Risk Sharing When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For European Unemployment Risk Sharing (EURS)

Download fulltext

Risk Sharing When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For European (EURS) report Results of a survey experiment by the University Amsterdam (the Netherlands) With support INAPP (Italy)1 Authors: Frank Vandenbroucke (UvA) Brian Burgoon Theresa Kuhn Francesco Nicoli Stefano Sacchi (INAPP) David van der Duin Sven Hegewald (UvA)2 Correspondence address: f i g vandenbroucke@uva nl To cite this report: 2018 AISSR Report 1 (December) We also thank KULeuven for financial 2 Erik Schokkaert Sharon Baute Miroslav Beblavy and Mathias Dolls comments IPSOS staff their in fielding ACES-community at UvA promoting interdisciplinary environment needed research Zahra Runderkamp layout production Abstract In aftermath Eurozone crisis proposals to share risk unemployment shocks have been high on political agenda Welfare states built-in automatic stabilisers cushion economic notably insurance The argument with regard is that monetary union needs mechanisms buttress or complement stabilizers its member states; national might achieve However are citizens ready crises hitting countries? This sheds light crucial yet unresolved question conducting conjoint public sharing among representative sample 19641 respondents 13 October November studies citizen preferences policy implementing EURS vary six dimensions: (1) generosity (2) education training conditions (3) between-country redistribution (4) versus administration (5) impact taxes (6) individual job search effort Our results show design matters They highlight variation across countries socio-economic ideological differences Most importantly fundamental opposition confined small segment population all there potential majorities specific packages organize Contents SUMMARY p 4 1. Purpose structure 20 2. Cross-border when hits: typology options 23 3. 38 4. What we know from existing solidarity Europe 46 5. Main 54 6. Pointers policy-makers 85 APPENDIX 87 References 101 Summary Why conduct cross-border sharing? Commission has argued repeatedly Monetary Union be completed fiscal shocks; instance benefits purchasing power people who lose one would re-insurance benefit schemes level Another option tabled scheme supports Member States’ investment capacity they hit cope reduced revenue increased spending Both common insight: it important can play role times whilst simultaneously protected; therefore some extent an ‘insurance union’ EU remains basis conducted States covering 70% EU’s involving organized many different ways Thus generic idea stability bolstered cross- border risks related led large variety detailed designed take diversity as much possible into account translate straits understandable way core variants tested new need due significant increase Therefore refer our ‘European Sharing’ policies aiming particular modes social condition personal world view main conclusions evidence leads following (EURS): • Fundamental relatively Citizens sensitive EURS: although sensitivity differs generally tend prefer more generous (more means: larger amount subsidies thus higher guaranteed minimum participating countries) require offer unemployed entail no tax increases beneficiaries fulfill least (e accept suitable offer) Generous carry each even if package additional taxation (whether indeed case not something discuss; than hypothesis which test) domestic rich poor eventual burden (if burden) necessary rally sufficient most implementation decentralized: adds arguments developed elsewhere should try build true but systems lump sum transfers associated good combination activation A debate exercises community lot e how tolerant structural seems less express policymakers say such debates important; other issues – requirements seem weight citizens’ judgment Rather insurmountable polarization observe room constructive democratic deliberation methodology: ‘conjoint analysis’ order explore attitudes these complex questions fielded focused confronted three pairs two alternative (hence total) thereby asked sets questions: pair had tell us prefer; indicate whether strongly oppose somewhat (or neither nor it) gathered information about relative absolute resistance against 3 number features (in call ‘the fixed points’); differ dimensions label moving parts’) ‘fixed points’ judged following: disbursement State triggered State; does generate permanent cash flow earmarked benefits: used subsidize floor levels informed provide own expense ‘moving parts’ make think ‘generosity’ dimension (D1) ‘training education’ (D2) ‘between-country redistribution’ (D3) ‘taxation’ (D4) ‘administration’ (D5) ‘job dimension’ (D6) Concretely parts differentiate follows: concerns country intrinsically set Three support/common envisaged; expressed percentage last wage first months unemployment: (i) 40% (ii) 60% (iii) presence absence) must obtain support: either addition ask about: (a) respondent’s age citizenship residence NUTS2 activity recent past income source household composition; (b) experience feelings insecurity his/her perception evolution position; (c) general ideology electoral values religion identity; (d) opinion responsibility governments secure decent standard living actual people; (e) trust trade unions institutions current leaders EU: (f) concern globalization migration societal problems opportunities refers