This chapter examines public satisfaction with social policy in United Kingdom and how it compares to other OECD countries. Built on data from OECD Risks That Matter 2022, it explores perceptions around access to public services and benefits, as well as beliefs about fairness in benefit receipt and the extent to which people feel listened to by those designing social protection. Results suggest that, like many elsewhere, respondents in the United Kingdom are often dissatisfied with public benefits and services, with dissatisfaction especially strong among women and older respondents. People in the also express a sense of injustice in benefit receipt, believing that many others receive more than they deserve, but not to the same extent as respondents in some other OECD countries.
Attitudes Towards Social Risks and Social Protection in the United Kingdom
Abstract
This chapter examines public satisfaction with social policy in the United Kingdom and how it compares to other OECD countries. Constructed around three main questions from OECD Risks That Matter 2022 (Box 3.1), it looks at how happy people in the United Kingdom are with their access to public services and benefits, as well as their confidence in government income support in a range of income loss scenarios. Additional questions touch on feelings of fairness in benefit receipt and the extent to which people feel listened to by those designing social protection (Box 3.1).
Results suggest that respondents in the United Kingdom are often dissatisfied with public benefits and services. Like many elsewhere, UK respondents have mixed feelings about public service access but little confidence in public benefits and income support. Dissatisfaction is stronger in the United Kingdom than in some of the UK’s G7 peers, like Canada, Germany, and the United States, but is generally lower than in France and Italy. Respondents in the United Kingdom also express a sense of injustice in benefit receipt, believing that many others receive more than they deserve, but not to the same extent as respondents in some other countries, again including France and Italy. This mirrors domestic evidence showing that attitudes towards benefit recipients, previously very hard in the United Kingdom, have softened markedly in the past decade or so.
Benefit and service satisfaction differs across groups, with women and older respondents expressing greater dissatisfaction. The age gap in satisfaction is particularly large in the United Kingdom. The role of income differs across countries, with satisfaction growing (rather than falling) with income in the United Kingdom. Associations with economic and financial security are more consistent: across countries, people who report that their household finances have deteriorated in the past year also report lower satisfaction with public benefits and services. The United Kingdom has one of the largest gaps in satisfaction between those with and without deteriorating finances.
The role of policy is mixed. Countries running more expansive social protection systems often (but not always) see greater overall satisfaction with public services and benefits, and there is also evidence to suggest that more generous unemployment benefits and pensions can boost confidence in income support following job loss or retirement. There is scope for the United Kingdom to increase generosity in both areas. However, links between policy structures and satisfaction with public service access are less clear, with service satisfaction seemingly mostly unrelated to country-level policy indicators.
This chapter is built around three main questions from OECD Risks That Matter 2022. The first of these questions focuses on the extent to which respondents believe they have access to “good quality and affordable” public services in a range of policy areas:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of [#ITEM#], if needed.”
The policy areas (items) given were: Family support (e.g. childcare, parenting support services, etc.); Education (e.g. schools, universities, professional/vocational training, adult education, etc.); Employment (e.g. job search supports, skills training supports, self-employment supports, etc.); Housing (e.g. social housing, housing benefit, etc.); Health (e.g. public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.); Disability/incapacity-related needs (e.g. disability benefits and services, long-term care services for persons with disability, community living resources, etc.); Long-term care for older people (e.g. home, community-based and/or institutional care); and Public safety (e.g. policing).
The second question focuses on perceptions of access to public benefits:
To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If you currently are receiving services or benefits please answer these questions according to your experience. If you are not receiving them, please answer according to what you think your experience would be if you needed them.
“I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them”
The third concentrates on perceived income support from government in case of income loss:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to [#ITEM#]”
The income loss reasons (items) given were: Unemployment; Illness/disability; Having a child/having more children; Leaving work to care for elderly family members or family members with disabilities; Retirement; Death of spouse or partner.
Additionally, three further questions are used to measure perceptions of fairness in benefit receipt and the extent to which respondents feel listened to in the policy-making process:
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past.”
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“Many people receive public benefits without deserving them.”
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“I feel the government incorporates the views of people like me when designing or reforming public benefits and services.”
In all six cases, possible response options were: 1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Agree; 5. Strongly agree; 6. Can’t choose.
Source: OECD (2023) OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022: Core Questionnaire, https://webfs.oecd.org/Els-com/RtM/OECD-Risks-That-Matter-2022-Core-Questionnaire.pdf.
Responses to OECD Risks That Matter show that across OECD countries, many people are dissatisfied with public benefits and services (OECD, 2023[1]). Many respondents report that it is difficult to access good quality and affordable public services, particularly in areas like disability and incapacity-related services and long-term care. Even larger numbers feel that public benefits are both insufficient and difficult to receive. Responses by UK respondents are not so different. Overall, the picture painted by UK respondents to OECD Risks That Matter is one of general dissatisfaction, especially with benefits, and at a level stronger than in several of the UK’s peers in the G7 and other wealthy OECD economies (e.g. Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands).
