confidence in government and happiness in eu and us sergiu baltatescu university of oradea...
TRANSCRIPT
Confidence in Government and Happiness in EU and US
Sergiu BaltatescuUniversity of Oradea
International Joint Workshop: Europe and North America - Societies in Contrast
Hanse Institute for Advanced Study, Delmenhorst, Germany,6-9 March 2005
2
Specific CCSC Trends Addressed
11. Ideologies 11.2 Confidence in Institutions
17. Attitudes and Values 17.1 Satisfaction
3
Decline in confidence in government
Acknowledged for the last 35 years in US. “Whereas over 70% of Americans in 1960
indicated that they trusted government "almost always" or "most of the time" this proportion dipped below 40% in 1974, recovering slightly in the mid-1980s only to reach new lows in the 1990s" (Brooks and Cheng, 2001)
Also in European Union, on a lesser extent, but less documented by research.
4
Decline in confidence in government
Debates on measures: NES and GSS: very different measures divergent in 80’s Each measure has strengths and week
points. Alternative measures proposed.
5
Decline in confidence in government
Debates on conceptualizations:
“The conventional wisdom was challenged in the wake of the September 11”
Decline in trust in government dramatically shifted in US
6
Decline in confidence in government
Causes: long-term secular changes in attitudes
toward authority (Inglehart 1999) profound economic changes caused by the
information revolution and globalization (Giddens 1990)
7
Decline in confidence in government
Causes: “symbolic” changes in the political process
that increased the distance between the political activists and the public (Lipset and Schneider 1983)
a more consistently negative approach by the press to government and other institutions (Nye Jr. 1997).
8
Decline in confidence in government
Effects - negative inefficiency of the institutions involved changes in policy preferences (presumed, but
not proved) the legitimacy of a democratic regime may be
called into questionEffects - positive A certain amount of skepticism seems to be
healthy for a democracy
9
Subjective well-being
Is a measure of the individual and societal output
Has two levels: global (happiness,life satisfaction) sectorial (satisfaction with job, family, political system)
Two dimensions: Cognitive (life satisfaction). Hedonic (happiness, affect scales).
10
Happiness
Hedonic component of subjective well-being
Used interchangeably with subjective well-being
Relatively stable in time, but sufficiently sensitive to social change
11
Happiness in US
Mean-levels relatively stable in time (not steep slopes)
US:slight decrease.concern: “age of anxiety”debates: happiness is relative?
12
Happiness in EU Mixed, but general increasing trend. Source: Eurobarometer trend file 1973-2002, 11
countries subset
2,5
2,7
2,9
3,1
3,3
3,5
3,7
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
FRANCE
BELGIUM
NETHERLANDS
GERMANY
ITALY
DENMARK
IRELAND
UK
SPAIN
FINLAND
SWEDEN
13
Trust in government and happiness in EU and USComparison difficulties: Different measures in EU and USParadox: Correlated at individual level in every
country EU and US nations trends not match:
US: both series declineEU: happiness increase, trust decrease
14
How to interpret correlation?
CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENTHAPPINESS
MORE LIVABLE SOCIETY
A society with peoples trusting authorities is theoretically more livable.
Confidence increase the efficiency of government and prevents disorders.
Livability (Veenhoven, 1993) is one of the most influential explanatory theories for the variations in happiness.
15
How to interpret correlation?
CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENTHAPPINESS
INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
BENEFITS
•Braud (1996): Pluralist democracies have the aptitude to manage the emotional dynamisms of the society”
•Confidence in Government may enhance the feelings of safety.
•A possible explanation for the 2001 shift in US.
16
How to interpret correlation?
HAPPINESSCONFIDENCE
IN GOVERNMENT
SPILL-OVER EFFECT
Brehm & Rahn (1997)“Americans transfer their unhappiness about their own lives onto confidence about federal institutions.”
17
How to interpret correlation?
Interpersonal trust is one of the most important determinants of confidence in government.
HAPPINESSCONFIDENCE
IN GOVERNMENT
INTER-PERSONAL
TRUST
18
How to interpret correlation?
•Inglehart (1999) “Postmodernization Brings Declining Respect for Authority”
•Shifting values like postmaterialism may intervene here.
HAPPINESS
CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT
POST-MODERNIZATION
19
Data & Method
World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys 1981-1984, 1990-1993, 1995-1997, and 1999-2001 (Inglehart, 2000, 2004).
Selected 11 EU countries (France, Britain, W Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Finland).
