Transcript Poole

The Religious Dimension of the
Welfare State
The Religious Dimension of the
Welfare State
Christopher Poole
Introduction
Political culture: The importance of cultural,
social, ethnic traditions and their effects on
GOD
governmental institutions….
Pope
Cardinals
Archbishops
Bishops
Priests
Followers
The Catholic Church: An innately
hierarchical, structured entity….
GOD
Catholic Church
Pope
Cardinals
Archbishops
Bishops
Priests
Followers
Protestant Church
GOD
CHURCH OFFICIALS
/ ORGANIZATION
LOCAL
CONGREGATION
Research Question
Is there any relationship between
a state’s predominant affiliation
with Catholicism or
Protestantism and its level of
welfare spending?
Understanding…
Did not expect a powerful correlation
___
Religion is but one of innumerable
variables
Realistic Limitations
1) States with significant welfare
systems are the minority
2) Overwhelmingly Christian, Angloor Euro- nations
3) Limited number of Protestant
states in existence
4) Even scarcer number of Lutheran
states
Hypotheses
1) Yes, there is a weak significant
relationship
2) States that are predominantly
Catholic are more likely to devote
higher percentages of their GDP
to social assistance and welfare
spending than are Protestant
states
Sub-hypothesis
(2a) Predominantly Lutheran states
are more likely than other
Protestant states or Catholic
states to devote higher
percentages of their GDP to
welfare expenditures
Prior Research
Prior Research
Surprisingly little research
directly pertinent to the
topic
Prior Research
Max Weber (1930): “Protestant Work Ethic”
-Protestantism: birth and growth of
modern capitalism
-Commitment to work and avoidance of
idleness
-Belief in predestination
-Personal profit and material gain
indicators of God’s good grace
-“Spirit of capitalism”
Prior Research
Thelma McCormack (1969):
-Weber not fully correct
-Spread of Protestantism the result of
changing socioeconomic conditions that
gave birth to capitalism
-Protestantism “the source of a
modernizing ethic which defined the
role-sets for participation in urban life
and a division of labor.”
Prior Research
Richard L. Means (1966):
-Criticized Weber
-Focused more on Protestant
beliefs
-education
-Protestantism as a minority
religion
-social reform
Prior Research
David L. Clawson (1966):
-Weber’s theories in small South American
agrarian communities
-Catholic and Protestant economic activity
-Correlation between Protestantism and
economic vitality in mixed Protestant-Catholic
communities
-Radical Catholic poverty movements;
conscientizacao
-Emphasis on Catholic social justice; poverty
is a structural problem rather than an
individual one
Prior Research
Henri Gooren (2002):
-Researched Catholic liberation
theology and social justice
-Growth of Protestantism in poor
South American communities
-Results: Protestantism motivates
poor, provides manageable concept
of individual rather than systemic
poverty
Prior Research
Charlene Harrington (1996):
-Catholic healthcare systems
Jeffrey Donovan (1996):
-Increasing role of church
worldwide in social services and
poverty assistance
Prior Research
Sigrun Kahl (2004):
-Religion a key determinant of modern welfare and
poverty policy
-Three categories: Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran
-Each affected the welfare systems and attitudes to
that would develop in predominantly Christian states
Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde (2005):
-State welfare spending and religiosity
-Religiosity in the modern state is a function– not
factor– of social services spending
-As state welfare spending increases, it supplants the
traditional welfare and caretaking functions of
church
-Their data supports their claims
Prior Research
Kenneth Scheve and David Stasavage (2005):
-More religious individuals less likely to
support social insurance (welfare).
-As with Gill and Lundsgaarde, “competition”
between church and state for control of
fulfilling social services
-More religious states will display lower
levels of welfare spending and vice versa
-Supported by data
Methodology
*Non-experimental, cross-sectional study
*Aggregate data
*Sources:
Welfare Spending Data:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) Social Expenditures Database 2001
International Labour Organization World Labour Report 2000
GDP Data:
United Nations Development Program
Religious Demographic Data:
Countrywatch
CIA World Factbook
Methodology
*Sample size: 38 States
*Challenges:
-Limited availability of data
-Realistically limited number of countries–
only primarily “first-world” and mostly
Christian countries have substantial welfare
systems in the first place
-Far fewer Protestant nations
-Extreme minority of Lutheranism
*Nations divided into: Predominantly
Protestant, Predominantly Catholic, Other
Methodology
(continued)
VARIABLES:
GDP (GDP)
Welfare Expenditure as % of GDP (WELFARE)
Predominant Religion/Affiliation (PREDOM)
Percentage of Population Who Are Catholic
(PERCCATH)
Percentage of Population Who Are Protestant
(PERCPROT)
Percentage of Population Who Are Lutheran
(PERCLUTH)
Is A Predominantly Catholic State (ISCAT)
Is A Predominantly Protestant State (ISPROT)
Is A Predominantly Lutheran State (ISLUT)
(1) Comparing Means
(1) T-Test / Analysis of Variance [ANOVA]
Significance (p)
Variances in Welfare Spending
Between Catholic and Protestant
States
.402
The difference in welfare spending
between Catholic and Protestant states
is not significant when measured
purely by denominational identifiers.
(1) Comparing Means
(1) T- Test / Analysis of Variance [ANOVA]
Significance (p)
Variances in Welfare Spending
Between Catholic and NonCatholic States
NOT SIGNIFICANT
Between Protestant and NonProtestant States
NOT SIGNIFICANT
Between Lutheran and NonLutheran States
.029
(statistically significant)
(2) Multivariate Analysis
(2) Multivariate Analysis
Religious Percentages for 38
States
Welfare Expenditure as % of
GDP
Percent of population who are
Catholic
Pearson Correlation
-.043
Percent of population who are
Protestant
Pearson Correlation
.426
(statistically significant)
.362
(statistically significant)
Percent of population who are
Lutheran
Pearson Correlation
(2) Multivariate Analysis
(continued)
(2) Multivariate Analysis
Predominant Denomination
Welfare Expenditure as % of
GDP
Predominant Christian Denomination
Pearson Correlation
.248
Not a statistically significant relationship.
(3) Linear Regression
(3) Linear Regression
(continued)
R: .248
Model
R Square: .061
B
Significance
CONSTANT 15.351
Predominant Christian Denomination 2.328
.134
*R Values Weak
*Not a statistically significant relationship.
(3) Linear Regression
(3) Linear Regression
(continued)
R: .362
Model
R Square: .131
B
Significance
CONSTANT 17.509
50% or more Lutheran 7.811
*R value fairly good
.025
(statistically significant)
(3) Linear Regression
(3) Linear Regression
(continued)
R: .489
Model
B
R Square: .239
Significance
CONSTANT 12.571
Predominantly Catholic 6.189
Predominantly Protestant 5.985
Predominantly Lutheran 6.723
*R value is predictive
.045
.127
.088
(statistically significant)
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP
30.00












