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

1. 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, UK
Nam K. Jo SungKongHoe University, South Korea
Antonia Keung University of York, UK
Award ES/J00460X/1
spsw.york
@spsw

2. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
1. Background

Explore ‘culture matters’ for welfare thesis


‘Macro’ perspective


Broad conception, dominant beliefs, often post hoc explanations
‘Micro’ perspective


Often cited as important, typically in a loose manner
Public opinion, specific issues, unstable
Much debate; advances in data, concepts and method
spsw.york
@spsw

3. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
1. Background

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
spsw.york
@spsw

4. 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
spsw.york
@spsw

5. 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?
spsw.york
@spsw

6. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
3. Regression Analysis

Independent variables





Dependent Variables:




Societal values
Economic context (GDP per capita, growth, unemployment)
Political context (cabinet composition)
Historical Institutional context (welfare regime)
unemployment spending
family policy spending
maternity leave policy structures
Medium term averages
spsw.york
@spsw

7. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
3. Regression Analysis
Unemp Exp
(% PE)
Unemp Exp
(% GDP)
Culture
Matters?
✔✔
✔✔
Any Key
Values?
- Perm Laws
+ Toler
- Perm Laws
+ Toler
Other Factors?
Regime (SE)
Economy
Fam Pol Exp
(% PE)
Fam Pol Exp
(% GDP)
Maternity
Leave
(FTE)
Regime (SE)
Economy
spsw.york
@spsw

8. 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)
Regime
Left Cabinet
spsw.york
@spsw

9. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
3. Regression Analysis


Good degree of support for culture matters thesis
Some interesting findings


Some important limits



Interpersonal tolerance, religiosity
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?
spsw.york
@spsw

10. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
4. fsQCA Analysis

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
spsw.york
@spsw

11. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
4. fsQCA Analysis
‘[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
spsw.york
@spsw

12. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
4. fsQCA Analysis

Debate in QCA literature around time


cf. Institutionalist debates (e.g. Pierson, 2004 – time matters)
Schneider and Waggeman – two-step approach


Adapted here into a three-step approach


Remote and proximate factors
Remote, proximate and intermediate factors
Visualises influence of societal values in different ‘pathways’

Reflect on cases
spsw.york
@spsw

13. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
4. fsQCA Analysis

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
spsw.york
@spsw

14. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC
Consistency with HIGH
SPENDING of 0.886
Remote Factors
Note: differences on
traditional family values
conservative social norms
AND religiosity
Consistency with HIGH
SPENDING of 1.000 and
coverage of 0.776
Intermediate Factors
No clear impacts
Proximate Factors
spsw.york
@spsw

15. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
SOUTHERN EUROPEAN
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.966
Remote Factors
Note: differences on
traditional family values
CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL
NORMS AND RELIGIOSITY
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 1.000 and
coverage of 0.814
Intermediate Factors
No theoretically important
impacts
Proximate Factors
spsw.york
@spsw

16. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
LIBERAL
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of 0.753
Remote Factors
Two routes with combined coverage of 0.773 and consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.901
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES
AND conservative social norms
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES
AND RELIGIOSITY
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.913 and raw
coverage of 0.503
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.942 and raw
coverage of 0.613
Intermediate Factors
EXIT ROUTE
EXIT ROUTE
LEFT GOVERNMENT
Consistency with HIGH
SPENDING of 0.813 and
raw coverage of 0.265
left government AND
growth
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.957 and
raw coverage of 0.670
growth
Consistency with LOW
SPENDING of 0.946 and
raw coverage of 0.328
LEFT GOVERNMENT
Consistency with HIGH
SPENDING of 0.901 and
raw coverage of 0.315
Proximate Factors
spsw.york
@spsw

17. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
CONSERVATIVE/CORPORATIST
Consistency with NEITHER outcome
Remote Factors
TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES
Consistency with LOW SPENDING of
0.968 and raw coverage of 0.590
Intermediate Factors
No clear impacts
Counterfactual?
GROWTH + LEFT
Proximate Factors
spsw.york
@spsw

18. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
4. fsQCA Analysis

Regime effects strong?

Path dependency usually evident?


Conservative/corporatist regime a puzzle


Left politics in liberal regime? (EU?)
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?
spsw.york
@spsw

19. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
5. Conclusion

Shown value of in-between concept of culture?





Added support to culture matters thesis?
Suggests regimes and values interact or overlap?
Tentative findings – refinements, more tests to follow
Limits to approach here:


Facilitates empirical investigation of culture matters thesis
Data driven • Examples of societal values • Weaknesses in models
Further exploration: key cases, dynamic cases
spsw.york
@spsw

20. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
--- END ---
spsw.york
@spsw

21. Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Summary Of Solution Pathways
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC conservative norms religiosity  HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
SOUTHERN EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVE NORMS RELIGIOSITY  LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERAL FAMLY VALUES RELIGIOSTY  LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERAL FAMLY VALUES RELIGIOSTY growth  LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERAL FAMLY VALUES conservative norms growth left LOW FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERAL FAMLY VALUES conservative norms LEFT HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
LIBERAL LEFT HIGH FAMILY SPENDING
CONSERVATIVE/CORPORATIST FAMLY VALUES LOW FAMILY SPENDING
spsw.york
@spsw