Social Justice Beliefs Regarding Old-Age Provisions in Germany: A Latent Profile Analysis

Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Examining personal beliefs about social justice in the way a society provides financial security in old age may reveal potential conflicts about the distribution of wealth. Individuals differ with regard to how they believe old-age provisions should be distributed (e.g., based on principles of merit or self-reliance), and individuals often endorse more than one belief at the same time. Using latent profile analysis and data from the 2014 German Ageing Survey we identify five separate profiles of social justice beliefs among older adults (40–85 years) in Germany. Belief profiles were based on the extent to which people simultaneously endorse and/or reject meritocratic, redistributive, self-reliant, and fatalistic ideas regarding old-age provisions. Almost 20% of the sample demonstrated a belief system in line with the German meritocratic system. Roughly three-fifth did not show strong preferences for a specific social justice principle. However, we identified two belief profiles representing 22.4% of the sample which may reflect dissent from the current system. Sociodemographic characteristics, political identification, and indicators of social disadvantage (e.g., lower income, fears of decline in social status, and feelings of social exclusion) were differentially associated with the five belief profiles. Overall, the results showed that in particular people of lower socioeconomic status were critical with respect to the principles of the German pension system raising questions regarding the demand of political interventions.

Keywords

Beliefs about social justice Financial security in old age Latent profile analysis Germany German Ageing Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. The paper has benefited from comments by seminar participants at WZB Writing Workshop. Moreover, we would like to thank Oliver Huxhold and Alberto Lozano for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Aldridge, A. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2008). Developing coping typologies of minority adolescents: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 31(4), 499–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.08.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäcker, G. (2016). Dauerbaustelle Sozialstaat: Chronologie gesetzlicher Neuregelungen in der Sozialpolitik 1998-2015. Duisburg: Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation, Universität Duisburg/Essen.Google Scholar
  4. Bode, I., & Wilke, F. (2014). Private Vorsorge als Illusion. Realitätsprobleme des neuen deutschen Rentenmodells. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  5. Böhnke, P. (2006). Am Rande der Gesellschaft. Risiken sozialer Ausgrenzung. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  6. Börsch-Supan, A. (2014). Reformprozess der Altersvorsorge. In P. Masuch, W. Spellbrink, U. Becker, & S. Leibfried (Eds.), Grundlagen und Herausforderungen des Sozialstaats. Denkschrift 60 Jahre Bundessozialgericht, Band 1 (pp. 711–728). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Reciprocity, self-interest, and the welfare state. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26, 33–53.Google Scholar
  8. Bude, H., & Lantermann, E.-D. (2006). Soziale Exklusion und Exklusionsempfinden. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 58(2), 233–252.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-006-0054-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Converse, P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18(1–3), 1–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corneo, G., & Grüner, H. P. (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 83–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00172-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dallinger, U., & Liebig, S. (2004). Gerechtigkeit zwischen den Generationen in der wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Alterssicherung. In S. Liebig, H. Lengfeld, & S. Mau (Eds.), Verteilungsprobleme und Gerechtigkeit in modernen Gesellschaften (pp. 97–131). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Gerber, M., Jonsdottir, I. H., Lindwall, M., & Ahlborg, G., Jr. (2014). Physical activity in employees with differing occupational stress and mental health profiles: A latent profile analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(6), 649–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlitz, J.-Y., Mühleck, K., & Scheller, P. (2007). Zur Erhebung von Gerechtigkeitsideologien mit Bezug zur Altersvorsorge. Dokumentation der Instrumentenentwicklung für das ISJP 2006. ISJP-Arbeitsbericht (Vol. 117). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Gerlitz, J.-Y., Mühleck, K., Scheller, P., & Schrenker, M. (2012). Justice perception in times of transition: Trends in Germany, 1991–2006. European Sociological Review, 28(2), 263–282.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodman, L. A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61(2), 215–231.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.2.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jæger, M. M. (2006). What makes people support public responsibility for welfare provision: Self-interest or political ideology? A longitudinal approach. Acta Sociologica, 49(3), 321–338.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699306067718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasso, G., & Wegener, B. (1997). Methods for empirical justice analysis: Part 1. Framework, models, and quantities. Social Justice Research, 10(4), 393–430.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02683292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klaus, D., Engstler, H., Mahne, K., Wolff, J. K., Simonson, J., Wurm, S., Tesch-Römer, C. (2017). Cohort profile: The German Ageing Survey (DEAS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(4), 1105–1105g.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kluegel, J. R., & Matějů, P. (1995). Egalitarian vs. inegalitarian principles of distributive justice. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political chance: Public opinion in capitalist and post-communist states (pp. 209–238). New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konzelmann, L., Wagner, C., & Rattinger, H. (2012). Turnout in Germany in the course of time: Life cycle and cohort effects on electoral turnout from 1953 to 2049. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 250–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2011.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroh, M., & Fetz, K. (2016). Das Profil der AfD-AnhängerInnen hat sich seit Gründung der Partei deutlich verändert. DIW Wochenbericht, 83(34), 711–719.Google Scholar
