (% GDP)
Maternity Leave (FTE)
Culture Matters?
✔✔ ✔✔
Any Key Values?
- Perm Laws+ Toler
- Perm Laws+ Toler
Other Factors? Regime (SE)Economy
Regime (SE)Economy
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
3. Regression Analysis
Unemp Exp (% PE)
Unemp Exp (% GDP)
Fam Pol Exp (% PE)
Fam Pol Exp (% GDP)
Maternity Leave (FTE)
Culture Matters?
✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔
Any Key Values?
- Perm Laws+ Toler
- Perm Laws+ Toler
- Religiosity+ Con Norms
- Religiosity - Religiosity+ Con Norms
+ Toler+ Perm Laws+ Opt Val
Other Factors? Regime (SE)Economy
Regime (SE)Economy
Regime Regime (SD)
RegimeLeft Cabinet
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Good degree of support for culture matters thesis Some interesting findings
Interpersonal tolerance, religiosity Some important limits
Data driven, intepretation, gaps in data Only examples of societal values
Puzzle around family policy spending Impact of culture less clear in models Could be a DV issue? Influence of traditional family values absent?
3. Regression Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Small but growing body of fsQCA rooted work
Key features: Case based analysis Membership of conceptually rooted, researcher determined, (fuzzy) sets Not linear
Key principles include: Conjunctural causation Equifinality
4. fsQCA Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
‘[QCA views] causal conditions not as adversaries in the struggle to explain variation in dependent variables, but as potential collaborators in the production of outcomes. The key issue is not which variable is the strongest (i.e., has the biggest net effect), but how different conditions combine and whether there is only one or several different combinations of conditions (causal “recipes”) capable of generating the same outcome.’
Ragin, 2008
4. fsQCA Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Debate in QCA literature around time cf. Institutionalist debates (e.g. Pierson, 2004 – time matters) Schneider and Waggeman – two-step approach
Remote and proximate factors
Adapted here into a three-step approach Remote, proximate and intermediate factors
Visualises influence of societal values in different ‘pathways’ Reflect on cases
4. fsQCA Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Build directly on regression models
Family policy spending (% GDP) Least clear explanation Puzzling role of traditional family values Take significant elements from regression + TFV
Set memberships mainly determined arithmetically
Somewhat tentative and experimental
4. fsQCA Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Intermediate Factors
Proximate Factors
Remote Factors
No clear impacts
conservative social norms AND religiosity
Consistency with HIGH SPENDING of 1.000 and
coverage of 0.776
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC
Consistency with HIGH SPENDING of 0.886
Note: differences on traditional family values
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Intermediate Factors
Proximate Factors
No theoretically important impacts
Remote Factors
CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL NORMS AND RELIGIOSITY
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 1.000 and
coverage of 0.814
SOUTHERN EUROPEAN
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.966
Note: differences on traditional family values
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Proximate Factors
Remote Factors
Two routes with combined coverage of 0.773 and consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.901
growth
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.946 and raw coverage of 0.328
left government AND growth
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.957 and raw coverage of 0.670
LEFT GOVERNMENT
Consistency with HIGH SPENDING of 0.813 and raw coverage of 0.265
EXIT ROUTE
Intermediate Factors
LIBERAL
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.753
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.942 and raw
coverage of 0.613
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES AND RELIGIOSITY
LEFT GOVERNMENT
Consistency with HIGH SPENDING of 0.901 and raw coverage of 0.315
EXIT ROUTE
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES AND conservative social norms
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.913 and raw
coverage of 0.503
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
No clear impacts Counterfactual?GROWTH + LEFT
Intermediate Factors
Proximate Factors
Remote Factors
CONSERVATIVE/CORPORATIST
Consistency with NEITHER outcome
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.968 and raw coverage of 0.590
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Regime effects strong? Path dependency usually evident?
Left politics in liberal regime? (EU?) Conservative/corporatist regime a puzzle
Conflicted response to the new social risks? (esp in EU?) Role of religion? Some cultural variables operate differently in different regimes
e.g. traditional family values: no bearing in SD/SE but act against high family spending elsewhere. In Liberal regime interact with a high degree of religiosity
Culture and regime interact not a simple linear link, configurations matter?
4. fsQCA Analysis
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Shown value of in-between concept of culture? Facilitates empirical investigation of culture matters thesis
Added support to culture matters thesis? Suggests regimes and values interact or overlap?
Tentative findings – refinements, more tests to follow Limits to approach here:
Data driven • Examples of societal values • Weaknesses in models
Further exploration: key cases, dynamic cases
5. Conclusion
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
--- END ---
@spswspsw.york
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Summary Of Solution Pathways
SOCIAL DEMOCRATICconservative normsreligiosity HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
SOUTHERN EUROPEANCONSERVATIVE NORMSRELIGIOSITY LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERALFAMLY VALUESRELIGIOSTY LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERALFAMLY VALUESRELIGIOSTYgrowth LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERALFAMLY VALUES conservative normsgrowthleft LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERALFAMLY VALUES conservative normsLEFT HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERALLEFT HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
CONSERVATIVE/CORPORATISTFAMLY VALUES LOW FAMILY SPENDING
