ORDINARY PEOPLE IN PUBLIC POLICY

PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA

Director, Centre for the Study of Public Policy

CESES Charles University

PRAGUE

Figure A1 INDEX OF INFORMAL SOCIAL RELATIONS

7%

20%

30% 29%

10%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Never Less thanmonthly

Once amonth

Two-three/mth

Weekly Severaltimes/week

Source: Eurobarometer Social Capital Survey, 2004. Interviews with 25,978 people in 27 countries, aggregated and weighted according to national population.

Informal sociability index: average frequency of meeting friends, workmates, and neighbours scored from a maximum of 5 (several times a week) to zero (never)

(% of respondents)

Figure A2 INDEX OF VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

3+ types9%

2 types11%

1 type25%

None55%

Individual membership in organizations

Source: European Social Capital Survey, 2004. Interviews with 25,978 people in 27 countries aggregated and weighted according to national population.

Figure A3 INDEX OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

(percent respondents)

Source: European Foundation for Quality of Life Survey, 2003. Interviews with 26,257 people in 28 countries, aggregated and weighted according to national population.

None19%

One form65%

Two forms12%

Three forms4%

(Three forms: voting; attending meeting; contacting official)

Figure A4 MAJOR INFLUENCES ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Impact on political participation as calculatedby multilevel hierarchical model

Variance accounted for (Pseudo R2): 9.1%

Age.38 Education

.23

Churchattendance Employed

-.14Anomie

.15 .16

Source: European Foundation for Quality of Life Survey, 2003. Interviews with 26,257 people in 28 countries, aggregated and weighted equally.

B1 PARTICIPATION IN POLICY OUTPUTS

Households benefiting from:

13%

14%

22%

24%

27%

35%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Social housing

Unemployment, other cash grant

Child benefit

Public sector job

Education

Health care

Pension

Source: Percentages based on replies to 2003 European Quality of Life Survey (Dublin: European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions; number of respondents 26,257) with national results weighted to each country's share of the total population of 28 countries. Health care calculated as those with poor or not very good health or having a disability.

Figure B2 NUMBER OF CURRENT BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD

17%

28%30%

16%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Zero One Two Three Four +

Source: European Foundation for Quality of Life Survey, 2003. Interviews with 26,257 people in 28 countries, aggregated and weighted according to national population.

(% with benefits)

B3 NUMBER OF CURRENT BENEFITS BY COUNTRYMean number of benefits per household

Source: European Foundation for Quality of Life Survey, 2003. Interviews with 26,257 people in 28 countries, aggregated and weighted according to national population

0.71.01.11.1

1.71.71.81.91.92.02.02.02.02.02.12.12.22.22.22.22.3

2.5

0 1 2 3 4

CyprusItaly

TurkeyGreeceIrelandFrance

LithuaniaHungaryPortugalGermany

AustriaLuxembourg

BulgariaBelgiumDenmark

SwedenSlovakia

UKCzech Republic

EstoniaFinland

Latvia

Figure B4 MAJOR INFLUENCES ON RECEIVING POLICY BENEFITS

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

Impact on receiving policy benefits as calculatedby multilevel hierarchical model

Variance accounted for (Pseudo R2): 7.8%

Destitution.33

High incomeQuartile

-.46

Gender.25

-.37Employed

Source: European Foundation for Quality of Life Survey, 2003. Interviews with 26,257 people in 28 countries, aggregated and weighted equally.

C1 Total Welfare in the Family =

Total welfare=State + Market + Household inputs

C2 ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF OLDER PEOPLEPercent of those age 60 +

Incomes Pension(s): self 71

:partner 43Employed: self 11 :partner 11Employed and pension(s): self 2

:partner 1Savings, investment 18*Cash transfers from children 14Social benefits 2

Assets Home ownership 80Receive care from children 25 Savings of more than €15,000 35**

Age-related benefitsMedical treatment past year 88Concessions on travel, etc. n.a.

Contingent safety nets Could rely on unpaid help from 73

outside household Could borrow money for emergency 33

*Savings in cash, shares, property, as reported by European Quality of Life Survey (2003).**Projection of results of British Family Resources Survey (2004). Source: Older respondents (N: 6,057) in the 2004-5 European Social Survey in 24 countries: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. For details, see www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

C3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES IN OLDER HOUSEHOLDS

Source: Older respondents (N: 6,057) in European Social Survey, 2004-2005 of 45,681 individuals in 24 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. For details, see www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

1%5%

16%

27%29%

17%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

(Percent of households with a given resource)

(Streams of resources: As in Table 1, except savings assets and income omitted because not included in European Social Survey.)

C4 DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES BY COUNTRYMean number of resources

3.84.24.24.24.24.34.34.44.44.54.54.5

4.64.64.64.74.74.74.84.84.94.94.95.1

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

NetherlandsSpain

SwitzerlandGreece

BelgiumLuxembourg

GermanyFranceAustriaPoland

PortugalSlovenia

European meanUK

SwedenHungaryUkraineIreland

Czech RepublicDenmark

EstoniaFinlandNorway

SlovakiaIceland

Source: Older respondents (N: 6,057) in European Social Survey, 2004-2005 of 45,681 individuals in 24 European countries. For details, see www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

C5 ADEQUACY OF INCOME BY AGEQ. Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s income nowadays? Living comfortably on present income; Coping on present income; Finding it difficult on present income; Finding it very difficult on present income; (Don’t know)

Source: European Social Survey, 2004-5 ; pooled data set of 24 countries, each country weighted equally.

Comfortable

Adequate

With difficulty

Very difficult

7%

18%

44%

31%

7%

20%

43%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18-59 60+