In recent years, OECD countries have faced pressure to cut the costs of social security and different strategies have been utilized to achieve this:
Stricter eligibility requirements.
Reduced level of benefits.
Reduced maximum duration of benefits.
In order to better understand the political support for these three strategies, this contribution reports the results from a survey designed to measure which of them that the general population would prefer given the assumption that cost cuts are necessary.
A key difference between them is how they distribute the burden of cost reductions between different benefit recipients: Should the benefit reduction be equally distributed among all recipients (reduce the benefit level) or should it be concentrated on some groups (tighten eligibility)?
The main argument in favour of an equal distribution is that it would minimize the benefit reduction experienced by any particular individual. However, there are several arguments for an unequal distribution as well, for example that some groups could be less deserving (or include more “cheaters”) than others or that there could be larger efficiency gains from reducing benefits to some groups rather than to other groups.
For a given reduction in total costs, there is a trade-off between the desire to avoid large individual benefit reductions and the concern for protecting some groups of benefit recipients more than other groups. Different preferences for how to achieve cost cuts will reflect how individuals trade off these concerns.
We find large heterogeneity in how people make the trade-off and thus which of the strategies for cost reduction that they prefer. Right-wingers typically prefer to tighten the eligibility criteria, while left-wingers typically prefer to reduce the benefit level. Furthermore, we find that this difference does not primarily reflect different attitudes towards income and wealth redistribution, but are likely to reflect views about the deservingness of different groups and the importance of efficiency considerations.
Climate change is often perceived as a distant threat affecting people in distant places or distant future. Such perceptions could negatively affect implementation of necessary mitigation measures. Using experimental data from the Norwegian Citizen Panel 2014 (N=1714), we explore how different time and spatial context of risk reduction affects attitudes towards funding for climate and air pollution policies and how these characteristics interact with each other and with political orientation of citizens. The results of regression analyses indicate different rationale for both climate change and air pollution policies. Attitudes towards funding reduction of climate change risks are fairly consistent between different scenarios, whereas for air pollution a preference for homeland and delayed action is present. These results support the relevance of framing climate change as global. Moreover, we show that different segments of population based on their political orientation evaluate the funding aims diversely and assign different weights to the geographical attribute of the policies. We argue that better than framing climate change either locally, or globally, we should try to develop narratives bridging the division of global and local and making climate change a relevant issue rather than just a threatening and proximate one.
This study argues for a generic approach to selective exposure research. Empirically, we dismantle the relative importance of three different forms of selective exposure to like-minded political news that has dominated the communication literature: message cues, party cues and source cues. In a uniquely designed conjoint experiment, a large probability-based panel of Norwegian citizens was faced with news headline choices, randomly varying several different factors simultaneously. We not only show that the effects are in line with previous research but also, more importantly, that these effects are additive and distinct effects that prevail when three known countervailing forces are accounted for. We conclude that scholars should move towards a more generic and less country specific approach to selective exposure research.