Welfare state refrms mapping citizens pinin An pinin survey in eight Eurpean cuntries Cmmissined by the Visin Eurpe Summit
In brief On behalf f the Visin Eurpe Summit, TNS Emnid cnducted in July and August f 2015 a representative survey in the fllwing eight EU member states: Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Pland, Prtugal and the United Kingdm 1. Key findings In each f the eight cuntries surveyed, mre than half f the ppulatin supprts the idea that the EU set minimum standards fr scial prtectins in all EU member states. Supprt fr this is greatest in France. In each cuntry surveyed, a majrity believes the EU shuld put pressure n the member states t implement necessary refrms f their welfare systems. In every cuntry, with the exceptin f Finland, a majrity advcates financial transfers frm rich t pr EU member states. In each f the eight cuntries surveyed, citizens wrry mst abut the state f pensins and elderly care in the future. Citizens in each cuntry surveyed cnsider educatin and training a very imprtant plicy area fr the future f the welfare state. In each cuntry citizens are cmparatively cnfident with regard t the future f child care in their cunty. Citizens in cuntries with cmparatively lwer levels f public debt are willing t cntribute mre in rder t maintain the current level f public welfare benefits. Citizens in financially weak cuntries prefer cuts in benefits ver increases in taxes and cntributins. Cnclusins The survey results suggest that citizens are aware f the challenges and need fr refrm in scial welfare systems. A scial investment apprach is in line with citizens view that educatin is an imprtant plicy area fr the future. The survey data pints t strng supprt fr the EU taking n a mre imprtant rle in calling fr refrms t ensure the sustainability f individual scial prtectin systems and t guarantee a minimum level f scial prtectin acrss the EU. 1 The survey was cnducted via telephne. The sample size in each cuntry was 1.000 respndents (with 1007 in Germany). 2
The EU as guarantr f scial prtectin flrs The EU was established with the gal f fstering ecnmic prsperity in all member states thrugh increased ecnmic integratin. Its success as an ecnmic prject is a testament t such integratin. Over the years, as this ecnmic prject has prspered, the EU has als develped itself as a scial prject, thugh with less vigr. The EU may intervene with regulatins r by setting minimum standards (e.g., maximum weekly wrking hurs, ccupatinal safety) nly when ding s has relevance fr the internal market. Decisins regarding scial prtectins, hwever, are a matter f natinal svereignty. Figure 1: The EU as a guarantr f minimum standards in scial prtectins The EU shuld set minimum standards f scial prtectin fr all its member states France 61% 25% 5% Belgium 5 7% Pland 50% 8% 8% Germany 45% 1% 1 7% Italy 41% 7% Prtugal 5 19% 1 11% UK 41% 11% 15% Finland 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strngly agree Smewhat agree Dn't knw, n/a Smewhat disagree Strngly disagree Currently, EU member states with cmparatively lwer scial standards can try t gain a cmpetitive advantage ver ther member states. Setting (relative) scial standards fr all member states wuld ensure that a certain level f scial prtectin is guaranteed in all member states and a race t the bttm thus prevented. Acrss the bard, citizens in all f the surveyed cuntries expressed their supprt fr scial standards being set (see figure 1). Even in Finland, where apprval is lwest, 63 percent are in favr f this prpsal. The greatest apprval is fund in France (8), fllwed by Belgium and Pland. Germany lies in the middle, with 75 percent f its citizens expressing apprval. There is a gegraphical divide n this questin: citizens in nrthern and western Eurpean cuntries (Finland and United Kingdm) are mst likely t reject minimum standards, fllwed by the suthern Eurpean states (Italy and Prtugal), whereas the greatest apprval is fund amng citizens in central Eurpean states (France, Belgium, Pland and Germany). 3
