In his or her opinion? : the gender gap in attitudes toward the welfare state in Sweden and Europe

Abstract: Background This thesis explores differences in the attitudes that men and women hold toward the welfare state by investigating previously neglected areas concerning how attitudes differ between welfare states, as well as the role played by emotional and psychological attachment to a gender group. The studies analyze how gender differences in welfare state attitudes relate to social policies and prevailing gender relations, as well as to the process of social identification with a gender group. They also provide evidence on the longitudinal development of attitudinal gender differences in Sweden.Methods All four studies rely on survey data. One part of this thesis consists of a comparison between countries in Europe that utilizes a multilevel analysis to examine how the interaction between family policy and gender (in)equalities in the division of unpaid labor is related to gender differences in support for the government’s responsibility to provide social welfare. A second part consists of analyzing trends in multiple attitudes toward the Swedish welfare state, covering both normative and evaluative aspects of welfare state support for the years 1981–2018. A third part consists of examining welfare state attitudes in Sweden during the year 2018. Here, the focus is on social identification with a gender group and its potential role as an intermediary factor in the relationship between gender and welfare state attitudes. Results The gender gap in people’s support for the government’s role in providing social welfare varies among European countries, with attitudes differing most in countries where men and women share more equally in performing unpaid care and domestic labor. Conversely, men and women do not display differences in their welfare state attitudes in countries where inequalities in the division of unpaid labor are widespread. However, the relationship between gender (in)equality in unpaid labor and welfare state attitudes is shaped by the institutional design. In countries where family policies subsidize women’s caregiving within families without public alternatives—thus normatively conveying the resulting gender inequalities as corresponding to inherent differences in caregiving capabilities—this relationship does not exist. The last four decades of attitudes toward the Swedish welfare state demonstrate no clear trends revealing whether gender differences are diverging or converging; nevertheless, the correlational evidence of contextual variation in the attitudinal gender gap speaks in favor of progression in gender equality as being coupled with larger attitudinal differences. Regarding social identification with a gender group, this process is not connected with observed gender differences in people’s suspicion of welfare overuse in Sweden. However, when compared with both women and other men, men with a strong gender identification are less willing to increase social spending in Sweden. The observed relationships match the predictions made when theorizing social identification with a gender group as enhancing attentiveness to gendered self-interest among men under conditions of potential masculinity threat and thus increasing the likelihood of adopting stereotypically masculine attitudes toward equality and social welfare. Conclusions Gender differences in welfare state attitudes are not universal. An integrated theory of gender differences in welfare state attitudes should account for the interplay between structuring aspects of the welfare state and prevailing gender norms, and how these relate to psychological aspects of gender as a social identity. Attitudinal gender differences should therefore be understood in terms of what type of welfare state men and women are expressing their attitudes toward and how this welfare state affects gender relations. Attachment to their gender group seems to be of special importance for men’s attitudes. However, this is only true for dimensions where the welfare state can be viewed as a threat to masculinity by undercutting the normative connection between masculinity and breadwinning.