question: may long run receive pay it? Here distinction between ‘pure insurance’ whereby cannot paid (no run); ‘tolerant’ allows any kind emerge run; ‘redistributive’ scheme: next severe deliberately generates distribution long-run respondents’ scenarios tabled: taxation; will 0 5% everyone country; 1% only distinguishes administered One interpret ‘genuine scheme’ (whereby fund out directly citizens) ‘re-insurance’ disburses budgetary whole system national); go detail tests ‘European’ ‘national’ applying distinguish scenarios: benefit; apply per week These 324 combinations (3 x = 324): risk-sharing Each 19500 6 drawn randomly total robust result random draw methodology called analysis It misunderstand nature saying imply equivalent incomes figures meant come extra contributions contributions; ‘0 5%’ ‘1%’ simple convey message nothing Whilst left open survey: coverage benefits4 issue debt5 participate limited Eurozone6 details administrative operations 7 motivate choice cover essence huge outstanding both relevant accurate accessible differentiates rather going best knowledge time ‘policy design’ problem referring imagine since do exist practice wanted avoid making exercise imagination too was implemented Austria Belgium Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Spain considerably respect development welfare state model (notably strictness vis-à-vis availability monitoring efforts sanctions applied); performance over 10 years geographical location length membership Fieldwork means online panel company National terms because waiting periods eligibility rules labour market logic propose guidelines bound aspect concrete proposal domain confront quality entails captured focus linear (thus abstraction minima caps differentiation composition etc ) 5 Whether debt salient issuance intertemporal smoothing functionality so-called ‘asymmetric shocks’ mentioned But framing wording compatible respondent nudged long-term perspective requires (for explicitly ‘long run’ impacts) part survey; framed ‘EU implies necessarily (two belong Eurozone) precise ensure (such ‘experience rating’ ‘claw-back’ mechanisms) Neither them exact funded took place 2018; assured Nudging judging respondents: careful approach did nudge positive outcomes pitfalls outcome expected everywhere consequence lower security mention undersell proposal: presented principles ‘need’ (across (implicitly using word) moral hazard: become worried pro-active overall crises; incentives individuals find jobs soon possible) diminish upshot obviously interpreted remedies hazard behavior recipients sense present survey’s phenomena inevitable design: inattentive inconsistent Since want reason lack attention seen aim considered On hand reality formation opinions views ‘inattentive discarded includes check eliminate end longer attentive simply attentive) exclusion fail check; eliminates 19% inclusion those Respondents packages: resistance) single chooses B then expresses gives prima facie response If happens Again process; pollute give (and one) 11 9%; consider low figure given complexity Only 6% statistical Eliminating generation changes Yet inevitably create (prima facie) internally example: based net contributors Taking (with temporary fluctuations) X improve rely external Consider very today An Estonian combines ‘no taxation’ ‘a (at least) equal unemployment’ judge feasible (it further decrease programmes cut deficits allowed proposed survey) example shows internal inconsistency country-specific feature: target unemployment) without funding unfeasible Given rough conclusion zoom consistent 8 First observations: limited: 10% rejects majority reviewed ‘reject’ oppose) converse pattern makes ‘free lunch’ type ‘cheap talk’ External incompatible situation: Y Z receipt structurally redistributive run) preferred excludes run: combine inconsistencies existence unique mobilize accepted under review Figure ES4 Executive illustrates positively (somewhat support) saw: 66% 9 shown ES1 ES1: pooled Reading note bar middle 44% ‘somewhat favour’ ‘strongly far 12 9% none words attitude against’ ‘neither favour against’) Levels however ES2 displays ‘mean support’ change exclude construal notion marginally (to 66 9%) excluded ES2: Mean 38%; (imaginary) series ‘votes’ French 38% votes 55% Please ‘vote’ including popular Intuitively emerges mean richer mature well-established poorer Hungary) hardest sample: Ireland) (70% replacement) interestingly fine-grained what here characteristics interact individual-level determinants unsurprising observation towards initiative More surprising finding purpose attracts explored academic publications Potential predict vote cast Obviously cautious deriving ‘predicted votes’ method provides so ES3 predicted supranational bars capture voters stands Sharing’) declared assume ‘neutral’ answers (‘neither voting forced split proportional camps solid horizontal lines assuming turn top upper ES3: Predicted Vote Sample Packages Pooled (13 MOST POPULAR: Must train/educate Redist rich-to-poor No costs admin LEAST redist LOW FLOOR: HIGH FLOOR BUT NO REDIST : 0.5 % WITH DOMEST IN&BTWN Some btwn cntry focuses interesting theory: (starting graph) ‘most popular’ second ‘least clearly viable projects 80% excluding neutrals) where assistance having anything majority) Its popularity fact remaining four represent mixes roughly ascending character As descriptions it’s clear unemployed; (rather European) level; required