{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014122394082044385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.763636363636364, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public opinion and the reform of the pension systems in Europe: the influence of solidarity principles

The demographic changes that have occurred in European countries in recent decades have made the policies of the public pension system one of the most debated issues of the welfare state. In this paper, I focus on preferences for three pension policy reforms with different distributive consequences: raising contributions, raising the age of retirement, and allowing free choice between public and private pension plans. I use multilevel models to analyse how individual attachment to different solidarity principles (universalistic, conservative, liberal and familistic) affects attitudes toward pension system reforms while controlling for institutional factors. The empirical results strongly support the hypothesis that solidarity principles have a significant influence on individual preferences. I find that individuals who adhere to universalistic or conservative principles are more in favour of increasing contributions in order to maintain the level of pensions, whereas they oppose a postponement of retirement age. In contrast, those who adhere to liberal or familistic principles are against increasing contributions and prefer extending retirement age. The findings at least partially support the ‘regime hypothesis’, as a more generous pension system appears to increase support for raising contributions while decreasing support for a raise in the age of retirement.