Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:31:39.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embedding technological transformation: the welfare state and citizen attitudes toward technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2020

Sijeong Lim Open the ORCID record for Sijeong Lim [Opens in a new window]
Sijeong Lim*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Division of International Studies, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
*
E-mail: sijeonglim@korea.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much scholarly attention has been given to the potentially disruptive distributional implications of new technologies in labor markets. Less explored is the way citizens as socially embedded individuals perceive and respond to technological transformation. This study fills this gap by exploring how welfare state institutions shape and are shaped by citizens’ perceptions of technological transformation. My analysis covering over 50 developed and developing countries finds that welfare state generosity is associated with a greater acceptance of technological change. I also provide evidence consistent with the expectation that labor market interventions of the welfare state have the potential to reduce the skill cleavage over technological transformation by mitigating the insecurity faced by the low-skilled. Additionally, citizens embracing technological transformation are more supportive of the welfare state than techno-skeptics are.

Keywords

technological transformationtechnology attitudeseconomic insecuritywelfare statewelfare attitudes
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 67 - 89
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D. (1998), Why do new technologies complement skills? directed technical change and wage inequality, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(4): 1055–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, D. (2003), Cross-country inequality trends, The Economic Journal 113(485): F121–F149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. and Pontusson, J. (2007), Workers, worries and welfare states: Social protection and job insecurity in 15 OECD countries, European Journal of Political Research 46(2): 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asian Development Bank (2018), Asian Development Outlook 2018: How Technology Affects Jobs, Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.22617/FLS189310-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D.H. (2015), Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation, Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, D.H., Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2003), The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4): 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, N.A. (2001), The Welfare State as Piggy Bank: Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M., Durant, J. and Evans, G. (1994), European public perceptions of science, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6(2): 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behar, M.A. (2013), The Endogenous Skill Bias of Technical Change and Inequality in Developing Countries, Number 13-50. International Monetary Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, E.J. (2001), Does the welfare state induce risk-taking? Journal of Public Economics 80(3): 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, K., Keune, M. and Verhulp, E. (2012), Trade union responses to precarious employment in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B. (2001). Globalization and welfare compensation: disentangling the ties that bind, International Organization 55(3): 509–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, M.R. and Garritzmann, J.L. (2017), The effect of economic globalization on compensatory and social investment policies compared: a multi-level analysis of OECD countries, Danish Centre for Welfare Studies Working Paper Series WP 2017-2.Google Scholar
Card, D. and DiNardo, J.E. (2002), Skill-biased technological change and rising wage inequality: Some problems and puzzles, Journal of Labor Economics 20(4): 733–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, A and Vivarelli, M. (2011), Imported skill-biased technological change in developing countries, The Developing Economies 49(1): 36–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, T., Iversen, T. and Rehm, P. (2006), Risks at work: the demand and supply sides of government redistribution, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(3): 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Art, D. and Turner, T. (2007), Trade unions and political participation in the European Union: still providing a democratic dividend? British Journal of Industrial Relations 45(1): 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, F., Salomons, A. and Waal, J.V.D. (2017), Fear of robots at work: the role of economic self-interest, Socio-Economic Review 15(3): 539–562.Google Scholar
Domar, E.D and Musgrave, R.A. (1944), Proportional income taxation and risk-taking, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 58(3): 388–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domeij, D and Ljungqvist, L. (2013), The missing Swedish skill premium: Sweden versus the United States 1970–2002, Unpublished Manuscript, Retrieved from http://www.eief.it/files/2013/09/lars-ljungqvist.pdfGoogle Scholar
Earle, T.C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. (2012), Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation, in Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. London: Routledge, pp. 19–68.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S.D. (2010), Who supports compensation? Individual preferences for trade-related unemployment insurance, Business and Politics 12(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S.D. and Hearn, E. (2014). Does compensating the losers increase support for trade? An experimental test of the embedded liberalism thesis, Foreign Policy Analysis 10(2): 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, G. (1995), Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy, International Organization 49(4): 657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesthuizen, M., Solga, H. and Künster, R. (2010), Context matters: economic marginalization of low-educated workers in cross-national perspective, European Sociological Review 27(2): 264–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin, C. and Katz, L.F. (1998), The origins of technology-skill complementarity, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(3): 693–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goos, M., Manning, A. and Salomons, A. (2014), Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring, American Economic Review 104(8): 2509–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, C., Koulovatianos, C., Michaelides, A. and Padula, M. (2010), Evidence on the insurance effect of redistributive taxation, The Review of Economics and Statistics 92(4): 965–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha, E., Lee, D.-W. and Amri, P. (2014), Trade and welfare compensation: The missing links, International Interactions 40(5): 631–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, J.C., Ehrlich, S.D. and Peinhardt, C. (2005), Government spending and public support for trade in the OECD: an empirical test of the embedded liberalism thesis, International Organization 59(2): 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helpman, E. (2016), Globalization and wage inequality, Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2018), Social investment as a policy paradigm, Journal of European Public Policy 25(6): 810–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J. (2018), Relative education and the advantage of a college degree, American Sociological Review 83(4): 771–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E. and Puranen, B.et al. (eds.). (2014). World Values Survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile 2010–2014. Madrid: JD Systems Institute. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jspGoogle Scholar