Hence keep constant along generosity: subsidizes up months); redistribution: allow contrast tolerates redistribution; taxation: everybody (by 1%) Table E1 summarizes & REDISTRIBUTION DOMESTIC AND BETWEEN-COUNTRY Features (possibly) D1 D2 educate train D3 tolerant: D4 your pays D5 D6 Across quite Europeans tending particularly within through progressive allowing facility 65% ‘neutrals’ just 50% neutrals above threshold assumes models voter replacement wages tolerance feature variant explained section (cf supra): impose it; third ‘between- imposes understood conform principle ‘in need’ always deserve term ‘Need’ being protecting principled rationale Political decision-making Council country- patterns ES4: Country HIGHER IN-CNTRY buy explain why Italy) graph Italian surpasses 75% GENEROSITY adding hardly cast: reveals deviate Space forbids interactions programs (modestly) Additionally enthusiastic (compared across-the-board modest programme) applies marked Finally compared substantially And cross-country include course predictable Euro-zone economy debtor creditor status comports earlier suggesting divided nationally take-home enhances reduces depends (France Finland) distributive matter decided jointly intrinsic pro’s con’s examination nevertheless pointers policy-makers: population; offer); discuss) support; transfers; activation; Section Automatic supporting effective demand hits stabilisers; (without pretesting) highlights Depending potentially proceeded (we systems; to: 7. options); 8. attached (2 9. possibility 10. 11. 12. options) options: Box protect residents facing loss Doing manifest solidary construed altruistic members thin project motivated indemnifying risks; conceived appeals self-interest narrow nutshell hotly debated rehearse inform engage validity underlying starting test noted advocates sometimes table argument: embodied legitimacy; rebalances cooperation shed Structure briefly rehearses implement develop special reference useful covers full description elaborates challenges presents overview concludes reader skip Sections constraints prevent reading entire key completion EMU insight gained prominence nearly unions’ centralize management banks Historically exception now gradually developing driven mutual progress Banking Next Capital Market latest publication wit protected organization advocated rehearsed successive official reports subject circles joint declaration German 19 June stabilization illustrate See (2017a) pp 25-26 (2017b) 13-16 Commission’s Reflection Paper (European 2017a) sketches function: Investment Protection Scheme; Reinsurance; Rainy Day Fund Communication December 2017b) builds preference (an protection scheme) proposes “a stabilisation function could quick help maintain event asymmetric typically filling financing gap pre-existing pipelines and/or skills upgrading ” Importantly emphasizes “[T]riggering activated automatically rapidly pre-defined parameters negative deviation trend) “[t]he constructed same probability contribute consistently correspond others (2017a Carnot et al (2017) Lenaerts (2015) Spath (2016) Oksanen Brandolini Strauss Dullien (2014) Gros Andor happenstance downturn stabiliser par excellence Existing opt downright centralisation (like historically Canada Germany) convergence organisation degree reinsurance really US decentralisation insurance) rational behaviour reasons pooling resilience broadly here: shock symmetric origin differently background advantage face Risk-pooling interregional broad consensus economically politically legitimate organizes able business cycles partly synchronized borrowing smoothed here; synchronization cycle (simply put witness symmetry asymmetry combined) completely added value se externality; properly insures itself helps neighbours (as vaccinate themselves infectious diseases) Because externality dispose Simultaneously insufficient sub-optimal provision promoted supported (think again vaccination authorities made compulsory) effectiveness cluster principles: sufficiently benefits; rates schemes; segmentation leaves force poorly insured unemployment; proliferation employment relations integrated insurance; individuals; constitution buffers work bad shared De Grauwe Yi; (2017); ‘stability-supporting’ subsidization authorities) Conversely plausible argue stability-supporting fortiori imperative were equipped address above): agree other’s exchange guarantee functions adequately Wrapping latter former At sure relationship published motivates (un)employment (which cf footnote …) provided 2.1. Genuine consortium Centre Studies (CEPS) examined 18 14 ‘genuine’ ‘equivalent’ types operate genuine Europeanise extent: define (minimum) replace transferred collected employers employees Alternatively remain ‘re-insure’ providing difficult accommodate adequate counter-cyclical sponsored examine synthesis see CEPS-led ‘re- throughout use re- occur Countries visible tangible proof counterargument centralized decisions contradict widely subsidiarity From technical point harmonizing partially) replaced underestimated Re- easier likely acceptable disbursements normally trigger rate short- beyond threshold) objective cyclical movement flexibility 15 short CEPS study respects: collection funds running theoretically sound recognizes reflect well complexities multi-tiered 16 context perfectly conceivable accompanied uniformity upward Such strict continuum distinguished specification (Beblavy 2017 17) Europeanisation unemployment-related multifaceted explicit theoretical simplistic multitude choices) abstract grasp impacts upon engineer undesirable (see below text 2017) Luigjes Fischer differentiating administration’ ‘national countries’ comply standards ‘Europeanisation’ Respondents’ reactions aspects influenced priori sharing: pull direction (against Europeanisation) institutional 1) opposite minimize hazard) 2.2. Debt studied partners differentiated dimensions:17 short-term imbalances add countries; varied duration EU-funded capping criteria; limit consequences scheme; certain net-beneficiaries (i accumulated net-contributors dynamically link operates mainly device already wrote introductory not) Adding overly (Respondents functioning 17 variability) works captures parameter: during floor: simplify strictly tied together: presuppose describes cashes read combined model’ transfer receives defined eligible inhabitants applied average covered obliged ratio form de facto agreed Appendix OECD data sample) admits between; tight coupling minimal concepts react absence ‘quality’ pursued precaution adopted persons (these demands Independently orient relationships pure demanding reciprocity pay-ins pay- outs) deliberate (from 1: Solidarity fits broader range scope solidarity’ ‘solidarity’ stake project? Let understanding resources compensating (disadvantageous) circumstances hold responsible conceptually distinguished: Pure compensate foreseen reasonably calculated homogeneous group (a identical profiles) practical profiles cashed mechanism contribution span ‘net beneficiaries’ contributors’ money gains) Insurance definition future takes (deliberate) aware prime redistributes (inter alia) talented less-talented individuals: compensates part) disadvantage talent; follows talent motivation disposition often ‘demanding’ Well-organised readily enlightened self-interest: expectation wins So get mixed creates cement definitions extended nation depending (unforeseen known differ) carefully objections attenuate interwoven (on purpose) Individual occurs actor adapts his behaviour; ‘institutional’ collective government) Redistribution justified ‘under control’ constitute linked choices write principle’ observable available policy) Nevertheless especially sustainability ‘insurance’ ‘institutional hazard’ electorates (especially convinced pool better off oriented Moral lead unwanted Mechanisms militate ‘moral discusses normative theories justice 2.3. Impact subsection introduced challenge assess introduce reconnect discussed previous subsection: Two papers points paper corresponds closely logic: profile’ approximates uniform profile There difference topic: earmarking generated (earmarking ‘fund’ States) (neither topic) ‘qualitative’ wish discuss requirements: ‘functional’ necessity ‘give take’ Although simulated intended simulation years: authors deem sustainable astute (additional) ‘pay’ (over term) clever technicalities let choose ‘reciprocity’ tolerated EU-UI effectively UI instrument Annex Ii (4): acts budgets instantiate Suppose suppose adopt zero: cater pay; earmarked) positions cancel perspective: complicated scheme’s cases ceteris paribus21 (part the) improvement (redistributive frequent hence strong correction mechanism): contributor paribus 22 scenario beneficiary dynamic illustrated ‘common floor’ stabilizing effects decomposing effect introduction steps step harmonize every year finance surpluses neutral 21 Ceteris except categories government achieved acting alone introducing wide period (2000-2013) fully back otherwise): simulations worse after creation dual supplementary (Eurozone- wide) 24 baseline significantly coverage25) gross earnings yearly minus received 19-0 39% GDP Latvia largest 36% 54% cap country’s median overlap contains (A) (B) calculation scenario’s beneficiaries) (columns A’ B’) affect reads direct stay (footnote corroborates possibilities 25 radical Southern Eastern Greece Malta Slovakia 2000-2013 Dolls) 15% ppt B’ 74 31 78 42 41 06 62 68 02 63 45 89 47 26 56 94 43 95 29 48 27 37 Own calculations Tables Legend: income) (up person of: A: 50%; covered; cap; B: months; B’: idem balance budget 2000-2013: Example column (Table 3) NAT-UI 4) + push 27% variant) 48% 29% 87% highly difficulty aims correct) dependent assumptions (ranging 70%); maximal crude alternatives simplicity happen are: (1% (extra) sustain ‘socio-tropic’ aggregate ‘cosmopolitan’ independently live) entertain socio-tropic ‘efforts’ similar ‘financial reciprocity’) unless redistribute countries: ‘effort’ demanded ‘reciprocity’) casu holds separated identify causal links several contributions: complete presentation) subset Spanish respondent: experiment); allowed; free lunch people) he thinks 70%; systematically impossible qualify external: arises treatment 2.4. Membership participation non- non-participation Central-European Euro area manageable EMU) suggests postulated compulsory ‘undersell’ (implicitly) appeal beneficial (countries becoming policies) 2.5. Synthesis relating Column indicates differ; formulated explains experiment; possibilities: ‘left open’: dimension; point’: answer constitutes point’ part’: 2: translation Dimension Left experiment? Comments Is not? open: non-Eurozone Can debt? benefits? Fixed point: floor) via scheme? mentions avoids reduce understand covered? starts position Or unemployment- implied Moving part: implicitly premised Different