Download presentation
2019-02-26_Presentation_Vandenbroucke_Nicoli_Bertelsmann

Risk Sharing When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For European (EURS) Bertelsmann Stiftung Berlin, 26.2.2019 Frank Vandenbroucke & Francesco Nicoli Universiteit van Amsterdam Introduction • Vandenbroucke, Brian Burgoon, Theresa Kuhn, Nicoli, Stefano Sacchi, David der Duin, Sven Hegewald, (EURS). 2018. AISSR Report 1 (December). Zusammenfassung: Grenzüberschreitende Solidarität Bei Beschäftigungskrisen: Wie Politikgestaltung Die Öffentliche Zustimmung Hinsichtlich Der Risikoteilung Erhöhter Arbeitslosigkeit Unter Den Bürgern Europas Beeinflusst  Why conduct a survey on public support for cross-border risk sharing? Our methodology: experiment with ‘conjoint analysis’ A experiment: making people think… Fixed points of all the policy packages: – disbursement EU MS is triggered by significant increases in unemployment that MS; used to subsidize national systems; common (minimum) floor generosity benefit levels participating countries. Moving parts: (3); conditions w.r.t. training and education (2); between-country redistribution (3) => 324 packages Taxation or administration job search effort dimension (3). IPSOS Screen shot: Strongly favour Somewhat Neither nor against Mean Package (O=strongly so1newhat ijl,ool. against, neutral; 1= son1ewhat strongly faveur) C’D 0 .2 .4 .6 -() w •• C/..l i,.; “‘d gr ‘¾ ‘1<1> , _/.) OQ (‘D 8 j “‘-“‘ y’6, 4, ,$> {J,. V, Figure 11: Average Marginal-Component Effeet (AMCE) Dimension Attributes EURS -.05 .05 .1 .15 14: Predicted Vote Sample Packages, Pooled (13 countries) T Intemally consistent ————– — MOST POPULAR: LEAST LOW FLOOR: HIGH FLOOR BUT WITH 70% last wage 40% NO REDIST.: DOMEST.REDIST.: REDIST. IN&BTWN.: Must train /educate No t:rain/educate las t Redist. rich-to-poor redist. train/educate costs 0.5% taxes redis t. Some btwn.cnt:Iy Nationa l achn in. Eurnpean ach1ün. Natio nal achnin. 1% rich accept offer no effmt accep National achni n. vote sample packages, Germany Conclusions Fundamental opposition confined relatively small segment population. Citizens are sensitive design EURS. Generous can carry majorities each countries our sample, even if generous package would require additional taxation In some countries, domestic from poor eventual tax burden (if there be burden) necessary rally sufficient support. most larger implementation decentralized. associated social investment policies. debate exercises community lot, i.e. question how tolerant scheme should regard structural redistribution, seems less important citizens, when they express preferences, than policymakers. This not say such debates important; but other issues as education, activation requirements seem more weight citizens’ judgment. Thank you Full report synthesis German: http://aissr.uva.nl/news