PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE WELFARE STATE AND PUBLIC POLICY:

THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE

By

Nissim Cohena*, Shlomo Mizrahib and Fany Yuvalb

Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Haifa; Department of Public

Policy and Administration, Ben-Gurion University, Beer sheva

Public opinion, as expressed in surveys and polls, can provide insights into social and cultural
beliefs of a country at a given point in time. This paper explores the attitudes, beliefs, and
preferences of Israeli citizens towards social policy and the welfare state as well as the
implications of these attitudes for public policy. The research was conducted through a national
survey with 940 respondents. While public attitudes towards the Arab–Israeli conflict are
researched occasionally, there are relatively few studies that have conducted an in-depth
exploration of the attitudes and beliefs of Israeli citizens regarding the welfare state. The study
was conducted in spring 2008.

Israeli society is an interesting field for analyzing public attitudes towards the welfare state and
the implications for public policy for several reasons.

First, for many years the Arab–Israeli conflict has dominated the political agenda and social
discourse in a way that marginalizes other issues, especially socioeconomic ones. Therefore,
unlike in other countries where attitudes towards such issues dominate electoral campaigns, in
Israel they play a rather minor role.

Second, in recent decades Israeli society has experienced significant structural transformations,
beginning with the economic stabilization plan that a National Unity Government implemented
in 1985 on the basis of an agreement with representatives of the private sector (employers) and
labor unions. That agreement dramatically changed the power structure in Israeli society by
reducing the power of trade unions, which, under their federation (the Histadrut), also managed
the country’s largest health fund. The agreement also increased the state’s autonomy and
strengthened the Ministry of Finance’s control over the economy. From that point on,
bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance became the dominant players in most policy-making
processes and attempted to advance the neo-liberal ethos that guided their professional education
and they regard as part of their commitment to the professional community. As social
fragmentation increased, the political system weakened, promoting the advancement of the neo-
liberal ethos.

Third, students of Israeli society and politics concur that since the late 1970s, modern Western
influences such as the free-market economy, individualistic values, and globalization have had a
powerful effect on Israeli society. Generally speaking, too, Israeli society has become much
more privately oriented than it was in previous decades.

Fourth, researchers of Israeli society generally agree that since the 1980s, and more so since the
late 1990s, Israeli governments have adopted socio-economic policies that exhibit clear neo-
liberal characteristics. Such researchers point to policies that shrink the public sector and its
roles, increase the role and freedoms of the private sector and capital markets, downsize social
security networks, reduce the government’s role in providing basic services such as education
and healthcare, weaken the labour unions, champion privatization, and cut wages and security for
workers to support their claims.15 It is also generally agreed that while these processes trace
their historical origins to the 1960s or even the 1950s, they reflect a significant shift in the
ideology and perceptions that guide policy makers in Israel. As explained above, a deeper
understanding of Israeli society requires a systematic analysis of the degree to which such
policies reflect public attitudes.

THE WELFARE STATE AND PUBLIC OPINION

The term socio-economic policy refers to the degree to which the state intervenes in economic
and social .interactions. In that respect, there are three main ideological orientations. The liberal
orientation, as well as neo-liberalism which developed since the mid-1970s, suggests that
economic interactions are regulated by natural laws, and the combination of all self-interests
creates natural harmony. According to this approach, individual and economic liberties
contribute to the prosperity of society and, therefore, the state should limit its intervention to
upholding the principle of private property.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum stands the socialist orientation, which supports a
high level of state intervention in the economy to rectify the inequities created by the free market
and ameliorate market failures. Between these two orientations stands the social-democratic
orientation, which supports governmental provision of services in areas that suffer from market
failures, such as education, health, and social security, while leaving space for the free market in
other policy areas. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the social-democratic orientation dominated
most Western societies. However, since the mid-1970s, social and economic changes have
favored the dominance of the neo-liberal orientation. These ideological approaches significantly
influenced the development of the modern welfare state.

The essence of the welfare state includes the following components: acceptable standards in the
areas of health, education, housing, employment, income and social care as a clear political right
for everyone; collective responsibility for achieving such universal rights; implementation of this
collective responsibility through government intervention; individual welfare as the
responsibility of the government; government allowances as a political right that reflects social
values and norms; and the existence of social solidarity.