International Labor Organization (2014). World Social Protection Report 2014–15: Building economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice, Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/world-social-security-report/2014/WCMS_245201/lang--en/index.htmGoogle Scholar
International Monetary Fund (2017), World Economic Outlook, April 2017: Gaining Momentum? Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.5089/9781475564655.081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T. and Cusack, T. R. (2000), The causes of welfare state expansion: deindustrialization or globalization? World Politics 52(3): 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaumotte, F., Lall, S. and Papageorgiou, C. (2013), Rising income inequality: technology, or trade and financial globalization? IMF Economic Review 61(2): 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D.M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., and Braman, D. (2011), Cultural cognition of scientific consensus, Journal of risk research, 14(2): 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, S. and Burgoon, B. (2018), Globalisation and support for unemployment spending in Asia: do Asian citizens want to embed liberalism, Socio-Economic Review. Online-first.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Y. (2011), Costly jobs: Trade-related layoffs, government compensation, and voting in us elections, American Political Science Review 105(1): 166–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, L. (1998), After the organizing ends: Workers, self-efficacy, activism, and union frameworks, Social Problems 45(3): 356–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayda, A.M., O’Rourke, K.H. and Sinnott, R. (2007), Risk, government and globalization: International survey evidence, Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meschi, E. and Vivarelli, M. (2009), Trade and income inequality in developing countries, World Development 37(2): 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, G., Natraj, A. and Van Reenen, J. (2014), Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven countries over twenty-five years, Review of Economics and Statistics 96(1): 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhring, K. (2012), The fixed effects approach as alternative to multilevel models for cross-national analyses, 10th ESPAnet Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Morel, N. and Palier, B. (eds.). (2012), Towards a Social Investment Welfare State?: Ideas, Policies and Challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palme, J. (2012), Chapter 14. Social investment: a paradigm in search of a new economic model and political mobilisation, in Towards a Social Investment Welfare State: Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: Policy Press, 353–376.Google Scholar
Nardo, M. and Saisana, M. (2008), OECD/JRC handbook on constructing composite indicators. Putting theory into practice.Google Scholar
Nooruddin, I. and Rudra, N. (2014), Are developing countries really defying the embedded liberalism compact? World Politics 66(4): 603–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2017), The Next Production Revolution: Implications for Governments and Business, OECD Publishing, Paris, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264271036-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation, Volume 2. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Quintini, G.et al. (2018), Automation, Skills Use and Training, Technical report, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Rehm, P. (2009), Risk and redistribution: an individual-level analysis, Comparative Political Studies 42(7): 855–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P., Hacker, J.S. and Schlesinger, M. (2012), Insecure alliances: risk, inequality, and support for the welfare state, American Political Science Review 106(2): 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O. (1990), Risk perception and risk management: a review, Risk Abstracts 7(1), 1–9 (Part 1) and 7(1), 1–9 (Part 2).Google Scholar
Rickard, S.J. (2012), Electoral systems, voters’ interests and geographic dispersion, British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 855–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, S.J. (2015), Compensating the losers: An examination of congressional votes on trade adjustment assistance, International Interactions 41(1): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, D. (1997), Has globalization gone too far? California Management Review 39(3): 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, D. (1998), Why do more open economies have bigger governments? Journal of Political Economy 106(5): 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (1982), International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order, International Organization 36(2): 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, L. and Spilker, G. (2016), Adding another level individual responses to globalization and government welfare policies, Political Science Research and Methods 4(2): 399–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, K. and Slaughter, M.J. (2004), Economic insecurity and the globalization of production, American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, K. (2017), The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L., Jahn, D. and Kuitto, K. (2017) Comparative Welfare Entitlements Dataset 2 Codebook. Version 2017-09. University of Connecticut & University of Greifswald.Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. and Earle, T.C. (2005), Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence, Journal of Risk Research 8(2): 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987), Perception of Risk, Science 236(4799): 280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stegmueller, D. (2013), How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches, American Journal of Political Science, 57(3): 748–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. (1989), Skills and the limits of neo-liberalism: the enterprise of the future as a place of learning, Work, Employment and Society, 3(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004), Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes, Public Understanding of Science 13(1), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, F. (2003), Bargaining, state regulation and the trajectories of industrial relations, European Journal of Industrial Relations 9(2), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidoli, F. and Fusco, E. (2018), Compind: Composite indicators functions based on frontiers in R, Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Compind/vignettes/Compind_vignette.pdfGoogle Scholar
Visser, J. (2016), ICTWSS Database. version 5.1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS), University of Amsterdam. Open access database at: https://uva-aias.net/en/ictwssGoogle Scholar
Walter, S. (2010), Globalization and the welfare state: testing the microfoundations of the compensation hypothesis, International Studies Quarterly 54(2), 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lim supplementary material

Tables A1-A3

Download Lim supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 56.1 KB