UK respondents are mixed on their access to public services
On public service access, respondents in Britain are overall ambivalent. When asked whether they agree that their household has access to quality, affordable services in eight policy areas, UK respondents were on average more likely to agree than to disagree, but only marginally so (Figure 3.1). In comparative terms, net average agreement in the United Kingdom (5 points) is slightly higher than the OECD RTM average (4 points). It is well below the most satisfied countries like Switzerland (16 points), Norway (17 points) and the United States (19 points), as well as some other G7 economies like Canada (13 points) and Germany (7 points), but slightly above Italy (3 points), France (‑9 points) and neighbouring Ireland (‑7 points).
Drilling down to specific policy areas, UK respondents match those in many other OECD countries in being most satisfied with public service access in education, public safety and health, and least satisfied with long-term care and disability and incapacity services (Figure 3.2). Comparing across policy areas, 49% of UK respondents to Risks That Matter agree that their household has access to “good quality and affordable” services in education, and 45% in public safety. Despite strong concerns around ongoing access (see Chapter 3), many (43%) also agree that they currently have access to good-quality public healthcare services. This is similar to the 50% of UK respondents to the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (Trust Survey) who report satisfaction with the healthcare system (OECD, 2024[2]). As in many other countries, relatively few believe they would have access to good-quality disability/incapacity and long-term care services (both 30%) if they needed them. Whether this is due to a lack of awareness of the public services available in these areas, or to dissatisfaction with the (availability of) services actually offered, is not clear from the available data.
Average net agreement about household access to “good quality and affordable public services” in eight policy areas, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with household access to “good quality and affordable public services” in eight specified policy areas. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all eight items, to 100 in the case that they chose “Strongly agree” for all items. Estimates exclude respondents with three or fewer valid responses. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on scale construction.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of..., if needed”, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, the United Kingdom, G7 average and OECD RTM‑27 average, 2022
Note: G7 refers to the unweighted average across the six available members of the G7 group of major economies.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
One area where the United Kingdom at least partly stands out is in satisfaction with access to public housing services. 36% of UK respondents agree that their household has access to “good quality and affordable” public housing services – above the OECD RTM average (30%), and the eighth highest agreement rate among covered countries. While the sector faces challenges, including in maintaining supply and updating an ageing housing stock (Cromarty and Barton, 2024[3]), the United Kingdom continues to hold one of the largest stocks of social housing in the OECD (OECD, 2022[4]) and UK respondents are more likely to have had at least some interaction with public housing services than respondents in many other OECD countries.
Like many elsewhere, people in the United Kingdom lack confidence in public benefits
Like people in many other OECD countries, UK respondents are more clearly dissatisfied when asked about public benefits and income support. Similar to respondents elsewhere, UK respondents are more likely to disagree than to agree that they could “easily receive public benefits if [they] needed them” (Figure 3.3) and express little confidence that the government would provide adequate income support in six different income loss scenarios (Figure 3.4). Relative to other countries, net (dis)agreement on benefit access in the United Kingdom (‑18 points) is slightly below the OECD RTM average (‑16 points), and well below Canada (‑3 points), the United States (‑10 points), and Germany (‑12 points), but slightly higher than in Italy (‑20 points) and France (‑21 points). On income support adequacy, net agreement (‑21 points) again sits slightly below the OECD RTM average (‑20 points) and well below Canada (‑13 points) and the United States (‑13 points), but above Ireland (‑25 points), France (‑29 points), and several of the OECD’s less wealthy economies in Southern and Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Distribution and net balance of responses to the question “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement?… I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them”, by country, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Net balance is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. See Box 3.1 for question wording.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Satisfaction with income support is generally low regardless of the reason for income loss. As outlined in Box 3.1, Risks That Matter asked respondents whether the government would (or does) provide their household with adequate income support in case they lost income for six different reasons: “unemployment”, “illness/disability”, “having a child/having more children”, “leaving work to care for others”, “retirement”, and “death of spouse or partner”. When thinking about any of the six situations, around or less than a quarter of UK respondents believe that the government would provide them with adequate income support (Figure 3.5). In comparative terms, the United Kingdom lags its peers in the G7 when it comes to confidence in income support following job loss but otherwise levels of satisfaction are generally similar.
This lack of confidence in government income support echoes findings from domestic data collections. Results from the British Social Attitudes survey show that in 2019, 50% of people in Britain believed that “benefits for unemployed people are too low and cause hardship” (Baumberg Geiger et al., 2023[5]). Similarly, polling data by YouGov show that people in Britain are consistently more likely to think that benefits are too low than too high (YouGov, 2024[6]), and that many believe the benefit system offers “too little support” to a range of groups, including people on low incomes with children, people in low-paid work, and people over 65 (YouGov, 2024[7]; YouGov, 2024[8]; YouGov, 2024[9]). However, some aspects of the benefit system receive public support. For example, polling by both Ipsos and YouGov suggests that many people support the UK’s two‑child limit on child benefit payments, with YouGov finding that as many as 60% believe the two‑child limit should be retained (Ipsos, 2024[10]; YouGov, 2024[11]).
