Who Wants Demanding Active Labour Market Policies? Public Attitudes towards Policies that put Pressure on the Unemployed

The literature addressing attitudes about social policy and the welfare state has been telling us for decades that welfare interventions are supported by those individuals who benefit from a specific measure. The diffusion of ‘demanding’ active labour market policies (ALMPs), however, challenges thi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of social policy Vol. 47; no. 1; pp. 77 - 97
Main Author FOSSATI, FLAVIA
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.01.2018
Subjects
Attitudes
Beneficiaries
Employment policies
Human capital
Hypotheses
Ideology
Job hunting
Labor market
Market positioning
Politics
Public assistance programs
Public opinion
Risk
Sanctions
Self interest
Skills
Social attitudes
Social classes
Social exclusion
Social policy
Sociology
Unemployed people
Unemployment
Welfare state
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The literature addressing attitudes about social policy and the welfare state has been telling us for decades that welfare interventions are supported by those individuals who benefit from a specific measure. The diffusion of ‘demanding’ active labour market policies (ALMPs), however, challenges this relationship. Using a novel dataset, I analyse which individual- and country-level factors explain public support for demanding ALMPs in five Western European countries. The results show that labour market risk and ideological orientation influence public attitudes towards these ALMPs. Thereby, unemployed individuals sympathising with the political right are more strongly opposed to demanding measures than employed individuals with the same political preferences. Moreover, aggregate support is found to be correlated with the country's ALMP legacy, varying from high levels in Germany and the UK to low levels in Denmark and France. The findings suggest that most ALMPs are in fact implemented despite the opposition of their beneficiaries.
ISSN:0047-2794
1469-7823
DOI:10.1017/S0047279417000216