Page 1 of 8
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 10
Publication Date: October 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.1010.15727.
Lee, E. K. (2023). How Social Values Affect Welfare Attitudes? A Cross-National Comparison. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 10(10). 240-247.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
How Social Values Affect Welfare Attitudes? A Cross-National
Comparison
Eun Kyung Lee
Adelphi University School of Social Work
1 South Ave. Garden City, New York, 11530, USA
ABSTRACT
This preliminary study examines how social values explain the cross-national
differences in welfare attitudes, grounded in Inglehart and Baker’s (2000) social
value theory. By employing secondary data collected by World Values Survey [WVS],
this preliminary study empirically tested two hypotheses: (H1) Nations that
emphasize the secular-rational values have more pro-welfare attitudes than the
nations encouraging the traditional values; and (H2) Nations that promote the
values of self-expression have more pro-welfare attitudes than nations that foster
survival values. Results of the study demonstrated social values significantly affects
public’s welfare attitude, controlling economic and ideological factors. People in
societies which promote the value of self-expression, such as respect for diversity
and political participation, are more likely to support more expansive social
welfare policies.
Keywords: Social values, Welfare attitudes, Comparative analysis, World Values Survey
INTRODUCTION
Social welfare policies are the products of interaction of the economy, politics, and public
opinions (Blau & Abramovitz, 2014). As public opinions toward welfare have played a role in
influencing development of social policies and welfare programs in a country, it is important to
understand the dynamics of welfare attitudes at the country level. Citizens in some countries
tend to support government roles in welfare provision, while the public in other countries have
had relatively reluctant attitudes toward welfare. The differences in public attitudes toward
welfare might be explained by the individual factors, including socio-economic characteristics
(income, employment status, education, and perceived social class) and demographic features
(gender, ethnicity, and age) (Andress & Heien, 2001; Kaltenthaler & Stephen, 2008; Svallfors,
1997; Wong, Wan, & Law, 2009). In addition to the individual characteristics, countries’
contextual factors such as economic and institutional structures might explain the cross- national variations in welfare attitudes. Overtime, the national economy seemed to have lost its
explanatory powers to understand the cross-national differences in welfare attitudes in
Western developed countries (Inglehart, 1987).
As a result, research has focused on the regime theory to examine the national differences in
welfare attitudes. (Arts & Gelissen, 2001; Dallinger, 2010; Edlund, 1999; Jaeger, 2006; Jakobsen,
2011; Larsen, 2008). However, different types of regimes also seem not to explain the
significant differences in welfare attitudes at the country level. (Edlund, 1999; Jaeger, 2006;
Page 2 of 8
241
Lee, E. K. (2023). How Social Values Affect Welfare Attitudes? A Cross-National Comparison. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(10).
240-247.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1010.15727
Jakobsen, 2011). To understand contextual factors affecting welfare attitudes, recent research
has turned their attention to the role of social values in cross-national comparison (Dion &
Birchfield, 2010; Jo, 2011; Arikan & Bloom, 2015). This preliminary study empirically examines
how social values explain the cross-national differences in welfare attitudes, grounded in
Inglehart and Baker’s (2000) social value theory.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Considering the levels of decommodification, social stratification, and employment, Esping- Andersen (1990) categorized Western welfare states into three regime types: Social
democratic, liberal, and conservative regimes. Based on this theory, researchers surmised that
people living in different regime types might have different public perceptions toward social
welfare policies. In line with this argument, several studies have hypothesized that people in
social democratic countries, which provide highly redistributive policies and universal
entitlements, would have relatively pro-welfare attitudes compared to people in liberal
countries, which offer mainly mean-tested welfare programs, and that public attitudes toward
welfare in conservative welfare states would be somewhere in the middle of the two other
regimes (Edlund, 1999; Jaeger, 2006; Jakobsen, 2011).
However. the empirical studies based on the regime theory have shown inconsistent results.
Edlund (1999) found that citizens living in liberal welfare states were more likely to have
reluctant attitudes toward welfare than individuals in social democratic regimes. On the other
hand, in Jakobsen’s (2011) study, people in conservative regimes tend to have more pro- welfare attitudes compared to the public in social democratic or liberal welfare states. Jaeger
(2006) even found that there would be no direct relationships between regime types and public
welfare attitudes.