Average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six income‑loss circumstances, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. Estimates exclude respondents with three or fewer valid responses. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on scale construction.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to...”, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, the United Kingdom, G7 average and OECD RTM‑27 average, 2022
Note: G7 refers to the unweighted average across the six available members of the G7 group of major economies. See Box 3.1 for question wording.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
While many people in many OECD countries believe it is not easy to access benefits, the reasons behind this perceived lack of access can differ substantially. As part of a battery of questions on benefit access, Risks That Matter 2022 asked people for their thoughts on various aspects of the benefit application process and the extent to which each might act as a barrier to receipt. Examining responses to these questions by those who believe they could not easily access public benefits adds detail on the underlying reasons.
The ease and simplicity of the application process is the dominant reason given for a perceived lack of access to benefits in many OECD countries (Figure 3.6). On average across the 27 OECD countries covered by Risks That Matter 2022, more than three‑quarters (77%) of those who doubt they could easily access benefits also doubt that the application process for benefits would be quick and easy. Around 50‑60% also doubt that they would qualify for public benefits (57%), that they would be treated fairly by the government processing office (53%), and that they know how to apply for benefits (48%).
Responses in the United Kingdom mostly follow the OECD RTM average, with the exception of the share who doubt they would qualify for public benefits, which is much higher than in most other countries (Figure 3.6). Indeed, at 75%, the United Kingdom has the second highest share who doubt their eligibility, after only the United States (78%) (OECD, 2023[1]). Notably, the three countries with the highest shares lacking confidence in their eligibility for public benefits (the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ireland) all operate strongly targeted and heavily means-tested social protection systems.
Percentage of respondents reporting each expected difficulty if they needed to access public benefits, among respondents who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “I believe I could access public benefits if I needed them”, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, the United Kingdom, G7 average and OECD RTM‑27 average, 2022
Note: Respondents were asked: “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If you currently are receiving services or benefits please answer these questions according to your experience. If you are not receiving them, please answer according to what you think your experience would be if you needed them: I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them/I am confident I would qualify for public benefits/I know how to apply for public benefits/I think the application process for benefits would be simple and quick/I feel I would be treated fairly by the government office processing my claim. Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data refer to the percentage responding “strongly disagree” or “disagree”, among those who disagree or strongly disagree that they could easily receive public benefits if they needed them. G7 refers to the unweighted average across the six available members of the G7 group of major economies.
Source: (OECD, 2023[1]), Main Findings from the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, https://doi.org/10.1787/70aea928-en.
Past rounds of OECD Risks That Matter have documented a widespread sense of injustice in public benefit receipt (OECD, 2019[12]; OECD, 2023[1]). Across countries, only a minority of people believe they are getting the benefits they deserve in return for the taxes they pay, with large numbers feeling that others are receiving more than they should. Underlying this sense of injustice is a commonly held belief that the benefit system is not designed with people like them in mind.
Compared to many other OECD countries, feelings of injustice in benefit receipt are relatively moderate among respondents in the United Kingdom. Like people in almost all other covered countries, UK respondents are more likely to disagree than to agree that they receive their fair share of public benefits given the taxes they pay (Figure 3.7), and are far more likely to agree that many others receive benefits without deserving them (Figure 3.8). However, in both cases, net agreement (‑15 and 31 points, respectively) is similar to the OECD RTM average (‑17 and 36 points) and relatively close to several other G7 countries, including Canada (‑9 and 33 points), Germany (‑13 and 32 points), and the United States (‑8 and 30 points). Overall feelings of injustice are far milder in the United Kingdom than in France and Italy, as well as several other Southern and Central and Eastern European and Latin American OECD countries. This fits well with domestic evidence from the British Social Attitudes survey, which shows that attitudes towards benefit recipients, previously very hard, have softened markedly in the past decade or so (Baumberg Geiger et al., 2023[5]).
Distribution and net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past.”, by country, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Net balance is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. See Box 3.1 for question wording.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Distribution and net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: Many people receive public benefits without deserving them”, by country, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Net balance is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. See Box 3.1 for question wording.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Regardless of their thoughts on fairness, many people in Britain continue to feel that the public benefit system is not designed for them (Figure 3.9). When asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement “I feel the government incorporates the views of people like me when designing or reforming public benefits”, 28% of UK respondents marked “disagree”, with as many as 31% choosing “strongly disagree” – the second highest share among the covered countries, behind only France. Overall net agreement in the United Kingdom (‑32 points) is lower than the OECD RTM average (‑28 points). This feeling of exclusion in benefit design echoes a wider belief in the United Kingdom that the government is “out of touch” and has done little to understand, represent or promote the interests of ordinary people (Hughes, 2023[13]).