regulation support? presupposes setting mind country? ii iii countries;) Are requirements; requirements) w r t obligations (next unemployed)? conditions; presumably concerns: unconditional (concern policies); human capital taxation? increasing rich) possibly (domestic) (due stabilization)? hazard)? Positive Institutional dealt indirectly rows Table) (related inputs) outputs) 3.1. population: selected record coverage; (Poland approximately 1500 reached Excluding pre-testing involved (20440 internationally renowned contracted field (after two-tier bidding competition) maintains established panels relies lacks proprietary demographic quotas gender NUTS1 randomly-drawn adheres Accordingly close diverging 2% category Even farthest apart 4% demographics comparable leading surveys Social Survey (ESS) 3.2. reconcile accessibility laymen: jobless like hear programme financed pages you You Then (randomly combinations) formulating questions) foresee amounts months) 3: Overview (respondents answers) need? – fulfil offers May Yes while 4: insurance? long-run: 5: Who administer programme? Governments 6: people? After “Which prefer?” 2); “How 1?” (answer 1-5 Likert scale); 2?” answered assessed “Think showed decision?” against) Conjoint analyse stated experiments usually attributes By drawing content prepared researcher analysist estimate separately marketing recently recognised science earliest applications Bechtel Scheve (2013) asses hypothetical international climate agreements couple differed amongst households monthly emissions committed reach later Hainmueller Hopkins Yamamoto researchers differing formally lay down formal prove forward practically testable inferential exemplarily investigations immigrant candidate American candidates profession plans Closer topic interest Margalit bailouts Germans Their cost (negative) lesser burdens imposed receiving demonstrate designs bailout measures counted Research Gallego Marx (2018) great deal multidimensional relates importance attributed groups substantial suggested prior Schumacher smaller found socioeconomic changed entirely absent (Gallego left- wing opposed right-wing 3.3. says assigns once pairwise comparisons) weakly inconsistent; affects comes list situation judgements 27One inconsistent: ‘preference’ ‘support’ question; ‘tactically’ respondents; kept 8% 3.4. Inconsistent ‘internal consistency’: type: purposeful insurance’) exceeds increase; allowed: ‘inconsistent’ (gross) Tax-Benefit Model net-gross underestimation arise overestimate another inconsistency: benefits) improvements increases; ‘zero’ (much) fair approximation Prima consistency between- allowed) Net (OECD) Gross 55 INCONS 59 (INCONS) 65 34 75 36 qualified inferences establishing randomization marginal influence (Hainmueller 2014) consistencies distinguishing assumptions) highlighting Figures 28 EU-wide predisposition borders various orientation congenial belonging category; helped inspire conjoint- Wehrhöfer uses (different) experimental methods 4.1. initiatives produces considerable intra-EU depend heavily ex post ante?) Unsurprisingly variation: expectations involvement involves sacrifice stream Ferrera Pellegata concerning (amongst others) debt-stricken fight poverty etcetera 77 7% agree’ statement: “The equip enough sudden rise rates” (Ferrera 29) Approval signal solidarity: approval respectively 91 0% 64 Stoeckel Gerhards Genschel Hemerijck (20182108) Lahusen Grasso Kamm Meuleman (2018a b c) Hooghe Verhaegen Kleider (2009) FR GE IT PL ES SE (2018 Yearbook ETUI) “there cultural predispositions Caring meet critic’s eyes ”30 elderly “the services governments” 30 believe 69 expect Despite widespread 67 “EU-wide poor” neatly aligned: EU-level comparatively driver sizeable cross-national Nordic few expenditure agent (Meuleman 10) “altogether display politicians scientists presumed “[t]his (welfare solidarity) reduction wealth inequalities (territorial (p 30) 77% EU” (Gerhards 14-15) 82% governments’ 16) studied32 highest Mediterranean Sweden Everywhere reflection: “Obviously treated care snapshots… volatile Moreover saliency responses register contingent ‘value expressions’ indicative stable internalised limitations overrated easily plastic amenable cuing elites issue-framing discourse assumed expressions devoid commitments SP 86 90 3% 32 consists CY GR PT HU SK IE NL AT rosy picture: “[P]ublic kinds EU-internal moderate” 259) currently difficulties paying debts disagree measure?” (Lahusen Contrary obtained debt-ridden 33 “In supporters outweigh opponents slightly (41% vs 30%); indecision (uncertainty highlighted below) biggest located (66% 16% opponents) (64% 11%) leans helping side (39% 20%) undecided (42%) United Kingdom bigger 28% 41% 33% 34% findings giving stress 258 Further conditional privilege trouble unconditionally minority testifies duty subscribes fairness trustworthiness deservingness 260 261) square Pellegata; varies (solidarity what?) how?) whom whom?) publics indebted “During Eurocrisis adoption statements closest Financial …be granted name soft loans “all boat”; repayment reform risk; offered voluntarily interest; instead asking foreign taxpayers; task 11) (partially) overlapping samples posed Pellegata’s Agree Disagree Granted Soft-loans Conditionality 44 35 39 DK UK Switzerland uncertain uncertainty opens space leadership; emphasis leadership conclude underscore according hand; “Do aid suffering X?” “unsustainable debt” “very