The EU as advcate fr refrms In additin t setting standards, citizens in the surveyed cuntries are in favr f the EU pressuring member states t implement necessary refrms. Figure 2: The EU as a guarantr f necessary refrms The EU shall put pressure n natinal states including yur cuntry t implement refrms f the welfare system when they are necessary. Pland 47% 10% 10% Belgium 45% 11% 9% France 4 9% 11% Prtugal 41% 3 18% Germany 25% 47% 19% Finland 20% 49% 19% 9% Italy 28% 39% 1 UK 25% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strngly agree Smewhat agree Dn't knw, n/a Smewhat disagree Strngly disagree Even in the United Kingdm, where supprt fr this statement is lwest, 52 percent f citizens respnded psitively t the questin as t whether the EU shuld pressure individual member states t implement scial welfare refrms where needed. Despite the verall supprt t this statement in the United Kingdm, an imprtant part f the surveyed in this cuntry als strngly disagrees with the statement. Ples shw the strngest supprt amng the eight states surveyed with mre than tw-thirds advcating a strnger EU rle here. Belgian and French citizens cme secnd and third. In Prtugal and Germany supprt is slightly lwer, but these cuntries are als thse with the smallest percentage f citizens wh strngly disagree with his statement (nly 2 percent in Prtugal). The Finnish public, generally mre eursceptic n all ther EU-related questins, is clse behind the Germans with 69 percent expressing the desire t have the EU act as an advcate f refrms (see figure 2). We can thus say that the EU is thus seen by many citizens as a supprt in getting natinal leaders t implement necessary refrms that ensure the lng-term viability f the welfare state but dn t win vtes. What these findings d nt imply shuld als be nted here. Respndents d nt expect the EU t demand specific refrms (e.g., cnsistent liberalizatin, austerity plans, etc.). One cannt infer frm the questin whether r nt cnsistency acrss the EU shuld be targeted r whether stipulating specific requirements is enugh. This may vary frm state t state and depends n the demgraphic, ecnmic and scial cntext in each. The EU is seen as a 4
catalyst fr refrms necessary fr a particular system, nt as a guarantr f specific refrms that shuld be identical in each state. Financial slidarity Citizens ascribe an additinal rle t the Eurpean Unin: Nt nly shuld it put pressure n natinal gvernments that resist refrm, it shuld als guarantee financial slidarity between the member states. In answering this questin, it is clear that citizens f cuntries that are net cntributrs t the EU budget regard this requirement with mre scepticism than d citizens frm net recipients. Pland was nt nly the largest net recipient in 2013, 2 it was als the cuntry (f the eight included in the survey) in which the largest share f respndents agreed with the statement that the Eurpean Unin shuld guarantee financial transfers frm rich t pr member states. Germany, the United Kingdm and France, the three biggest net cntributrs t the EU (as f 2013), as well as Finland which cntributes nly minimally mre t the EU budget than it receives in payments shw the greatest share f respndents rejecting financial slidarity (see figure 3). In Finland, nly 46 percent f respndents agree with the abve-cited statement. In all ther cuntries, hwever, agreement exceeds the 50 percent mark. In Germany, the largest net cntributr, 61 percent f respndents declare themselves t be in favr f financial slidarity with prer member states. Figure 3: Financial slidarity amng EU member states The EU shuld ensure financial transfers frm the rich t the pr member states. Pland 37% 37% 7% Prtugal 35% 20% 8% Italy 39% 11% Belgium 25% 3 5% 1 Germany 45% 28% 9% France 28% 5% 19% UK 30% 19% Finland 1 30% 28% 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strngly agree Smewhat agree Dn't knw, n/a Smewhat disagree Strngly disagree 2 Last available data 5
Cnfidence in the welfare state f the year 2050 Citizens f the eight cuntries take a pessimistic frward-lking view when asked t assess whether the welfare state will still meet the ppulatin s needs by the year 2050. Fears dminated in all eight cuntries, particularly in plicy areas significant t the elderly, that is, pensins and elderly care. Germans shw themselves t be the mst wrried in this regard, with 70 percent f respndents fearing that pensins will n lnger meet citizens needs, and 63 percent fearing the same when it cmes t care fr the elderly in 2050 (see Appendix 1). In cntract nly 51 percent in the United Kingdm and 52 percent in Belgium are pessimistic regarding pensins in 2050. The demgraphic prfiles f bth