Distribution and net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel the government incorporates the views of people like me when designing or reforming public benefits and services”, by country, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Net balance is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. See Box 3.1 for question wording.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Women express greater dissatisfaction than men, and older people greater dissatisfaction than younger people
Experiences with public benefits and services can vary greatly from person to person. What people need from government (and, indeed, what people expect from government) differs with circumstances and can shift and evolve at different stages of life (OECD, 2017[14]).
With this in mind, it is not surprising that views on the adequacy of public benefits and services should differ across groups (OECD, 2019[12]). Women, for example, are consistently less satisfied than men with public benefits and services (Figure 3.10). In the United Kingdom, being a woman is associated with an estimated 9‑point decrease in net agreement about access to quality, affordable public services (Figure 3.10, Panel A), a 17‑point decrease in net agreement about access to public benefits (Figure 3.10, Panel B), and a 10‑point decrease in net agreement on the adequacy of income support (Figure 3.10, Panel C). Parenthood is also associated with satisfaction: compared to respondents without children, parents are more likely to agree that their household can easily access both public benefits and public services (Figure 3.10, Panels A and B) as well as, in the United Kingdom at least, to agree that that the government would provide adequate income support in case of income loss (Figure 3.10, Panel C). One possibility is that parents are more regular users of many public services and some public benefits, and are therefore more familiar with the processes involved (see also Box 3.3).
Estimated point change in net satisfaction with access to public services in eight policy areas (Panel A), in net satisfaction with access to public benefits (Panel B), and in net confidence on income support in six income‑loss circumstances (Panel C) per unit change in each independent variable, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, the United Kingdom and OECD RTM‑27 average, 2022
Note: Summary of estimates from multilevel mixed effect linear models (OECD RTM: Online Annex Tables A3.10.1, A3.11.1 and A3.13a.1, Models 4, 5 and 6) and linear regression models (GBR: Online Annex Tables A3.10.2, A3.11.2 and A3.13a.2, Models 4, 5 and 6). The dependent variables are average net agreement about household access to “good quality and affordable public services” in eight specified policy areas (Panel A), the net balance of responses to the question “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement? I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them” (Panel B), and average net average about the adequacy of government income support in six specified circumstances (Panel C). Error bars set at the 95% confidence interval. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Age is another factor feeding into satisfaction, especially in the United Kingdom. In general, older respondents are less likely than younger respondents to believe they could easily access public benefits and services if they needed them (Figure 3.10, Panels A and B), and that the government would provide them with adequate income support in case of income loss (Figure 3.10, Panel C). However, the strength of the age gradient varies across countries, and age plays a stronger role in the United Kingdom than in many of the other countries covered by Risks That Matter (Online Annex Tables A3.10.2, A3.11.2 and A3.13a.2). For example, in the United Kingdom, net average (dis)agreement on the adequacy of government income support sits at ‑37 points among 50‑ to 64‑year‑old respondents, compared to ‑7 points among 18‑ to 29‑year‑olds (Figure 3.11). Only five countries (Estonia, Greece, Portugal, Austria and France) see stronger dissatisfaction among 50‑ to 64‑year‑olds, and only three (Estonia, Greece and Lithuania) see larger gaps in satisfaction across age groups.
The age gap in satisfaction is perhaps best illustrated by age differences in perceived access to health-related benefits and services. As outlined in OECD (2023[1]), older respondents are consistently more likely than younger adults to doubt they could access good-quality and affordable public healthcare if needed, and express scepticism about the level of government income support provided in case of illness or disability. In both cases, age gaps in the United Kingdom are substantially larger than the OECD RTM average.
Average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six income‑loss circumstances, by age group, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. Estimates exclude respondents with three or fewer valid responses. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Income shocks may matter as much as income levels for satisfaction
Income and economic insecurity also feed into public benefits and service satisfaction, albeit in ways that are not always straightforward (OECD, 2019[12]).
Links between satisfaction and income level itself are mixed. Overall associations with income are relatively small and sensitive to model specification (Figure 3.10; Online Annex Tables A3.10.1, A3.11.1 and A3.13a.1), in part because they differ in size and direction across countries (Online Annex Tables A3.10.2, A3.11.2 and A3.13a.2, Model 4). To take one example, results from this report’s regression models suggest the effect of moving up an income decile on net confidence in government income support differs from a decrease of 2.1 points in Lithuania to an increase of 2.0 points in Belgium (Figure 3.13). The United Kingdom notably has one of the steepest positive income gradients, indicating that confidence in government income support may grow with income. This would be surprising as the tightly targeted nature of many UK public benefits means that in proportional terms, income replacement often falls sharply as income rises.