USA & Canada included
20
Data & Method
3 Waves: Approximately 10 years distance 1981-1984, 1990-1993, 1999-2001 WVS intermediary wave 1995-1997
collected data only for few countries, therefore not included.
21
Data & Method
Spain was entered in the collection with the data from WVS 1995-1997.
For first two waves it was included only W Germany. Last wave include also East Germany
22
Variables
Life satisfaction (1-10 scale)“All things considered, how satisfied are
you with your life as a whole these days?”
“Trust in government” included only in WVS 1995-1997 impossible to make comparisons.
“Trust in government institutions” scale was constructed, analog to that used by Listhaug & Wiberg (1995).
23
Variables
Four items, 1-4 summative scale:Question: “Please look at this card and tell me,
for each item listed, how much confidence you have in them, is it a great deal, quite a lot, not very much or none at all?
Armed forces Police Parliament Public services
24
Variables
Psychometric proprieties of the index of confidence :
- Reliability: at/little below limit Cronbach alpha above 1981 - 0.70, 1990 – 0,668, 1999-2000 – 0.672
- Convergent validity: correlation with “confidence in government” in US and Canada 1999-2000 varying around 0,5-0,6.
25
Trust in government institutions - comparative
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
EU
USA
Canada
• All three countries follow the same pattern:
- Decrease in the 80’s
- Stagnation/slight increase in the 90’s
• All values above mean of the interval
• EU (11 countries) have the lowest values!
26
Trust in government institutions - Europe •General decrease in
the 80’s (except Ireland and Denmark)
•Mixed patterns in the 90’s
•decrease (Germany, UK)
•increase (Finland, Italy, Denmark)
•stagnation (all other countries)
•Spain, Belgium, Italy below mean of the interval.
2,2
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
Finland
France
UK
W Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
Spain
Ireland
Sweden
27
Trust in government institutions - Europe • Police, armed forces,
highest rates, and also highest decrease rates in the 80’s
• Parliament, civil services
•lowest ratings
•Confidence decreased to a lesser extent in the 80’s.
•While all other institutions partially recovered their loss in confidence in the 90’s, Parliament still decreases.
2
2,1
2,2
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
3
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
Armed Forces Police Parliament Civil Services Government institutions
28
Trust in government institutions - US
•Similar pattern as in EU, with police, armed forces having highest confidence but also highest decrease rates in the 80’s
•Only armed forces recovered their loss in confidence in the 90’s.
•Parliament, with lowest rates, has also a steep decrease.
2
2,2
2,4
2,6
2,8
3
3,2
3,4
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
Armed Forces Police Parliament
Civil Services Government institutions
29
Life satisfaction - comparative
•Different patterns:
- US & Canada – slight decrease
- EU slight increase in the 80’s, stagnation in the 90’s
•All values between 7 and 8 (from 10)
•Canada with higher scores, EU again with the lowest values!
7,2
7,3
7,4
7,5
7,6
7,7
7,8
7,9
8
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
EU USA Canada
30
Life satisfaction - EU
•North/south divison
•Sweden, Denmark & Finland highest scores
•France, Italy and Spain lowest scores
•Significant increase in the 80’s for most countries
•Different patterns in the 90’s
6,5
6,7
6,9
7,1
7,3
7,5
7,7
7,9
8,1
8,3
8,5
1981-1984 1990-1993 1999-2001
Finland France Britain W Germany
Italy Netherlands Denmark Belgium
Spain Ireland Sweden
31
Confidence in government institutions and life satisfaction
Nation-level means correlation for 13 countries:
1981-1984: r=0,423 1990-1993: r=0,471 1999-2001: r=0,642
32
Confidence in government institutions and life satisfaction (1999)
2,30
2,40
2,50
2,60
2,70
2,80
con
fid
ence
: g
ove
rnm
ent
inst
itu
tio
ns
6,50 7,00 7,50 8,00 8,50
life satisfaction
Finland
France
UK
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
Spain
Ireland
Sweden
USA
Canada
r2 = 0,474
33
Confidence in government institutions and life satisfaction
r2 = 0,497
Big picture: 36 European countries + US + Canada
2,00
2,20
2,40
2,60
2,80
con
fid
ence
: g
ove
rnm
ent
inst
itu
tio
ns
5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00
life satisfaction
BELGIUM
CANADA
DENMARK
FINLAND
FRANCE
GERMANY
IRELAND
MALTA
NETHERLANDS
SWEDEN
UK
US
Countries included in the study are in a top positions
34
Confidence in government institutions and life satisfaction
Picture at individual level: Individual-level 0-level correlation varies in the
1999-2001 wave between 0,91 (Netherlands) and 0,215 (Ireland) with Overall European correlation of 0,168
US and Canada – around 0.12. For the other two waves, correlations are similar,
being significant for all countries.