  24. Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2013). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14(2), 157–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lanza, S. T., Tan, X., & Bray, B. C. (2013). Latent class analysis with distal outcomes: A flexible model-based approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(1), 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742377.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Liebig, S., Hülle, S., & May, M. (2016). Principles of the just distribution of benefits and burdens: The “Basic Social Justice Orientations” scale for measuring order-related social justice attitudes. In SOEP paper on multidisciplinary panel data research (Vol. 831). Berlin: DIW Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. Liebig, S., & Wegener, B. (1995). Primäre und sekundäre Ideologien. Ein Vergleich von Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen in Deutschland und den USA. In H.-P. Müller, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Soziale Ungleichheit und soziale Gerechtigkeit (Vol. 4, pp. 265–293, Sozialstrukturanalyse). Opladen: Leske+Budrich.Google Scholar
  28. Mahne, K., Wolff, J. K., Simonson, J., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2017). Altern im Wandel: Zwei Jahrzehnte Deutscher Alterssurvey (DEAS). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merz, E. L., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). A latent profile analysis of the Five Factor Model of personality: Modeling trait interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 915–919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mühleck, K. (2003). Stabilität von Einstellungen. Gerechtigkeitsideologien im ISJP-Panel 2000-2002. ISJP-Arbeitsbericht (Vol. 97). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Mühleck, K. (2009). Gerechtigkeit und Wahlverhalten. Gerechtigkeitswahrnehmungen und Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen als Motive politischen Handelns. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus User’s Guide (4 edn.). Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 288–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2000). Who wants to redistribute? The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reeskens, T., & van Oorschot, W. (2013). Equity, equality, or need? A study of popular preferences for welfare redistribution principles across 24 European countries. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1174–1195.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.752064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabbagh, C., & Vanhuysse, P. (2014). Perceived pension injustice: A multidimensional model for two most-different cases. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(2), 174–184.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schrenker, M. (2009). Warum fast alle das deutsche Rentensystem ungerecht finden, aber trotzdem nichts daran ändern möchten. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 61(2), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schrenker, M. (2011). Generationengerechtigkeit in der Alterssicherung. Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. Schrenker, M., & Wegener, B. (2007). Was ist gerecht? Ausgewählte Ergebnisse aus dem International Social Justice Project 1991–2007. ISJP Technical Report (Vol. 150). Berlin: International Social Justice Project.Google Scholar
  42. Svallfors, S. (2010). Public Attitudes. In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (pp. 241–251). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ullrich, C. (2004). Sozialpolitische Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien, empirische Gerechtigkeitsüberzeugungen und die Akzeptanz sozialer Sicherungssysteme. In S. Liebig, H. Lengfeld, & S. Mau (Eds.), Verteilungsprobleme und Gerechtigkeit in modernen Gesellschaften (pp. 29–68). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  44. van Groezen, B., Kiiver, H., & Unger, B. (2009). Explaining Europeans’ preferences for pension provision. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(2), 237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2004). Latent class analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 549–553). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Wegener, B. (1998). Belohnungs- und Prinzipiengerechtigkeit. Die zwei Welten der empirischen Gerechtigkeitsforschung. ISJP-Arbeitsbericht (Vol. 56). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  48. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (1995a). Dominant ideologies and the variation of distributive justice norms: A comparison of East and West Germany, and the United States. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political change: Public opinion in capitalist and post-communist states (Vol. 3, p. 239). New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (1995b). Hierarchical and social closure conceptions of distributive social justice: A comparison of East and West Germany. In J. R. M. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political change: Public opinion in capitalist and post-communist states. New York: Aldine/de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Centre of Gerontology (Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen (DZA))BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Berlin Graduate School of Social SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations