CONTENT OR DISCONTENT? PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION IN FRANCE, GERMANY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Executive Summary
The study "Content or Discontent? Perceptions of Social Protection in France, Germany and the United Kingdom" explores citizen perceptions of social protection systems in three major European countries through the lens of the OECD's Risks that Matter Survey. The key findings highlight:
-
Cross-country Consensus: There is a notable consensus among citizens in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom regarding perceptions of social and economic risks, indicating a shared concern across these welfare states.
-
Differences in Satisfaction with Public Services: While perceptions of risk are similar, there are significant differences in satisfaction levels with public social services, particularly in the context of pensions.
-
Independence of Satisfaction from Benefits: Cross-country differences in satisfaction with social protection services do not correlate directly with variations in social benefits or service provision.
-
System-Wide and Welfare State-Independent Influences: The study identifies factors that influence public satisfaction with social protection beyond the traditional welfare state design, including socio-economic profiles and perceptions of policy-making representation.
-
Socio-Economic Profiles and Satisfaction: There is significant variation in satisfaction with social protection services within each country, influenced by factors such as parental status, income, and gender.
-
Role of Administrative Procedures: The impact of administrative processes and time costs on satisfaction with social protection is also highlighted.
Key Findings
Cross-country Consensus: The survey reveals that citizens in France, Germany, and the UK share similar concerns about various social and economic risks, suggesting a common ground in societal worries despite differences in welfare state structures.
Satisfaction with Public Services: Contrary to expectations based on welfare state design, there are substantial differences in satisfaction with public social services, notably pensions, across these countries.
System-wide Influences: Beyond traditional welfare state categorizations, the study underscores the importance of factors such as socio-economic profiles and perceptions of policy-making in shaping public satisfaction with social protection.
Variation within Countries: Within each country, satisfaction with social protection services varies significantly based on factors like parental status, income level, and gender, indicating nuanced societal responses.
Administrative Impact: The study highlights the role of administrative procedures and the time costs associated with accessing social services as critical determinants of satisfaction.
Conclusion
The report emphasizes the complexity of public perceptions of social protection, revealing that while there is a shared sense of societal risk, satisfaction with specific aspects of social protection varies significantly. It underscores the need for policymakers to consider broader societal factors, beyond traditional welfare state classifications, in designing and improving social protection systems. The insights provided offer a nuanced understanding of how different socio-economic profiles and administrative practices influence public satisfaction, offering valuable guidance for policy reforms aimed at enhancing social protection effectiveness and equity.