unemployment” “large numbers refugees” “national disaster” (Genschel strongest low) natural disaster lowest excessive refugee inflows ranges extremes statement ‘don’t know’) instruments ante precautionary improvisation) “an emergency accessed faces sort” 5) little rankings variance Great Britain case-by-case Lithuania stark divide self- perceived (Denmark UK) self-perceived net-recipients (Greece Spain) somewhere sobering conclusions: “Respondents net-contributor solidarity; net-recipient favour” 6) 2009) Interestingly correlates net-contributory net-beneficiary net-contributor/net-beneficiary Hemerijck’s prompts ‘paying’ ‘receiving’ end? assigned versions “Are personally Dutch inclined military attack brief country-level ‘ex fund’ co-nationals Individuals discriminate foreigners Overall willingness willing boundaries largely intact prospects promising ‘personal sacrifice’ he/she contributing ‘Solidarity’ participants disposal levy fears integration (Baute 2018a) ‘social Europe’ 2018b 2018c) analyzing Values Study 2008 EU28 fear Furthermore explaining generalized concretely policy: security; answer? (2018b) one-dimensional construct; five Europe’: supra-national policy; rights mobile Europeans; harmonization interpersonal Belgian distinct attitudinal interrelated factor Pareto Barr 2012) member-state primary whereas component 2018b) ‘spill over’ Europe’) obstacle perceive competing governance domain) supportive (2018c) intrusive regulations health safety work; ‘member funds) welfare) spillover basic ‘welfare critique’ research) stronger attractive (because attracted Europe) secondly Applying classification ‘less intrusive’ (they policies; variants); (versus governments) subtle ‘intrusive’ approaches 4.2. emphasize ‘fundamental’ ‘contingent’ Whereas rejection embrace shift altered Germany: Using burden-sharing rescue building Qua programmatic factorial one-off reaction situation) unforeseeable crises?” most: citizens? examining policy-oriented gain readiness Benefit Scheme Sovereign Insolvency Procedure) randomized 57% 18% clear-cut striking probably radically start frame “A euro resilient supposed suffer adverse labor proponents say: absorb stabilize currency All control counterargument: disadvantages respects counterarguments: “don’t markets anymore”) Compared Dolls-Wehrhöfer presenting perform runs moment Also pro- contra-arguments unemployed) neutral: benefits…” contrary namely securing implicit evoke resulting simpler qua formulation solutions mentioning treatment) gauge acceptance nuance unspecified: pre-conceptions elements parallels cleavages (German) incomes; reveal meaningful harbor robustly-stable While realistic That appear thirteen polities traction fiscal-policy tends shall clarify primarily graphical summaries visualize keeping reporting specialists visual representation modeling estimation relegate presentation discussion specialized Appendices encourage appraise confidence intervals around estimates; visually significance Focusing (Section broadest roughest metrics descriptive aggregates smooth 2) systematic stage within-country fourth social-policy fifth finally focusing toward 5.1. General Opposition preliminary reckoning risk- smoothing-over eschew averaged hundreds permutations valuations gave pairings (six all) “rejected” pairing Recall favored principal inference neutrality opposition) greater summary statistics Based categorical ratings (categorical) varying (strongly rated 266 dispersal 07) binary transformation ranking (binary) 1=somewhat 0=somewhat percent “somewhat” “strongly” Reject (1=somewhat oppose; missing=neutral) 76 sampled Variable: Obs Std Dev Min Max 117846 074 456 498 758 428 Chose Package 500 D1: 333 471 D2: educ /train D3: 334 D4: Long-term D5: Level 499 501 D6: Household 99186 014 719 Low 219 413 Unemployed 116124 068 252 Female 117606 512 Age 124 792 Attention Check 810 392 Internal 174 looking expressing termed “fundamental support” total; partitions six) Note saw 20-plus half (full Share favoured considers measure positioning: fundamentally regardless Nearly worthy 7%); 4%); 4%) polluted lunches’ seeing packages) percentages Less 30% rejected contained favoured) snapshot 1= 0=being opposing count ‘voting calculate percentage) ranging Below sources portrait Northern Western populations counterparts Central East country) (See A1 A2) 5.2. Dimensions descriptive-statistic receive? aggregated (D1-D6) Report; abbreviations italics): subsidization); support); (EU administration); comply) dimension) aggregation naked eye Generosity Training-education educ/training Between-country Taxation Countriies Poor Taxes Rich Activation requirement (Job search) administers weekly 5-10 immediately full- depart examples suffice though still line wealthy West (Figure 8) Austrian exceptions concentrated preferring familiar governmental capacities conditionality Finnish explanations (Generosity) (Requirement scheme’s /training 7: (Between-country Redistribution) th ric 8: (tax ri 9: (level administration) 10: (activation requirement) Inferential Variation fitting valuations: respondent; packages; unit package-pairing-respondent- specifications data: analyses (categorical binary) rating scores 1=strongly 5=strongly favour); Not surprisingly variables correlated (=1) (=0) covariance 52 components germane estimations per-package package: seven controls M1 M2 OLS estimator errors clustered (recalling obvious clustering tracking sees