The Religious Dimension of the Welfare State

1
The Religious Dimension of the Welfare State
The Religious Dimension of the Welfare State
2
The Religious Dimension of the Welfare State
The Religious Dimension of the Welfare State
Christopher Poole
3
Introduction

• Political culture The importance of cultural,
  social, ethnic traditions and their effects on
  governmental institutions.
• The Catholic Church An innately hierarchical,
  structured entity.

GOD
Pope
Cardinals
Archbishops
Bishops
Priests
Followers
4
Catholic Church
GOD
Pope
Cardinals
Archbishops
Bishops
Priests
Followers
5
Protestant Church
GOD
CHURCH OFFICIALS / ORGANIZATION
LOCAL CONGREGATION
6
Research Question

• Is there any relationship between a states
  predominant affiliation with Catholicism or
  Protestantism and its level of welfare spending?

7
Understanding

• Did not expect a powerful correlation
• ___
• Religion is but one of innumerable variables

8
Realistic Limitations

1. States with significant welfare systems are the
   minority
2. Overwhelmingly Christian, Anglo- or Euro- nations
3. Limited number of Protestant states in existence
4. Even scarcer number of Lutheran states

9
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

10
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

11
Prior Research
!
12
Prior Research

• Surprisingly little research directly pertinent
  to the topic

13
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 Gods good grace
• -Spirit of capitalism

14
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.

15
Prior Research

• Richard L. Means (1966)
• -Criticized Weber
• -Focused more on Protestant beliefs
• -education
• -Protestantism as a minority religion
• -social reform

16
Prior Research

• David L. Clawson (1966)
• -Webers 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

17
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

18
Prior Research

• Charlene Harrington (1996)
• -Catholic healthcare systems

Jeffrey Donovan (1996) -Increasing role of
church worldwide in social services and poverty
assistance
19
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
20
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

21
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

22
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

23
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)

24
(1) Comparing Means

• (1) T-Test / Analysis of Variance ANOVA

Variances in Welfare Spending Significance (p)
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.
25
(1) Comparing Means

• (1) T- Test / Analysis of Variance ANOVA

Variances in Welfare Spending Significance (p)
Between Catholic and Non-Catholic States Between Protestant and Non-Protestant States Between Lutheran and Non-Lutheran States NOT SIGNIFICANT NOT SIGNIFICANT .029 (statistically significant)
26
(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)
Percent of population who are Lutheran
Pearson Correlation .362 (statistically significant)
27
(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.
28
(3) Linear Regression (continued)

• (3) Linear Regression

R .248 R Square .061
Model B Significance
CONSTANT 15.351
Predominant Christian Denomination 2.328 .134

R Values Weak Not a statistically significant
relationship.
29
(3) Linear Regression (continued)

• (3) Linear Regression

R .362 R Square .131
Model B Significance
CONSTANT 17.509
50 or more Lutheran 7.811 .025 (statistically significant)

R value fairly good
30
(3) Linear Regression (continued)

• (3) Linear Regression

R .489 R Square .239
Model B Significance
CONSTANT 12.571
Predominantly Catholic Predominantly Protestant Predominantly Lutheran 6.189 5.985 6.723 .045 (statistically significant) .127 .088

R value is predictive
31
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP 16.15 .10 Protestant
32
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP 18.71 - .01 Catholic
33
Welfare Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP 17.36 .09 Lutheran
34
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
  non-Lutheran states
• Correlation ceases to hold up for actual
  Predominant Denomination variable or for
  Predominant Religious Identifier dummy variables

35
Results (continued)

• Difference between two models likely explainable
  because
• Predominant indicator includes Protestant
  states with significant Catholic minorities
  (Germany, Canada)
• South American countries negatively skew the
  analysis for Catholic states.

36
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

37

• Thus, in conclusion.

38
Hypotheses

• There is a significant relationship

39

• Reject hypothesis!
• Not between Catholic and Protestant States

40
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

41

• Reject hypothesis!
• Even though it is not statistically significant
  enough to be usable, our analysis shows the
  opposite

42
Hypotheses

• Predominantly Lutheran states are more likely
  than other Protestant states or Catholic states
  to devote higher percentages of their GDP to
  welfare expenditures

43

• Supported?
• Most analyses indicate that Lutheran states are
  more likely to

44

• Overall, hypothesis rejected

45
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

46
Future Research

• 1) Communist / Post-Communist States?
• 2) Social Goods Theory State vs Church?
• 3) Religiosity and Welfare Expenditures
• Public Expenditures versus Private Religious
  Organizational Activites Within State
• Many Other Possible Avenues for Research

47
Thank You.