Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:10:09.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political support for reforms of the pension system: two experiments*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2017

ANA FONTOURA GOUVEIA
ANA FONTOURA GOUVEIA*
Affiliation:
Portuguese Ministry of Finance and Nova School of Business and Economics, Portugal (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conduct two randomized control trials designed to understand the role of information and priming on the willingness to retrench the pension system. The first entails a survey to a sample of Portuguese voters, who are randomly presented with a text providing factual information about the public pension system. The second surveys a sample of Portuguese University students, randomly presented with an alternative order of questions. We show that more literacy on the pension system has a positive impact on the individual willingness to support reforms. Given that public opinion is usually seen as an important deterrent of effective action by politicians and that the level of voters’ literacy can be influenced by policy action, this analysis may provide useful insights to policy makers faced with the challenge of reforming existent pension systems. Our analysis also suggests that priming effects should not be ignored, given their impact in individuals in the extremes of the political spectrum.

Keywords

H55J26D8Pension reformpolicy opinionsinformationpriming effects
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 16 , Special Issue 3: Financial Knowledge and Key Retirement Outcomes , July 2017 , pp. 371 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Finance or of Nova School of Business and Economics. Part of this research was conducted while the author was visiting the Centre of Research in Public Economics and Population Economics (CREPP), University of Liège (September 2012–January 2013) and Toulouse School of Economics (February 2013–June 2013). The author would like to thank those that shared and replied to the questionnaires that are the basis of this research and to Nova Economics Club for testing an initial version of the survey. The paper benefited from comments of two anonymous referees, the participants of the Portuguese Economy Seminar Series of the Portuguese Ministry for the Economy (September 2015), the ISEG/ISCSP/ICS conference The welfare state in the age of austerity (May 2014) and the Nova SBE Informal Research Workshop (October 2013) and from useful discussions with Vincenzo Galasso, Pedro Magalhães and Susana Peralta. This research was partially funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (2012/2013).

References

Althaus, S. and Young, M. (2006) Priming effects in complex information environments: reassessing the impact of news discourse on presidential approval. Journal of Politics, 68(4): 960–976.Google Scholar
Blinder, A. S. and Krueger, A. B. (2004) What does the public know about economic policy and how does it know it? Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1: 327–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeri, T. and Tabelinni, G. (2012) Does information increase political support for pension reform? Public Choice, 150: 327–362.Google Scholar
Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A., and Tabelinni, G. (2001) Would you like to shrink the welfare state? The Opinions of European Citizens, Economic Policy, 32: 9–50.Google Scholar
Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A., and Tabelinni, G. (2002) Pension reforms and the opinions of European citizens. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, 92(2): 396–401.Google Scholar
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B. (2004) Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design for Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires, Vol. 40. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Chong, D., Citrin, J., and Conley, P. (2001) When self-interest matters. Political Psychology, 22(3): 541–570.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009) Standard Eurobarometer 71 – Public opinion in the European Union, field work – June to July 2009. TNS Opinion & Social, September 2009.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012) Special Eurobarometer 378 – Active ageing, field work – September to November 2011. Wave EB76.2 – TNS Opinion & Social, January 2012.Google Scholar
Heinemann, F., Bischoff, I., and Hennighausen, T. (2009) Choosing from the reform menu card – individual determinants of labour market policy preferences. Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, 229: 180–197.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. (2011) The Priming Power of Spanish: Testing the External Validity of a Survey Experiment. Georgetown University Working Paper.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. and Myrskylä, M. (2009) Always the third rail? Pension income and policy preferences in European democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 42(8): 1068–1097.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. and Duch, R. (2001) Do surveys provide representative or whimsical assessments of the economy? Political Analysis, 9(1): 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schokkaert, E., Verhue, M., and Pepermans, G. (2000) Les flamands et leur système de retraite. In Pestieau, P., Gevers, L., Ginsburgh, V., Schokkaert, and Cantillon, B. (eds), Réflexions sur l'avenir de nos retraites. Louvain: Garant, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
Walstad, W. and Rebeck, K. (2002) Assessing the economic knowledge and economic opinions of adults. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 42(5): 921–935.Google Scholar
Wilcox, N. and Wlezien, C. (1993) The contamination of responses to survey items: economic perceptions and political judgments. Political Analysis, 5(1): 181–213.Google Scholar