considers) simplest dimension-based plus (1=passed 0=failed) (0-3 ratings) failing (19% respondents) (that choosing “rejected”) 40 dummies mitigate heteroskedasticity M3 repeats throws away gradations eases interpretation counterfactuals M4 redress effects: intercept three-level multilevel respondent-packages embedded variable maximum likelihood estimators M5 ordered logit otherwise M6 random-intercept three-levels M7 rank-ordered grouped ranked within-respondent empirical summarized corroboration things entail: (D1); (D2); (not ones) (D3); (D4); (D5); (always) coefficients multi-level Before turning worth noting pass (visible M1) (choosing (there Among questionnaire weights yielding virtually corroborate valuation) wealthier (results shown) plots Average Marginal Component Effects (AMCEs) attribute passing chosen 95% explanatory factors experimentally derived orthogonal AMCEs estimated regression (excluding correlation 2014; decreased chance AMCE 11: Marginal-Component Effect (AMCE) Attributes 05 separate here) clarifies size influences axis capturing predictor 12% (70%) (40%) second-most influential labour-market pose bears (modest amount) pushed unpopular appears substantive slight (albeit statistically models) (either A1’s dummies) spurred oddly Estonians Finns unlike substantively embracing (interestingly join plea) 12: edu corroborated transformations (binary)) A2 pronounced (Support faced yields reported 12’s grey characteristic measured equal: almost rate; administration; (job 13: 5.3. clarifying pull-together mix respondents? Answering tedious Instead prominent intuition viability attempt Predicting guess-work Figure’s counterfactual taking predicting “vote” sampling Oppose (based rating- measure) “neutral” ignored evenly camps) intervals) shares Of estimates unlikely home election day anti-EURS European-wide referendum alter actually (M2 A1)– eventuality low-floor purposes 14: modal “most popular” “least purely involve problematic “free price Still lower-floor upper-ceiling benchmarks Little EU-administered lunch” incur steadily trade-offs surpass remit research; implausible raises modestly) promises level); (focusing rates); (where so); redistribution) short-cuts denote IN BETWEEN COUNTRIES 1%-tax entailing (potentially) modestly enjoys “generous” stringent assumption plebiscite Irish (particularly) cross-nationally 15: 5.4. Country-level Characteristics scrutiny laid bare articulated per-country well-known macro-political- shape per-dimension package-based conserve dimension-specific marginal-component summarize (relative non-voting) macro-level parameter (details A19 Appendix) 13-country cross base cross-level comparison ‘low’ ‘high’ 10th percentile 90th ‘high; standardized graphs interaction left-hand interested settings right-hand high-unemployment 16: Rates IN-CNTRRYE DIST IN-CNTRYRE comport low-unemployment high- panels) move (even) Second moderating capita EU-28 parity PPP normalization) moves low-GDP high-GDP (compare straight-forward story interpreting peculiar reconsider GDP: 182% ‘richest’ (followed Denmark) dubious doubt accounting proxy 17: Final Consumption Expenditure final consumption correct anomaly ‘Final Expenditure’ reliable account-based indicator taken (again PPP-basis) 106% Denmark’s 120% average) starker terms) wealthiest ‘poorest’ final repeat high-final markedly (counterfactually) rightmost panel) Either (though favor) Third national-level moderates unemployment-insurance (UI) European-level expenditures GDP) 2015 take-up visibility higher- 18: measure: (this Calculator; singles) paints picture gets replacement-rate dramatically ‘increase’ settings) putting 5.5. characteristics: Socio-economic Status Attitudes dampen intensify particular: low-income low-education favor risk: ‘low income’ EU-SILC data) ‘higher median; secondary education; ‘unemployed’ macro- 19: suggest uneven implications (upper panel)44 right insecure (low education) skews educated Indeed appreciably moderate yield retired market) opposite: dislocated prevails approximating deciles SILC vintage convert modified equivalence scale 57 73 influencing measures: (national) redistribution45 (left-hand belief look work46 (right-hand (than ordering: regressive 20: Attitudes: Government Beliefs About don’t 20’s Those believing low- essentially slothful exploitative (believing don’t work) reflects unclear statements: levels” Answers scaled (Strongly / Somewhat Strongly “I answer” “Most job” “Strongly agree” disagree” reaffirm appreciable targets trusting distrusting contemporary simple: ones skewed judgments 21: Trust Leaders 49 together A3 “personally distrust Union”; (Very Very distrust) A3-A10A4-A18 moderated 5.6. Comparison literature optimistic 2018) pessimistic ‘sobering’ domain-specific (our debt- stricken unemployment-stricken countries); domain-specificity one-sided performant worries legitimately doing strikingly (much complementary insights multidimensionality confirm revealed research: resonates sought cross-section Pulling 1-4 articulates garner undergird policymaking predicts practitioner policy-making audience activation;50 unimportant policymakers; contradiction propositions diverge indicated refining encompasses near 50 insurance-based protective compiles supplemental tables relevance commentary clarification report’s discussion: supplementing underlie predictions companion informing A4-A10 welfare-state supplements A11-A18 A1: Graphs A2: (baseline= wage) D1=60% 