Who better to comment on benefit adequacy than benefit recipients themselves? As part of its background questionnaire, OECD Risks That Matter 2022 asked respondents whether they or anyone in their household received a series of public cash benefits in the previous 12 months, including unemployment benefits, disability benefits, housing support, family benefits, and pensions. 30% of respondents in the United Kingdom reported that they had received at least one benefit over the year, compared to an average of 40% across all 27 OECD RTM countries. Using this information, it is possible to examine differences in public benefit satisfaction between benefit recipients and non-recipients.
Results suggest that on average, self-reported cash benefit recipients are more satisfied with public benefits than non-recipients. Respondents who report having received at least one public cash benefit in the past 12 months are more likely to believe they could easily access benefits if needed, even after controlling for income and other individual characteristics (Figure 3.10 , Panel B), and are more likely to believe that the government would provide adequate income support in case of income loss (Figure 3.10, Panel C). However, the extent to which recipient status shapes satisfaction differs markedly across countries (Figure 3.12).
Average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six specified circumstances, by self-reported benefit receipt status, by country, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. “Recipients” are those who report having received at least one public cash benefit in the past 12 months. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
In the United Kingdom, average net agreement on the adequacy of government income support sits at ‑15 points among respondents who report having received at least one benefit, compared to ‑24 points among those who have not. This gap between the two is slightly larger than the average (8 points).
Estimated point change in average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support per unit increase in income decile, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Results from multilevel mixed-effects and country-specific linear regression models (Online Annex Table A3.11.2, Model 4). The dependent variable is a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Measures relating to economic security are more clearly associated with satisfaction. As discussed in OECD (2023[1]), respondents who are concerned about their ability to make ends meet over the next couple of years feel less well-supported by government than those with no such concerns. For example, across RTM countries, half (50%) of those who report being concerned about making ends meet also do not think that they could easily receive public benefits if they needed them, compared to 40% among those not concerned about making ends meet (OECD, 2023[1]).
In a similar vein, looking backwards, respondents who report that their household finances have deteriorated in the past year also report substantially lower satisfaction with public benefits and services, even after controlling for income (Figure 3.10). For example, net agreement on the adequacy of government income support is on average 26 points lower among respondents who report that their finances have worsened in the past year (‑36 points) than among those who do not (‑9 points) (Figure 3.14). The gap in the United Kingdom is as large as 37 points – the 3rd largest among covered countries. In line with several studies on the effects of economic shocks on attitudes towards redistribution and welfare policy (Blekesaune, 2013[15]; Margalit, 2013[16]; Hacker, Rehm and Schlesinger, 2013[17]), income shocks appear at least as important as income levels for shaping public benefit and service satisfaction.
Average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six income‑loss circumstances, by response to the question “Do you think that your household’s financial situation is better than, the same as, or worse than it was 12 months ago?”, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2022
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. Estimates exclude respondents with three or fewer valid responses. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on scale construction.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Younger people, university graduates, and current benefit recipients are among those who are less likely to report feelings of injustice in benefit receipt
Perceptions of fairness in benefit receipt differ in mostly similar ways. Women and older respondents are less likely than men and younger people to believe that they receive their fair share of benefits, with older respondents also more likely to believe that many others receive public benefits without deserving them (Figure 3.15, Panels A and B). Respondents with tertiary education and who are out of work are more likely to feel they are receiving their fair share, and are less likely to believe others are receiving more than they should, especially in the United Kingdom. Those who report that their household finances have deteriorated in the past year are particularly unlikely to believe they are receiving what they deserve, further underlining the general disillusionment felt by this group.
One finding of note is that respondents who are self-reported public benefit recipients are less likely to report feelings of unfairness in benefit receipt. Work from the United Kingdom (Baumberg Geiger, 2016[18]) has suggested that benefit claimants can be at least as critical of others receiving benefits as non-claimants. Here, controlling for other factors, respondents who report having received at least one public cash benefit in the past 12 months are more likely to feel they are receiving their fair share of public benefits and, more notably, are less likely to believe that others are receiving public benefits without deserving them (Figure 3.15, Panels A and B). In the United Kingdom, net agreement that others receive benefits without deserving them is about 8 points lower among benefit recipients than non-recipients, all else equal (Figure 3.15).
