manipulated through question wording or the order questions are asked (Streb & Genovese, 2004, p.6). Some also warn that the information may be misused; “In the hands of a modern day Machiavelli they are indeed a threat to democracy, especially where there are politicians in positions of power who are without scruple in the belief that the end justifies the mean, and without constitutional safeguards to protect minority rights” (Worcester, 2013, p.8). For this project it is important to be aware of discussions around how polls influence people’s views. Furthermore, agenda setting is an important aspect of political power, thus we should be critical and ask; who defines the important and dominant questions? As a result we are not only looking at institutional feedback effect and people’s effect through voting and behaviour, but need to be aware that views may be impacted by information and discourses in the media and politics more generally. However, there is a lack of consensus in terms of exactly how and what aspects of citizen’s opinion polls may impact. Sonck and Loosveldt (2010) find that provision of poll information influenced collective opinions (perceptions of collective opinions rather than personal opinion) and not individual opinion, and that “movements in these perceptions of collective opinion were in the direction that could be expected based on the poll information provided” (Sonck & Loosveldt, 2010, p. 249). They also find that the changes in collective opinion still could be observed three months later. In other words some attitudes may be impacted whilst others are not, and changes may or may not be sustained over time. On the other hand some scholars have studied how political knowledge of citizens may impact to what extent and in what way information influence citizens’ attitudes; “The political knowledge possessed by the informed voters better enables them to cut to the core of the flow of the political news” (Hansen, 2009, p.526). The above underlines the importance of critically assessing what we know about citizens attitudes, especially as we need to have more critical discussion and use of the results presented in these polls and surveys. The following will discuss theoretical approaches to support for the welfare state.
The third consideration highlighted is interesting from a hierarchy of evidence point of view, as some authors might want to rank studies using multilevel models at the top of the hierarchy of evidence. This is because they can capture between and within country differences in attitudes not captured by other analysis methods. However, most scholars that do not use this method demonstrate awareness of the methodological issues involved when using different level (country and individual) variables. The latter is deemed as acceptable quality-wise, in particular as it is argued in this thesis that the choice of method should be guided by the research questions and needs. It is also important to note that multilevel modelling itself has weaknesses, in particular as the number of countries most commonly included are lower than what multilevel models require. The exact minimum number of higher-level units i.e. countries, is debated but Blekesaune and Quadagno (2003) suggest that ‘Standard methodologies assume that we have a large number of nations, 30 or more’ (2003, p. 419). However, they later use a sampling method that enables them to justify a lower number, 24 countries. Others argue that a minimum of 20 is justifiable. This is a significant problem for studies of attitudes to welfare as there might be little comparable data for 20 or more countries. As a result, multilevel modelling should not always be used, and this thesis maintains the argument that no method can be rated as at the top of a hierarchy. This view is embedded in the argument that each type of statistical and methodological techniques has their weaknesses and this goes for multilevel analysis as well as OLS regression. A separate issue in regards to multi-level modelling is how authors should report results from multilevel models. Some display coefficients, fixed and random variance and model fit through -2Loglikelihood (Van Oorschot and Uunk 2007) or ICC, whilst others do not report the model fit (Andersen and Singer 2008). This might be due to the fact that multilevel modelling is a relatively new method and no convention has come into place, but the choice on which parameters to include might be something authors should discuss in articles, at least until
Vodopivec, M and Dolenc, P (2008) Live Longer, Work Longer: Making It Happen in the Labour Market. SP Discussion Paper No. 0803. The World Bank Wallace, A, Croucher, K, Bevan,M, Jackson, K, O’Malley, L and Quilgards, D (2006) Evidence for policy making: Some reflections on the application of systematic reviews to housing research. Housing Studies. 21(2): 297-314. Worcester, R. (2013). PUBLICOPINION: FRIENDORFOE?. Chancellor’s Lecture. Canterbury campus 25 January 2013. Yeates, N. (2002). Globalization and Social Policy. London: Sage. Zutavern, J and Kohli, M (2010) Needs and Risks in the Welfare State. In: Castles, F; Leibfried, S; Lewis, J and H, Obinger eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bibliography of included studies Aalberg T. (2003) Chapter 6 Support for egalitarian ideals and policies: reaction or adjustment? In: Aalberg, T. Achieving justice: comparative public opinion on income distribution. Netherlands: Brill. Andersson, J. (2010). Welfare Regime Types: Do They Really Matter for Welfare Support. Paper for PSA Graduate Network Conference March 2010. Andress, H. J. and Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway and the United States. European Sociological Review. 17(4): 337-356. Bean, C. and Papadakis, E (1998). A comparison of mass attitudes towards the welfare state in different institutional regimes, 1985-1990. International journal of public opinion research. 10(3): Berg, L (2007). Multi-level Europeans: the influence of territorial attachments on political trust and welfare attitudes. Goteborg: Goteborg University. Bolzendahl, C. and Olafsdottir, S. (2008). Gender group interest or gender ideology? Understanding US support for family policy within the liberal welfare regime\. Sociological perspectives. 51(2): 281-304.
(2003) Larsen (2006) WVS: 1990-93;1995-1997;1999-2001; Eurobarometer: number 5 from 1976, number 31a from 1989, number 40 from 1993 and number 56.1 from 2001;ISSP:1992,1999; The Nordic Citizenship, Marginalisation and Unemployment Data:1998/99;The national sample- an additional module to the Danish ISSP 2004 Descriptive statistics; OLS regression analysis; logistic regression analysis Svallfors (2004) ISSP 1996 OLS (1999) ISSP Logit Roller, E (1995) ISSP 1985, 1987 AND 1990; Political Action 1973 and 1976; Eurobarometer number 11 from 1979, number 16 from 1981 and number 19 from 1983 OLS Borre (2003) ISSP Role of Government 1990-1998 and Danish National Election Surveys 1990-1998 Factor and bivariate analysis (2005) ISSP 1996 SEM Larsen (2008) wvs 1990 and ISSP OLS Edlund (2007) ISSP Role of Government 2 1996 LCA (1997) Four surveys conducted in Norway and Denmark in 1990 and Sweden in 1992 Bivariate and chi-square Bean & 1998 ISSP 1985/6 AND 1990 OLS regression P.A (1995) ISSP 1985 and 1990; Cultural change in the Netherlands 1970/75/80/85/86/87; British Social attitudes study 1985; British election study 1974/79/83/87; National election studies in Sweden 1960/64/68/70/73/76/79/80/85/88/91, Norway 1965/69/73/77/81/85/89/93, Finland 1975/80/85 and Denmark 1964/69/73/74/78/79/84/87/88/90 OLS Government responsibility Jaeger (2007b) ISSP Role of Government 2 1996 Probit - CHOPIT Luo (1998) ISSP 1985 Role of Government SEM & Ceccoli (2008) WVS Probit Forma& Kangas (1999) International survey of economic attitudes 1994/5 OLS Peillon (1996) ISSP 1990 QCA (2010) ISSP 2006 Role of government Government IV IRT Mokken Scaling and regression (blockwise)