20.00















10.00







0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
Percent of population who are Protestant
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP =
16.15 + .10 *[% Protestant]
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP
30.00
 







 




20.00


 









10.00









0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
Percent of population who are Catholic
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP =
18.71 - .01 *[% Catholic]
Welfare Ex penditure as a Pe rcentage of GDP
30.00



20.00






















10.00









0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
Percent of population who are Lutheran
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP =
17.36 + .09 *[% Lutheran]
Results
Positive correlation between state welfare
expenditures and increase in Protestant and
Lutheran % of population
A non-significant negative relationship with
Catholic population percentage
Significant difference between Lutheran and nonLutheran states
Correlation ceases to hold up for actual
Predominant Denomination variable or for
Predominant Religious Identifier dummy
variables
Results (continued)
*Difference between two models likely explainable
because:
A) “Predominant” indicator includes Protestant
states with significant Catholic minorities
(Germany, Canada)
B) South American countries negatively skew the
analysis for Catholic states.
Results (continued)
Removing South American nations from the
analysis:
*Mean welfare expenditures of Protestant and
Catholic states close (21.5% vs 21.9%)
*Denomination consistently (though weakly)
significant
*Weak positive correlation between welfare
expenditures and Catholic identifiers.
*Still positive association with Lutheranism
Thus, in conclusion….
Hypotheses
There is a significant
relationship
Reject hypothesis!
Not between Catholic and Protestant
States
Hypotheses
States that are predominantly
Catholic are more likely to devote
higher percentages of their GDP
to social assistance and welfare
spending than are Protestant
states
Reject hypothesis!
Even though it is not statistically
significant enough to be usable, our
analysis shows the opposite
Hypotheses
Predominantly Lutheran states
are more likely than other
Protestant states or Catholic
states to devote higher
percentages of their GDP to
welfare expenditures
Supported…?
Most analyses indicate that Lutheran
states are more likely to
Overall, hypothesis
rejected
Conclusion
Analysis shows Lutheranism does seem to be
associated with higher welfare expenditures
Not very helpful: Minority of states, regionally
concentrated, all Social Democratic States.
Relationship between Catholic/Protestant
Predominance and welfare expenditures is
skewed by A) larger number of Catholic nations
and B) Catholicism in the developing world
Future Research
1) Communist / Post-Communist
States?
2) “Social Goods” Theory– State vs
Church?
3) Religiosity and Welfare Expenditures
4)Public Expenditures versus Private
Religious Organizational Activites
Within State
Many Other Possible Avenues for
Research…
Thank You.