The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State
Open accessAbstract
Popular support for the welfare state varies greatly across nations and policy domains. We argue that these variations—vital to understanding the politics of the welfare state—reflect in part the degree to which economic disadvantage (low income) and economic insecurity (high risk) are correlated. When the disadvantaged and insecure are mostly one and the same, the base of popular support for the welfare state is narrow. When the disadvantaged and insecure represent two distinct groups, popular support is broader and opinion less polarized. We test these predictions both across nations within a single policy area (unemployment insurance) and across policy domains within a single polity (the United States, using a new survey). Results are consistent with our predictions and are robust to myriad controls and specifications. When disadvantage and insecurity are more correlated, the welfare state is more contested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Rational Theory of the Size of Government
Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261013 · Cited by 5,485
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193 · Cited by 5,019
Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State
Rothstein, B. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511598449 · Cited by 1,403
Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies
Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226075952.001.0001 · Cited by 427
Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies
Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100306 · Cited by 358
Obesity Metaphors: How Beliefs about the Causes of Obesity Affect Support for Public Policy
BARRY, C. L., BRESCOLL, V. L., BROWNELL, K. D., & SCHLESINGER, M. (2009) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x · Cited by 278
Self-citation
Cited by
The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences
Cavaillé, C., & Trump, K.-S. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/678312 · Cited by 241
BUSEMEYER, M. R., & SAHM, A. H. J. (2022) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279421000519 · Cited by 75
Testing Negative: The Non-Consequences of COVID-19 on Mass Ideology
Blumenau, J., Hicks, T., Jacobs, A., Matthews, S., & O'Grady, T. (2021) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2021-qpczc · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- REHM, P., HACKER, J. S., & SCHLESINGER, M.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 386-406
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2171373343
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 128.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055412000147
- The paper
- REHM, P., HACKER, J. S., & SCHLESINGER, M. (2012). Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000147
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.