the United Kingdm and Belgium are less wrrisme than the German ne. Citizens were als asked abut their assessment regarding the future f child care and f educatin and training. In bth f these plicy areas, expectatins fr the future are ptimistic acrss all eight cuntries. In Belgium, just 18 percent f the ppulatin is wrried abut the future f educatin and training; with apprximately n third f their citizens expressing cncern, Germany, France and the United Kingdm fall int the middle grund in this regard. In frmer PISA tp achiever Finland, 39 percent f citizens d nt expect the educatin and training system t cver the needs f future generatins. Mst peple are pessimistic regarding this plicy field in Prtugal where 44 percent d nt believe that it will cver future needs. Germany, Belgium and Pland three very different cuntries express the least amunt f wrry regarding child care in 2050 (). While in Belgium, nearly 50 percent f children under three years f age were in child care utside the hme in 2013, the cmparable figure was barely 30 percent in Germany, and just 10 percent in Pland. It appears that at least in Germany, the cnsiderable financial resurces devted in recent years t the expansin f care fr sub-three-year-lds has cnvinced citizens that the necessary steps are being taken in this plicy area, even if needs are nt yet being sufficiently met tday. 3 Only in Germany and the United Kingdm are fewer than 50 percent f citizens wrried abut supprt fr the unemplyed in the year 2050. In fact, bth cuntries tday shw lw unemplyment rates in crss-eurpean cmparisn. The situatin is quite different in Italy and Belgium, in each f which nearly 60 percent f respndents regard the future pessimistically. It appears as thrugh the tw cuntries that rebuilt and liberalized their labr markets befre the crisis are reaping the benefits f these refrms in 2015, in the frm f a lw unemplyment rate and cmparatively strng citizen cnfidence in the future f unemplyment insurance. 3 Since it must be assumed fr this questin that respndents are taking bth the quantity and the quality f currently available care places int cnsideratin, we refrain frm explaining this psitive view slely thrugh the expected decline in births in Germany and the assciated decline in demand fr child care places. Of curse, the lw rate f child care placement in Pland can als be explained by a lw level f demand. Hwever, this issue cannt be further pursued here. 6
Expectatins f the welfare state In additin t citizens cncerns, the survey als addressed evaluatins f hw imprtant varius welfare state gals shuld be in the future. One f the plicy fields regarded as the surce f cmparatively little wrry by citizens in the surveyed cuntries was als placed near the tp f the list in terms f future imprtance (see Appendix 2): the attainment f educatin. 4 This result must be seen in the cntext f the paradigm shift twards Scial Investment plicies in mst Eurpean cuntries. Scial Investment can be summarized as scial plicy that (nt nly) ffers supprt in times f need, but instead uses targeted investments t place citizens in a psitin where they will nt fall int a state f need. Investments in (early childhd) educatin and training are ne f the pillars f scial investment. The preventative welfare state is a quite prmising apprach, even if in the future gals such as slidarity and equality f pprtunity shuld be aligned with issues such as cmpetitiveness and the fight against pverty. The fact that the citizens surveyed see educatin as the welfare state s mst imprtant gal shuld be an incentive fr pliticians t invest in this plitical area s as t btain vtes nt nly thrugh shrt-term scial spending prgrams, but instead by securing the lng-term viability f ur scial system. The selectin f cuntries des nt affrd a cmparisn between the ld and new EU member states; hwever, it is striking that Pland, a cuntry f the frmer Eastern Blc, is the nly cuntry in which citizens identify child care as the mst imprtant gal f the future welfare state. Germans, Italians, Belgians and Britns see enabling all citizens t acquire educatin as the mst imprtant gal while in France, Prtugal and Finland it shuld be the guarantee f health care. Refrm ptins: Increase cntributins r reduce benefits? In all eight cuntries, welfare states are faced with the challenge f cntinuing t fulfil citizens