Estimated point change in respondent net agreement about receiving their fair share of public benefits (Panel A), about others receiving public benefits without deserving them (Panel B), and about the views of people like them being incorporated in the design of public benefits and services (Panel C) per unit change in each independent variable, 18‑ to 64‑year‑olds, the United Kingdom and OECD RTM‑27 average, 2022
Note: Summary of results from multilevel mixed effect linear models (OECD RTM: Online Annex Tables A3.12.1, A3.15.1 and A3.16.1, Models 4, 5 and 6) and country-specific linear regression models (GBR: Online Annex Tables A3.12.2, A3.15.2 and A3.16.2, Models 4, 5 and 6). The dependent variables are the net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past.” (Panel A), the net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: Many people receive public benefits without deserving them” (Panel B), and the net balance of responses to the question “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: I feel the government incorporates the views of people like me when designing or reforming public benefits and services” (Panel C). Error bars set at the 95% confidence interval. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
General satisfaction is often (but not always) higher in countries that spend more on social issues
Running a more expansive social protection system may help contribute to greater overall satisfaction with public services and benefits. While there are important exceptions (e.g. France), satisfaction tends to be higher in countries with more extensive social protection systems (e.g. Denmark, Norway, Switzerland), and lower in countries with comparatively limited supports (e.g. Chile, Greece). Confidence in government income support, for example, is positively correlated with public and mandatory private social expenditure (Figure 3.16, Panel A; r = 0.49), especially after controlling other factors (Figure 3.16, Panel B; r = 0.56; Online Annex Table A3.11.1, Models 11 and 12). Patterns are largely similar for satisfaction with public service access, although the association is not statistically significant at the 10% level, in part because of the influence of France as an outlier (Online Annex Table A3.10.1, Models 11 and 12). However, once other factors are controlled for, satisfaction with benefit access is only very weakly associated with social expenditure (Online Annex Table A3.13a.1).
Total public and mandatory private social expenditure per head (USD 2015 PPP) and average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six income‑loss circumstances, before and after adjusting for population composition and GDP per capita
Note: Estimates based on predictions from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models (Online Annex Tables A3.11.1, Model 11). Average net agreement based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in six specified income‑loss circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). Adjusted estimates account for between-country differences in population composition (sex, age, and parenthood) and basic socio‑economic characteristics (educational attainment, employment status, and self-reported benefit receipt), plus GDP per capita. Social expenditure is controlled for but not included in the adjusted estimates. All estimates are post-hoc corrected for the share of respondents answering “Can’t choose”. Data on social expenditure per head refer to 2019. For readability, data labels used for selected countries only. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html, and the OECD Social Expenditure Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/social-expenditure-database-socx.html.
Confidence in unemployment and old-age income support is higher in countries with more generous unemployment benefits and pensions
Policy structure and design can be linked to satisfaction in at least some specific topic areas, especially in the case of satisfaction with benefits and income support.
Take confidence in government income support following unemployment, for instance. Unemployment support is a core component of social protection (ILO, 2012[19]) and almost all OECD countries have unemployment insurance programmes designed to provide income security in case of job loss (OECD, 2024[20]). The United Kingdom, for its part, has one of the OECD’s least generous unemployment benefit schemes: in 2022, for a single average earner two months into unemployment, unemployment benefits replaced just 35% of previous income – the second lowest replacement rate in the OECD after Australia (28%), and not far off half the OECD average rate (59%) (OECD, 2024[20]). Country comparisons suggest these comparatively limited benefits could contribute to lower felt support: looking across countries, confidence in unemployment income support tends to be higher in countries where unemployment benefits are more generous, at least after adjusting for population factors and GDP per capita (Figure 3.17, Panel B; r = 0.62) (Online Annex Table A3.11a.1, Model 21), as well as in countries with higher public spending on unemployment (Online Annex Table A3.11a.1, Model 19 and 20). Employment regulation and stricter protection from dismissal may contribute too (Online Annex Table A3.11a.1, Model 23 and 24), perhaps because of the security and stability it provides to workers and their families.
Net replacement rate in unemployment and net balance of responses to the question “I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to... Unemployment”, before and after adjusting for population composition and GDP per capita
Note: Estimates based on predictions from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models (Online Annex Tables A3.11a.1, Model 21). Net agreement is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. Adjusted estimates account for between-country differences in demographic- (sex, age, and parenthood) and basic socio‑economic characteristics (educational attainment, employment status, and self-reported benefit receipt), plus GDP per capita. The net replacement rate in unemployment is controlled for but not included in the adjusted estimates. All estimates are post-hoc corrected for the share of respondents answering “Can’t choose”. Data on unemployment replacement rates refer to net household income in the second month of unemployment as a percentage of net household income before job loss. Estimates are based on a single person with no children previously earning 100% of average earnings. For readability, data labels used for selected countries only. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html, and the OECD Tax-Benefit Data Portal, www.oecd.org/social/benefits-and-wages/data/.