To fill the gap of the regime approach, recent research has focused on the new concept, the
value system of a country. Researchers, who paid attention to social and cultural features,
argued that people living in societies, which emphasize notions of social justice, would have
more pro-welfare attitudes (Arikan & Bloom, 2015; Art & Gelissen, 2001). On the basis of
Shalom Schwartz’s (2004) social value theory, which focuses on several social values such as
collectivity, egalitarianism, and harmony-mastery, Arikan and Bloom (2015) found that the
countries that promote social justice and collective responsibility tend to have more pro- welfare public attitudes. Conversely, Art and Gelissen (2001) showed that individuals in
welfare states, which foster social justice, were less likely to have attitudes supporting welfare
and equality compared to people in non-welfare states. However, most previous studies
examined the cross-national differences in welfare attitudes among only European
industrialized countries.
While previous social value theory employed unidimensional conceptualization, Inglehart and
Baker (2000) suggested comprehensive four dimensions of social values: tradition vs. secular- rational values and survival vs. self-expression values, in order to understand social and
cultural features in a given society. Whereas traditional values emphasize the importance of
religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority, secular-rational values have the opposite
preferences to the traditional values. While survival values emphasize economic security, self- expression values give high priority to well-being and quality of life. They argued that
individuals in societies fostering secular-rational values would support for abortion
Page 3 of 8
242
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 10, October-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
justifiability compared to people in societies emphasizing the traditional values such as God,
religion, obedience, national pride, and authority. They also stated that people in societies
stressing self-expression values were more likely to have higher levels of happiness and trust
than individuals in societies encouraging survival values.
Inglehart and Welzel (2005) developed a revised social value theory by applying the four social
values. According to the revised theory, there are two phases of modernization in a society:
Industrial and Postindustrial stages. In the process of industrialization, economic development
and bureaucracy play a role in changing a preindustrial society to an industrial society. In an
industrialized society, social values shift from traditional values to secular-rational values.
When secular-rational values weaken in an industrialized society, the postindustrial phase
starts. In other words, people place more emphasis on the values of self-expression, including
autonomy, trust, and emancipation from authority, in the process of post-industrialization.
According to the revised social value theory, social values in each phase of modernization may
have a predictive power to understand public attitudes toward welfare (Inglehart, 1987).
Therefore, public welfare attitudes in pre-industrial societies might be different from ones in
industrial and post-industrialized societies. Norris and Inglehart (2002) argued that people in
the industrial societies, which promote secular-rational values, might have an interest in
economic performance but might not respect diversity. They also argued that people in
postindustrial societies, which foster self-expression values, could have respect for individual
diversity and come up to the higher level of equality. Therefore, Norris and Inglehart’s theory
(2002) suggests that people in post-industrial societies might have stronger pro-welfare
attitudes than individuals in industrial societies.
RESEARCH METHODS
Based on the theoretical background, this preliminary study developed two hypotheses: (H1)
Nations that emphasize the secular-rational values have more pro-welfare attitudes than the
nations encouraging the traditional values; (H2) Nations that promote the values of self- expression have more pro-welfare attitudes than nations that foster survival values. To
empirically test these two hypotheses, this study used secondary data from the two waves of
World Value Survey (WVS), the wave 5 from 2005 to 2009 and the wave 6 from 2010 to 2014.
The unit of analysis is country-level and the sample size is 70 nations that include developed
countries and developing countries. To include more countries in the study, 54 countries were
derived from the wave 6, and 16 countries, which were not conducted in the wave 6, were
derived from the wave 5 (Appendix 1).
The dependent variable is public attitudes toward welfare. Welfare attitudes were measured
by the item that the wave 5 and 6 include commonly. Respondents in each country were asked
to answer their level of agreement with the sentence: “Government should take more
responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for” that ranges from one to ten in the scales.
The highest score (10) means the most positive attitudes toward welfare.
Following Inglehart and Baker’s (2000) operationalization, two independent variables were
constructed based on the four social values. The first independent variable was the level of
secular-rational values at the country level, which was measured by the five items in the WVS:
(1) importance of God, (2) importance of obedience and faith among children, (3) abortion