expectatins in the future withut cnsistently allwing expenditures t exceed the available resurces. This prblem has hit painfully hme in sme cuntries during the curse f the financial and ecnmic crisis. Prtugal was able t avid natinal default in 2011 nly thanks t an EU bailut, which was cnditinal upn hard-driving refrms. When Italy was n the verge f a credit dwngrade, necessary refrms were systematically implemented under the techncratic gvernment f Mari Mnti, fr instance in the pensin system. Refrms that reduce (future) benefits enable a cuntry t gain credibility with its creditrs. But what abut with citizens themselves? T find this ut, citizens f the eight cuntries were asked which f the fllwing ptins they wuld prefer if tax revenues and scial cntributins were n lnger sufficient t maintain the current level f benefits: a) increase taxes and scial security 4 Respndents were asked abut enabling all citizens t acquire educatin, knwledge and skills. 7
cntributins in rder t maintain the level f public welfare benefits Or: b) keep taxes and scial security cntributins at the current level, but reduce scial welfare benefits. The largest share advcating fr the preservatin f current benefit levels is in Finland, where 56 percent f respndents supprt an increase in taxes and cntributins. In the United Kingdm and Germany as well a majrity declared their supprt fr increased taxes and cntributins in return fr unchanged benefits. A cmparisn f these results with thse in Italy and Prtugal cuntries with high budget deficits suggests a cnclusin: that majrities fr higher taxes are fund in these three cuntries because they have been able t bring their public finances under cntrl in recent years, and have nt had t burden citizens with significantly higher taxes. The cntrary is true in Prtugal in Italy, cuntries in which taxes have increased in sme cases drastically in the wake f the financial crisis. Only 29 percent f Prtuguese and 36 percent f Italians are in favr f increased taxes in rder t retain a cnstant level f services. In France, an abslute majrity (51%)is even in favr f a reductin in the current level f benefits. This result shuld shake up French pliticians; apparently, citizens supprt exactly the imprtant changes that pliticians are afraid f. Figure 4: Future financing If taxes and scial security cntributins were nt sufficient t maintain the current level f public welfare benefits and services in yur cuntry, which f the fllwing tw ptins wuld yu prefer: Finland 55,9% 15,5% 28, UK 49,9% 10, 39,8% Germany 47,8% 8, 43,8% Belgium 45,1% 7,7% 47, France 36,8% 12,7% 50,5% Pland 35,7% 15,0% 49, Italy 35,7% 21,8% 42,5% Prtugal 29,5% 23,8% 46,8% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Increase taxes and scial security cntributins in rder t maintain the current level f public welfare benefits and services Dn't knw, n/a*, ther** Maintain taxes and scial security cntributins at current levels and reduce the current level f public welfare benefits and services 8
Annex 1: What citizens expect f the welfare state in 2050 80% In the year 2050, d yu think that the public welfare system in yur cuntry will cver the needs f citizens in the fllwing fields? Diagrammed is nly the "N"-ptin. 70% 60% 40% 48% 6 4 3 67% 6 6 59% 5 51% 51% 5 48% 47% 4 40% 41% 37% 37% 38% 3 3 3 3 58% 55% 51% 5 40% 6 57% 5 55% 5 5 48% 48% 4 39% 3 20% 18% 0% Germany UK France Italy Pland Belgium Prtugal Finland Health care Pensins Supprt fr the unemplyed Child care Care fr elderly peple Educatin and training
Annex 2: Imprtance f specific plicy areas in the future 60% 40% 20% 38% 3 2 2 2 Thinking abut the future public welfare system in yur cuntry, hw imprtant shuld the fllwing aims be? Diagrammed is nly the "Extremely imprtant"-ptin. 5 5 37% 47% 57% 4 4 51% 30% 2 35% 50% 48% 4 47% 4 4 30% 30% 4 48% 55% 4 40% 5 51% 5 49% 47% 35% 0% Germany UK France Italy Pland Belgium Prtugal Finland Guaranteeing health care Guaranteeing child care Enabling all citizens t acquire educatin Guaranteeing incme / apprpriate living standards Guaranteeing care fr elderly peple 10
Cntact Visin Eurpe Summit c/ Bertelsmann Stiftung Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256 33311 Güterslh Germany Katharina Barié Prgram Internatinal Frums and Trends Telephne +49 5241 8181485 katharina.barie@bertelsmann-stiftung.de www.visin-eurpe-summit.eu