The same is true in several other income support areas. For example, confidence in government old-age income support tends to be higher in countries with more generous pensions, at least after controlling for population composition and GDP per capita (Figure 3.18, Panel B; r = 0.55; Online Annex Table A3.11e.1, Model 21),1 as well as in countries with lower pensioner poverty rates (Online Annex Table A3.11e.1, Model 23). Similarly, countries that spend more public money on incapacity-related benefits often have fewer respondents who lack confidence in government income support in case of illness or disability (Online Annex Table A3.11b.1, Model 20). In both cases, there is room for the United Kingdom to boost spending and benefit generosity: at 54% of pre‑retirement earnings for a man previously on average earnings, UK pension net replacement rates are lower than the OECD average (61%), and well below the rates in the Netherlands (93%), Türkiye (95%) and Portugal (99%) (OECD, 2023[21]), while UK public spending on incapacity related benefits and services (USD (2015) 585 per person, or 1.3% of GDP) is likewise lower than OECD average (USD (2015) 963 per person, or 2.0% of GDP) (OECD, 2024[22]).
Net pension replacement rate and net balance of responses to the question “I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to... Retirement”, before and after adjusting for population composition and GDP per capita
Note: Estimates based on predictions from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models (Online Annex Tables A3.11e.1, Model 21). Net agreement is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. Adjusted estimates account for between-country differences in demographic- (sex, age, and parenthood) and basic socio‑economic characteristics (educational attainment, employment status, and self-reported benefit receipt), plus GDP per capita. The pension replacement rate is controlled for but not included in the adjusted estimates. All estimates are post-hoc corrected for the share of respondents answering “Can’t choose”. The net pension replacement rate is defined as the individual net pension entitlement divided by net pre‑retirement earnings, taking into account personal income taxes and social security contributions paid by workers and pensioners. Estimates refer to men previously earning 100% of average earnings. For readability, data labels used for selected countries only. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on data and methods.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html, and (OECD, 2023[21]), OECD Pensions at a Glance 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/678055dd-en
Links between policy and satisfaction with public services are not clear
Links between policy indicators and satisfaction with public service access are less clear. Although there are a few minor exceptions – for example, satisfaction with education services is correlated with country performance on the OECD PISA reading and science (but not mathematics) tests (Online Annex Table A3.10b.1, Models 22‑24) – clear associations between policy indicators and public service satisfaction are few and far between. Satisfaction with access to health services, for example, shares no clear association with social spending on health and few clear and logical links with a series of health policy indicators, including bed and physician density (Online Annex Table A3.10e.1).2 Similarly, satisfaction with access in other public service areas, like employment, housing, disability/incapacity, and long-term care, seem mostly uncorrelated with macro policy indicators (Online Annex Tables A3.10c.1, A3.10d.1, A3.10f.1, A3.10g.1).
Population composition and the economic setting may both matter for satisfaction
Factors other than policy may also shape satisfaction with public services and benefits.
Chapter 2 highlighted between-country differences in population composition as one factor driving country differences in perceived risk, with women’s share of the population and the share out of work particularly important. Results from this report’s multilevel models suggest population composition may play a role in shaping country differences in satisfaction, too (Online Annex Tables A3.10.1, A3.11.1, and A3.13a.1). Women’s share of the population is again important, with satisfaction with both public services and public benefits higher in countries where women’s share of the population is lower.3 This mirrors women’s lower satisfaction with benefits and services more generally (see earlier in this chapter). The average age of the working-age population is negatively associated with satisfaction with public service access (Online Annex Table A3.10.1), again echoing older respondents’ lower general satisfaction. There is also some suggestion that confidence in government income support is lower in countries where larger shares of the population receive cash benefits (Online Annex Table A3.11.1). This runs counter to the positive within-country association between benefit recipient status and confidence in income support highlighted earlier in this chapter.
Aspects of the economic environment may also play a role in shaping satisfaction with public benefits and services (OECD, 2019[12]). Comparing across countries, benefit and service satisfaction tends to be higher in countries with more developed economies, like the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States. Respondents in countries with higher GDP per capita are substantially more likely to believe they can easily access public benefits (Figure 3.20, Panel A; r= 0.52), for example, even after adjusting for population composition (Figure 3.20, Panel B; r= 0.39) (Online Annex Tables A4.13a.1, Model 4). Respondents in richer economies also tend to express greater satisfaction with public service access and greater confidence in government income support, at least when Ireland is excluded as an outlier (Online Annex Tables A4.10.1 and A4.11.1, Model 7). The United Kingdom, for its part, is a mid-range performer on GDP per capita (see Chapter 2) and sits correspondingly close to the average on both service and benefit satisfaction, too.
Average net agreement about the adequacy of government income support in six income‑loss circumstances, percentage of the working-age population that are women, and percentage of the working-age population not in paid work
Note: Average net agreement is based on a scale measuring respondents’ average agreement with the adequacy of government income support in case of income loss in six specified circumstances. The underlying responses are scaled as follows: “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100). The final scale can range from ‑100 in the case that all respondents in the given country chose “Strongly disagree” for all six items, to 100 in the case that they all chose “Strongly agree”. Estimates exclude respondents with three or fewer valid responses. Benefit recipients are those who report having received at least one public cash benefit in the past 12 months. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on scale construction.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html.