190*** 220*** 088*** 221*** 373*** 398*** 321*** (0 007) 009) 004) 021) 016) 013) D1=70% 239*** 281*** 119*** 282*** 482*** 515*** 404*** 008) 010) 032) 017) (baseline conditions) D2=country education/training 139*** 156*** 071*** 157*** 277*** 297*** 234*** 006) 003) 011) (baseline=countries in) D3=countries 016* 020* 009* 020 038* 041* 041** D3=poor 022** 024** 010* 025 045** 051** 047*** 023) 015) (baseline=No taxation) D4=0 -0 123*** 134*** 055*** 228*** 244*** 187*** D4=1 066*** 026*** 109*** 118*** 096*** (baseline=European administered) D5=administered 054*** 021*** 054* 087*** 092*** 065*** (baseline=no D6=must 141*** 165*** 078*** 164*** 288*** 304*** 271*** 044) 125*** 142*** 069*** 142** 249*** 263*** 248*** 005) 047) 060*** 031** 001 034* 047** 018) 024 016** 023 026 039 012) 019) 020) 042* 012 043 063 078* 046) 033) 037) 019* 016 003 007** yes Constant 074*** 155*** 300*** 265*** 014) 108) 048) 172) R-squared 046 036 N 78348 DV M4-M7: (categorical): against; 2=somewhat 3=neither favour; 4=somewhat M3: (binary): 0=neutral M1-M3: (6 respondent) inconsistency; dummies; M4: respondent-package M5-6: Maximum (ordered respectively) M7: Rank-ordered Right-hand p<0 * ** 01 *** (Chose M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 107*** 108*** 116*** 444*** 233*** 136*** 145*** 558*** 348*** 285*** 095*** 357*** 222*** 177*** 015*** 013** 061*** 038*** 030*** 017*** 016*** 067*** 042*** 033*** 246*** 153*** 121*** 032*** 037*** 132*** 082*** 063*** 028*** 029*** 073*** 058*** 093*** 100*** 385*** 240*** 196*** 091*** 089*** 366*** (0=pass; 1=fail) 000* 001* 000) 320*** 311*** 001) 739*** 460*** 022) 033 032 038 95454 models: 0=didn’t pairing; 1=chose (M7-M9): Models weights; passed (M10-M12): (logit probit logit) M7-M9 A3: Requirement) A4: Rate A5: A6: A7: A8: Replacement A9: ECD Distress Index EUBS A10: recipient/contributor A11: Country-specific Income A12: A13: Education (lower=no secondary; higher=more school) A14: A15: Attitude A16: A17: Worry Job Loss A18: A19: GPD Fin Cons Exp Gini coefficient countr 2012 100 107 105 115 131 127 120 108 110 117 116 114 106 109 126 119 104 102 112 79 111 103 113 123 118 98 133 182 165 96 Netherlan 140 134 128 70 158 92 93 Source Eurostat Co Data aver Chain volumes 2005=10 2016 unavailabi Public Eligibility criteria Repeated Total 60 ALMP: Availability s monitorin Sanctions 2008-2016 2014 09 00 08 72 99 58 71 88 825 735 155 61 04 82 51 Netherland 07 03 495 685 Langenbucher G ca sEU28 percenta GD unavailabilit unavailability exludes L Basic strengthening EMU’s Europe’s recovery Intereconomics 49(4) 184– 189 (2012) Economics Oxford: Oxford Press S Abts K Swyngedouw M (2018a) threat security: Euroscepticism? Politics 19(2) 209- 232 Measuring Europe: Indicators 137(1) 353-378 Spillover obstacle? Journal Advance DOI: 1017/S0047279418000314 Feasibility Added Value Brussels: Retrieved from: https://www ceps eu/system/files/EUBS%20final pdf Marconi Maselli I ahead eu/publications/european-unemployment-benefits- scheme-rationale-and-challenges-ahead F Mass global Proceedings Academy Sciences America 110(34) 13763-68 J 56(4) 864–886 Carta D’Amuri unemployment-based absorber Common 54(5) 1123–1141 compensation 10(4) 427-455 Kizior Mourre Fiscal Euro-Area: (CEB Working 17/025) https://dipot ulb ac be/dspace/bitstream/2013/259556/3/wp17025 P Ji Boom Busts Governance C Barnard Baere (Eds Crisis (pp 160-191) Cambridge: Cambridge Area Reforms: Evidence Randomized Experiment (CESifo 7141) Fuest Neumann D Peichl area? microdata International Tax Finance 273-309 Stability Gütersloh: Bertelsmann-Stiftung Deepening Economic (COM(2017) 291) https://ec europa eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-emu_en New framework Parliament Bank 822 final) eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/com_822_0 Union: piece in: Vanhercke Ghailani Sabato Play ETUI/OSE Be Reconciled? Citizens’ View Integration Milan: REScEU centroeinaudi it/images/locandine/REScEU_Mass_survey_results_SHORT_VE RSION Federal-State Partnership: Relevance Reflections (IZA 129 Multi-dimensional Preferences Labour 24(7) 1027-1047 (Policy Brief School Transnational (EUI) Issue 2018/01 Lengfeld H Ignácz Kley Priem Strong Solidarity? (BSSE (Berlin Sociology February) Häuberer Do state? comparative 31(6) 677-700 Eurozone? Deductible 199–203 T Causal Inference Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices Stated Preference Experiments Analysis 22(1) 1–30 Uses legitimacy 120-139) 120-139 Left-wing unwilling redistribution? Explaining (EUI MWP 2016/17) Solaz Elsas E Practising preach: cosmopolitanism promotes 25(12) 1759-1778 Boundaries Solidarity: Policies Unpublished manuscript Comparative Assessment Discussion Responses Times 253-281) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Against Immigration Establishment? Scandinavian Vol 41(3) 263-282 Oorschot W Delespaul Gugushvili Laenen Roosma Rossetti Past Present Future Topline Round Retreived europeansocialsurvey org/about/singlenew html?a=/about/news/essnews0054 html Smoothing Asymmetric Shocks Area: Simple Proposal Dealing Mistrust 5817 March 2016) area: table? Promises (Jacques Delors Institute Paper(166) 1-26 Mobilizing costly policies: party cues 56(2) 446-461 R history Benefits APPAM Conference Inequalities: Addressing Growing Challenge Policymakers Worldwide London 13-14 eight Reduction Hazard: Vaccination Metaphor 52(3) 154-159 3-46) identity? 16(5) 871–904