35
Individual-level correlation across three waves
Wave
EU
US CanadaMin Max Mean
1981-1984
,094(**)Italy
,255(**)Ireland
,176(**) ,122(**) ,137(**)
1990-1993
,044 n.sBelgium,092(**)
Italy
,160(**)Ireland
,120(**) ,164(**) ,146(**)
1999-2001
,082(**)Netherlands
,091(**)Italy
,215(**)Ireland
,168(**) ,119(**) ,125(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).n.s. non significant
36
Confidence in government institutions and life satisfaction Rank-order scores of Pearson correlation are
similar in all three waves. Persistent lower correlations in Italy, France &
Spain Highest in Ireland, Germany There may be country characteristic that
influence the magnitude of the association (social capital?)
37
Testing Inglehart’s hypothesis
HAPPINESS
CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT
—
POST-MATERIALISM
±
?
Still association?
Across all countries/waves, postmaterialism is negatively correlated with trust in government in institutionsCorrelations signs & values between happiness postmaterialism are mixed.
Controlling for postmaterialism, correlation between happiness and confidence in government institutions remains significant.
38
Influence of GDP
HAPPINESS
CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT
+
GDP
+
?
Still association?
At country level, in all vaves, GDP/capita is highly positively correlated with trust in government institutions and also happiness
Controlling for GDP/capita, correlation between happiness and confidence in government institutions remains significant.
39
Conclusions – confidence in government institutions In all waves, US have higher levels But also steepest decline. Similar ranking:
authority (police, armed forces) comes firstdeliberative (parliament) comes last
Similar patterns of variation across waves: Decrease in the 80’sStagnation/slight increase in the 90’s
40
Conclusions – happiness
US also higher levels Different patterns of variation across
waves: US & Canada – slight decrease EU slight increase in the 80’s, stagnation in
the 90’s
41
Conclusions – happiness & confidence in government Individual-level correlation coefficients
Significantly positive across all nations and waves
still significant when controlling for postmaterialism levels
Nations have relatively stable individual-level correlations.
Nation-level correlation coefficientsstill significant when controlling for GDP/capitaAre increasing across waves greater
homogeneity
42
Conclusion
Similar and convergent trend in EU and US
43
Acknowledgement
Some of the theoretical considerations are drawing from a text included in the research proposal “Well-Being and Society”, submitted in EU 5th Framework Program in January 2002.
Many thanks to Prof. Ruut Veenhoven from Erasmus University Rotterdam, promoter and coordinator of this project, who proposed to me to work on this issue and made very important suggestions.
44
Reference list
Bălţătescu, S. (2002). Trust in Institutions and Well-Being: a State of the Art. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Fascicula Sociologie-Filosofie-Asistenþã Socialã, 1, 95-99.
Braud, P. (1997). Decline of the founding values of democracy and weakening of quasi-missionary institutions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32/3 (1997): 112-123.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3): 999-1024.
Brooks, C., & Cheng, S. (2001). Declining Government Confidence and Policy Preferences in the U.S: Devolution, Regime Effects, or Symbolic Change? Social Forces. 79, 1343-1375.
45
Reference list
Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. (2000). The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239–256.
Dogan, M. (1996). La crise de confiance dans les democraties pluralistes. In Universalia (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Universalis.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Inglehart, R. (1999). Postmodernization Brings Declining Respect for Authority, but Rising Support for Democracy. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46
Reference list Inglehart, R., et al.. (2000). WORLD VALUES SURVEYS AND EUROPEAN
VALUES SURVEYS, 1981-1984, 1990-1993, 1995-1997. [Computer file] ICPSR version.
Inglehart, R., et al.. (2004). WORLD VALUES SURVEYS AND EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS, 1999-2000. [Computer file] ICPSR version.
Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. G. (1983). The Decline of Confidence in American Institutions. Political Science Quarterly, 98(3), 379-402.
Listhaug, O., & Wiberg, M. (1995). Confidence in Political and Private Institutions. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the state (Beliefs in government vol. 1) (pp. xxi, 474 p.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Nye, J. S. (1997). Introduction: The Decline of Confidence in Government. In J. S. Nye, P. Zelikow & D. C. King (Eds.), Why people don't trust government (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations : subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations, 1946-1992. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Department of Social Sciences, RISBO, Center for Socio-Cultural Transformation.