Search

ABSTRACT Research on ideological attitudes has identified two main dimensions that refer to two fundamental features of group organization: social solidarity and social control. In response to prior research that has studied their relationship mainly from a correlational perspective, this paper introduces a social reality model based on psychological functionality of ideological attitudes. Social position variables (education, income and material vulnerability) and insecurity variables (fear of crime and distrust) are used to predict the interplay between ideological attitudes towards social solidarity and social control. Using K-means cluster analysis, a typology with four patterns of support for solidarity and control ('socials', 'repressives', 'minimalists' and 'social-repressives') was created, on the basis of representative survey data for the UK, France and Germany ( N = 7034). Results from logistic regression analyses show that the proposed social reality model explains membership in typology categories, with similar results across the three countries. Overall, the model underscores the social origins of ideological attitudes as functional responses to perceived social reality. The paper illustrates how the social psychological study of ideological attitudes may be enriched by a typological approach that examines patterns of attitudes rather than single dimensions. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoliberal turn in economic policy involved an attack on the welfare state in some countries but not in others. This article provides an institutionalist explanation of the causes of this variation through a comparative analysis of the transformation of British and French economic policy from the end of the Second World War through the end of the 1980s. The author shows that in both nations the transition to neoliberalism accompanied the economic crisis that took place in the 1970s. However, consistent with the differences in the way the two countries came to diagnose the nature of their respective crises; the policy manifestations of neoliberalism remained different in each. In Britain, where the crisis was diagnosed as one of Keynesianism, neoliberalism emerged as a radical anti-Keynesian movement that sought to dismantle major Keynesian institutions and policies. In this context, the welfare state, a fundamental Keynesian institution, was identified as a part of the 'problem,' and became subject to the neoliberal 'solution.' On the other hand, in France, where the crisis was perceived to reside in the declining competitiveness of the dirigiste policies, the neoliberal reorganization of the economy focused on industrial policy. The welfare state was not associated with the problems of dirigisme, and remained largely resilient. Through this analysis, the author attempts to develop a general theory of the relationship between neoliberalism and national policies and provide insights into the process through which paradigmatic ideas such as neoliberalism translate into concrete policy preferences in different national contexts. Data for this study come from a combination of content analysis of major government documents concerning the economy and social policy, political party election manifestos, opinion papers, OECD statistics and secondary literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a comparative study of the labour market and social policy measures introduced in light of the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom between March 2020 and January 2021. Its main aim is to understand whether the crisis response has changed the structures of the welfare states concerned. Focusing in particular on the differences regarding the crisis measures taken for individuals in 'standard employment' and 'non-standard workers' in each country, it argues that, although extensive temporary protection instruments were introduced for both groups during the crisis, these did not lead to an immediate convergence as regards these groups' social protection. Rather than changing the underlying structures of welfare systems, many of the measures in fact highlighted the specific vulnerabilities of large segments of Europe's labour markets. States have, however, granted social compensation at unprecedented levels, which could result in improved infrastructures and a clearer understanding of the responsibility of the welfare state in future emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]