Given these components, there are two main types of welfare states: the universal type and the
selective (residual) type. The universal type, which shares much in common with the social-
democratic approach, includes all the components mentioned above, with a special emphasis on
social services as a basic and universal right of all citizens. The selective-residual type of welfare
state, which shares much in common with the neo-liberal approach, minimizes universal social
rights and justifies government support only for low-income groups. The current research
attempts to assess the support of the Israeli public for the welfare state in general and for these
specific models in particular.

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE ISRAELI WELFARE STATE: EXISTING

EXPLANATIONS

Researchers of Israeli society generally agree that since the 1980s, and more so since the late
1990s, Israeli governments have adopted a socio-economic policy with clear neo-liberal
characteristics.

In a survey conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute, respondents generally agreed that
services provided by the state are of poorer quality than services provided by other organizations,
including private ones. Regarding resource allocation, 82% of respondents in the 2007 survey
objected to a reduction in social services in order to increase the defence budget. This research
also shows that until 1984 most Israelis supported a socialist policy, while during the period from
1988 to 1996 there was growing support for a capitalist orientation. However, in surveys
conducted in 2000, 2003 and 2007 the trend changed, and more than 50% of the public preferred
a kind of socialist policy over a capitalist one. Surveys conducted by the Taub Center in the past
decade have also indicated strong resistance to a reduction in social services in favour of
defence.

FINDINGS

Results indicated that the Israeli public supports the core principles of the welfare state. The
Israeli public assigns a significant role to the state in the economic and social spheres and
believes that the state, rather than citizens themselves, should be held accountable for individual
basic needs. Most of the respondents justified the universal welfare state and the state’s concern
for the weaker sectors of the population. Respondents also showed a relatively high willingness
to pay for the welfare state, although this willingness was lower than the declared justification for
the welfare state. To a large extent, these attitudes indicate the dominance of the social-
democratic approach among the Israeli public, and strong support for the universal model of the
welfare state.

Age specific result:

Support for government intervention decreases when the respondent is older, better educated,
less religiously observant, and has a higher income.

Gender specific result:

More women than men stated their belief that Israel had too many poor people (p ¼0.005); that
income gaps in Israel were too wide; and that the state should care for the population’s weaker
sectors rather than leaving the people to fend for themselves. In addition, more women than men
actually felt the economic gaps in the population as well as supported the state’s responsibility to
ensure its citizens’ living standards in a more equal manner.

Religion specific result

Religion also played a role in the respondents’ attitudes. More so than Jews, non-Jews in Israel
thought that the State of Israel should ensure the existence of a large public sector ……….. and
that cutting social service budgets (such as health and education services) to increase the defence
budget cannot be justified

Furthermore, Israeli Jews also believed more than others that competition in business and the
free market (capitalism) constituted the best economic system ; that if somebody genuinely seeks
employment, he will find it, and that normally the transfer of government-run companies and
services to private firms (privatization) is a good move.

Area Specific result:

Respondents view the issue of education as the most important item (1056 wins over other policy
areas). The second most important area was health (903 wins), and security came in third.
Presumably the public views education as a factor that influences other policy domains. High
quality education is expected to strengthen the country’s human capital as well as its social
capital and consequently also affect other policy areas. The low mark given to pensions
compared to the other issues was somewhat surprising. One possible explanation for this
outcome may be the average age of the respondents, who are relatively far away from retirement
and do not see pensions as a pressing personal issue.

REASON FOR INEFFECTIVE STATE SERVICES

The harm done to the welfare state in Israel stems from the irresponsible behaviour of the
country’s leaders. The public does not seem inclined to believe that the money allocated to social
policies is invested wisely, irrespective of whether this lack is due to the inefficiency of the
decision makers or the fact that they may be corrupt. Such attitudes are evident in samples of the
respondents’ statements: ‘The problem is that nowadays the existing governments cannot be
trusted to ensure that the money will indeed be spent on the right things. We are paying enough
taxes and the money is not utilized properly...”

According to the respondents’ statements: ‘We are paying sufficient taxes and also on profits
from savings and so there is no reason to ask us for more money but rather to reduce what is
given to the government ministers for superfluous luxuries and wasting money...’
The study included 940 respondents who reported their attitudes towards various issues related to
the welfare state. The findings show that, to a large extent, the Israeli public justifies state
intervention in the supply of public services, supports public investment in services related to the
welfare state, and recognizes the need to support the weaker sectors of society. The majority of
respondents agree with the statements that in Israel there are too many poor people, social gaps
are very big, the government should take care of the poor and reduce social gaps, the state should
provide a basic income to everyone, there are services that should not be privatized, and it is not
justified to reduce social services in order to increase the budget for defence.