Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:21:43.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion and the Demand for Social Welfare in Britain*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Paul Whiteley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the role of public opinion in the social policy making process. It argues that existing accounts of social policy formation are inadequate in their treatment of public opinion, and inconsistent in their estimation of its importance. It then goes on to examine detailed examples of the role of public opinion in policy making; and finally tests two hypotheses concerning the sources of the demand for social welfare spending on the part of the British electorate.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 453 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

1 Goldthorpe, J. H., ‘Development of Social Policy in England 1800–1914’, Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology,1962International Sociological Association,London, 1964, pp. 42–50.Google Scholar

2 Carrier, J. and Kendall, I., ‘Social Policy and Social Change: explanations of the development of Social Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 2 (1973), 209–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘The Development of Welfare States: the production of plausible accounts’, Journal of Social Policy 6 (1977), 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Room, G., The Sociology of Welfare, Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1979, ch. 3.Google Scholar

4 See particularly Banting, K., Poverty, Politics and Policy, Macmillan, London, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R. and Webb, A., Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy, Heinemann, London, 1975Google Scholar; Townsend, P., Sociology and Social Policy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976Google Scholar; Jones, K., Brown, J. and Bradshaw, J., Issues in Social Policy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1978Google Scholar and Heclo, H., Modern Social Policies in Britain and Sweden, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1974.Google Scholar

5 For an overview of the theoretical work on policy analysis see Jenkins, W. I.Policy Analysis, Martin Robertson, London, 1978Google Scholar and Pollit, C., Negro, J., Lewis, L. and Patten, J., Public Policy in Theory and Practice, Open University and Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1979.Google Scholar

6 Marshall, T. H., Social Policy, Hutchinson, London, 1975.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. p. 33.

8 Titmuss, R. H., Essays on the Welfare State, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1976, p. 39.Google Scholar

9 Gilbert, B., British Social Policy 1914–39, Batsford, London, 1970.Google Scholar

10 Gough, I., The Political Economy of the Welfare State, Macmillan, London, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Hall, et al. op. cit. p. 87.Google Scholar

12 Myrdal, G., “The Place of Values in Social Policy”, Journal of Social Policy, 1 (1977), 2.Google Scholar

13 Banting, , op. cit. pp. 144–54.Google Scholar

14 Judge, K. and Hampson, R., ‘Political Advertising and the Growth of Social Welfare Expenditures’, International Journal of Social Economics, 7 (1980), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Bradshaw, J., The Family Fund, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1980.Google Scholar

16 Lasswell, H., ‘The Decision Process’ in Polsby, N. (ed.), Politics and Social Life, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1963.Google Scholar See also Bauer, R. A. and Gergan, K. J. (eds), The Study of Policy Formation, Free Press, New York, 1968Google Scholar and Sharkansky, I., ‘Basic conceptions in Policy Analysis’ in Sharkansky, I. (ed.), Policy Analysis in Political Science, Markham, Chicago, 1970, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

17 Hofferbert, R., The Study of Public Policy, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1974.Google Scholar

18 Nimmo, D. and Bonjean, C. (eds), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, David McKay, New York, 1972.Google Scholar

19 Oskamp, S., Attitudes and Opinions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1977.Google Scholar

20 Nie, N., Verba, S. and Petrocik, J., The Changing American Voter, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 See Wolfe, J. N. (ed.), Government and Nationalism in Scotland, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969Google Scholar; Webb, K., The Growth of Nationalism in Scotland, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1978Google Scholar and McLean, I., ‘The Rise and Fall of the Scottish National Party’, Political Studies, 18 (1970), 357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 See Butler, D. and Sloman, A., British Political Facts, Macmillan, London, 1980, p. 210.Google Scholar

23 See Foot, P., Immigration and Race in British Politics, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1965Google Scholar and Studler, D. T., ‘British Public Opinion, Colour Issues, and Enoch Powell: a longitudinal analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 4 (1974), 371–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 See Sarlvick, B., Crewe, I., Alt, J. and Fox, A., ‘Britain's Membership of the EEC: a profile of electoral opinions in the spring of 1974 – with a postscript on the Referendum’, European Journal of Political Research 4 (1976), 83–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Butler, D. and Kitzinger, C., The 1975 Referendum, Macmillan, London, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Bevan, A., In Place of Fear, Quartet Books, London, 1978, p. 107.Google Scholar

26 Butler, D. and Stokes, D., Political Change in Britain, Macmillan, London, 1974, p. 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Banting, , op. cit. p. 96.Google Scholar

28 For a full discussion of this technique see Maxwell, A. E., Multivariate Analysis in Behavioural Research, Chapman and Hall, London, 1977, pp. 39–45.Google Scholar

29 Only the first principle component had an eigenvalue > 1.0. Thus by Kaisers criterion this suggests only one significant factor.

30 For example if a respondent scored 1 on variables 1 and 2, and 5 on variables 3 to 5 their score in the welfare index would be calculated as follows:

31 For an analysis of the concept of party identification see Butler, and Stokes, , op. cit. ch. 2.Google Scholar

32 Butler, and , Stokes, op. cit. ch. 14.Google Scholar

33 See Crewe, I., ‘Party Identification Theory and Political Change in Britain’, in Budge, I., Crewe, I. and Farlie, D., Party Identification and Beyond, J. Wiley, London, 1976, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar

34 See Lerieux, P. H., ‘Political Issues and Liberal Support in the February 1974 British General Election’, Political Studies 25 (1977), 323–42.Google Scholar

35 For an explanation of this measure see Upton, G. J., The Analysis of Cross-Tabulated Data, Wiley, London, 1978, p. 33.Google Scholar

36 There is now quite a lot of political science evidence which shows that the relationships between background characteristics and attitudes are not strong, though significant. For a theoretical analysis of this see Converse, P., ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in Apter, D. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, Free Press, New York, 1964.Google Scholar