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.