Log GDP per capita (USD 2015 PPP) and net balance of responses to the question “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement?… I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them”, before and after adjusting for population composition
Note: Estimates based on predictions from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models (Online Annex Tables A3.13a.1, Model 4). Net agreement is calculated as the average of the responses “Strongly disagree” (‑100), “Disagree” (‑50), “Neither agree nor disagree” (0), “Agree” (50) and “Strongly agree” (100), and can range from ‑100 to 100. Adjusted estimates account for between-country differences in demographic- (sex, age, and parenthood) and basic socio‑economic characteristics (educational attainment, employment status, and self-reported benefit receipt). GDP per capita is controlled for but not included in the adjusted estimates. All estimates are post-hoc corrected for the share of respondents answering “Can’t choose”. Data on GDP per capita refer to 2022. For readability, data labels used for selected countries only. See Box 3.1 for question wording and Annex A for more detail on scale construction.
Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter Survey 2022, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/oecd-risks-that-matter-rtm-survey.html, and OECD National Accounts, www.oecd.org/sdd/na/.
References
[18] Baumberg Geiger, B. (2016), “The stigma of claiming benefits: a quantitative study”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 45/2, pp. 181-199, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000525.
[5] Baumberg Geiger, B. et al. (2023), British Social Attitudes 40: Poverty, National Centre for Social Research, London, https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/BSA%2040%20Poverty.pdf.
[15] Blekesaune, M. (2013), “Economic Strain and Public Support for Redistribution: A Comparative Analysis of 28 European Countries”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 42/1, pp. 57-72, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279412000748.
[3] Cromarty, H. and C. Barton (2024), “Social rented housing in England: Past trends and prospects”, House of Commons Library Research Briefing, No. CBP08963, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8963/.
[17] Hacker, J., P. Rehm and M. Schlesinger (2013), “The Insecure American: Economic Experiences, Financial Worries, and Policy Attitudes”, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 11/1, pp. 23-49, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712003647.
[13] Hughes, T. (2023), “Putting citizens at the heart of the UK constitution”, Review of the UK constitution: Guest paper, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/put-citizens-heart-constitution.
[19] ILO (2012), ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), International Labor Organization, https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/Media.action?id=12197.
[10] Ipsos (2024), Two child benefit cap polling, https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-07/ipsos-poll-2-child-benefit-cap-july-2024-charts.pdf.
[16] Margalit, Y. (2013), “Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 107/1, pp. 80-103, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000603.
[22] OECD (2024), OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/social-expenditure-database-socx.html.
[2] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[20] OECD (2024), The OECD Tax-Benefit Data Portal, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages/data/.
[1] OECD (2023), Main Findings from the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/70aea928-en.
[21] OECD (2023), Pensions at a Glance 2023: OECD and G20 Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/678055dd-en.
[4] OECD (2022), OECD Affordable Housing Database: PH4.2 Social rental dwellings stock, https://webfs.oecd.org/Els-com/Affordable_Housing_Database/PH4-2-Social-rental-housing-stock.pdf.
[23] OECD (2021), Main Findings from the 2020 Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b9e85cf5-en.
[12] OECD (2019), Main Findings from the 2018 Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9266e48a-en.
[14] OECD (2017), “Preventing ageing unequally”, in Preventing Ageing Unequally, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279087-4-en.
[6] YouGov (2024), Do Brits think that benefits are too high?, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-brits-think-that-benefits-are-too-high.
[7] YouGov (2024), Do people in low-paid work need more support from the benefits system?, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-people-in-low-paid-work-need-more-support-from-the-benefits-system.
[8] YouGov (2024), Do people on low incomes bringing up children need more support from the benefits system?, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-people-on-low-incomes-bringing-up-children-need-more-support-from-the-benefits-system.
[9] YouGov (2024), Do people over 65 need more support from the benefits system?, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-people-over-65-need-more-support-from-the-benefits-system.
[11] YouGov (2024), Public support retaining the two-child benefit limit as Starmer gears up for first rebellion, https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50140-public-support-retaining-the-two-child-benefit-limit-as-starmer-gears-up-for-first-rebellion.
← 1. As noted in previous Risks That Matter reports (OECD, 2019[12]; OECD, 2021[23]; OECD, 2023[1]), raw confidence in government old-age income support is only weakly correlated with pension net replacement rates (Figure 4.14, Panel A; r = 0.13). This notably changes after controlling for population composition and GDP per capita.
← 2. The exception is the density of generalist physicians, which is negatively associated with net agreement on access to “good quality and affordable” public health services (Online Annex Table A3.10e.1, Model 18). This association seems likely spurious.
← 3. See endnote 1 in Chapter 2 for a note on women’s share of the working-age population in the United Kingdom.