Main Findings from the 2020 Risks that Matter Survey

2. Is social protection working?

2.1. A social contract for a pandemic

The growth of spending on social protection in OECD countries during 2020 will almost certainly represent the largest peacetime expansion of OECD welfare states in nearly a century. Spending data are still coming in, and it is still difficult to measure the exact sizes and shapes of social programmes that emerged during COVID‑19. It is also hard to say which measures will end up being temporary and which will have staying power. But it is beyond dispute that the expansion has been enormous.

Throughout the OECD, national governments have rolled out enhanced income support, family benefits, child benefits, unemployment insurance, health care, pension supplements and housing supports to help households get through the pandemic (OECD, 2021[14]; 2020[4]; 2020[6]; ISSA, 2021[7]; Gentilini et al., 2021[15]). Many subnational governments, too, enacted their own measures. These investments came on top of many other policy measures intended to safeguard households that did not necessarily require public funding, such as eviction bans.

Considerable effort has been focused on protecting jobs and ensuring adequate household income during lockdowns or strict confinement periods, when economic activities were reduced dramatically. These measures took the form of short-time work schemes or wage subsidies aimed at reducing labour costs, preventing a surge in unemployment, and mitigating financial hardship by supporting the income of people working reduced hours (though usually below a 100% income replacement rate) (OECD, 2020[4]). By May 2020, job retention (JR) schemes were supporting about 50 million jobs across many OECD countries – about ten times as many as during the global financial crisis in 2008‑09 (OECD, 2020[4]).

How were these and other measures perceived by people living in OECD countries?

2.2. Low confidence in income support

Despite the massive public investments made during the pandemic, people’s confidence in the ability of their government to support them through financial difficulties is low. Only 35.8% of respondents say they have confidence that government would sufficiently support them in the case of financial difficulties. The Netherlands has the highest share believing that they can count on government, at 56.1%. In contrast, nearly six out of ten respondents across countries – 59.3% – say that they have little or no confidence that cash benefits and services provided by their government would sufficiently support them if they were to experience financial difficulties.

Personal networks, instead, play a key role. A majority of respondents across countries – 52.5% – expect that a friend or family member would be able and willing to help out in a period of financial difficulty, with respondents in Austria, Germany, Spain and the United States expressing the highest levels of confidence in support from these kinds of personal networks. In Estonia, Israel, Portugal and Spain, there are particularly large gaps between the share of people who believe friends and family would help them, relative to government. In Spain, for example, 60.6% of respondents say that friends and family would help them through financial difficulties, while only 21.8% say that they would count on government.  

“Even before the COVID pandemic hit we didn’t have a lot of extra cash, and it has only gotten worse since the start of it.”– 60‑year‑old man, Canada

Figure 2.1. People count on friends and family – more than government – to support them through financial difficulty

Note: Respondents were asked how confident they were that they could turn to various forms of support should they experience financial trouble. The response options were “not at all confident”, “not so confident”, “somewhat confident”, “very confident” for each answer choice. Respondents could also choose “can’t choose” as a response option. Response options “somewhat confident” and “very confident” are aggregated here.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter 2020 survey, https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm

Perceptions across countries are not always connected with actual levels of government intervention during the crisis. France, for example, offered a job retention scheme that paid a replacement rate of 70% (at the average wage) during the crisis, up to a ceiling of EUR 4 849 monthly, and an unemployment benefit equal to 57% of the average wage (OECD, 2021[3]). About 35% of dependent employed French workers took up the short-time work scheme in April-May 2020. Yet less than a third (30.5%) of RTM 2020 respondents in France say they are confident that the government would provide cash benefits or services sufficient to get them through the financial difficulties. In contrast, 38.5% of Belgians have confidence that the government would help them through financial troubles, even though Belgium offered a job retention scheme that paid a lower replacement rate than France (of 50% of the average wage), up to a lower ceiling (EUR 2 100 monthly), and the enrolment of dependent workers in April-May 2020 was lower than in France. Belgium also offered a lower unemployment benefit, equal to 42% of the average wage (OECD, 2021[3]).

When looking at specific life events, respondents are generally quite sceptical that the government would (or does) provide them or their household with adequate income support during periods with major income losses. People are most likely to agree that government would provide them with adequate income support in the case of unemployment, though these rates are still low. Across countries, 27.5% of respondents say that they think government would (or does) provide adequate income supports in the event of unemployment, with rates as high as 40.9% in Switzerland and as low as 11.9% in Chile.

Figure 2.2. Little cross-national relationship between confidence in old-age income supports and pension replacement rates

Note: Respondents were asked about the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement “I think that the government would (or does) provide my family and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to old-age”. Response options were “agree”, “strongly agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree” and “undecided”. Data on the relative income poverty rate for 66‑ to 75‑year‑olds are based on equivalised household disposable income, i.e. income after taxes and transfers adjusted for household size. The poverty threshold is set at 50% of median disposable income in each country. Data refer to 2018 or 2017, except for Mexico and the Netherlands (2016). Data on the future net pension replacement rate are based on entitlements for a man on average earnings, and refer to voluntary and mandatory pensions. Data refer to 2018.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter survey (2018), the OECD Income Distribution Database (http://www.oecd.org/ social/income‑distribution-database.htm), and OECD Pensions at a Glance database.

Financial security in old age is another area in which people think government falls short. Only 22.6% of respondents, cross-nationally, feel that government would or does provide adequate income replacement during retirement, while 48.8% of respondents say that government would not provide adequate income replacement. While there is a slight positive correlation between the degree of relative old-age income poverty and people’s scepticism about the adequacy of government income support (Figure 2.2), there is almost no cross-national relationship between projected replacement rates for pensions and perceptions of government adequacy in old-age income support. Indeed, countries with similar degrees of scepticism often have very different levels of pension generosity. In Portugal, for example, 61.5% of respondents say they do not feel that government provides adequate income security in old age, even as the future pension replacement rate is 89.6%1. Respondents are similarly sceptical about government income supports in old age in Lithuania (59.8%), despite the pension replacement rate being much lower (31%).

Public confidence is lowest when considering income support for long-term care. Across countries, only 17.9% of respondents say that they agree or strongly agree that the government would (or does) provide adequate income support if they had to leave work to care for elderly family members or family members with disabilities. In Chile, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Mexico and Portugal, fewer than 15% of respondents say that they think government would (or does) provide them with adequate income support in the event of leaving work to care for elderly family members or family members with disability. In contrast, 51% of people across countries report the opposite: they disagree or strongly disagree that government would or does provide adequate income support for leaving-work to care for elderly family members or family members with disability.

2.3. Mixed perceptions of public programme effectiveness

Perceptions of government effectiveness vary across policy areas. RTM 2020 respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “I think that my family and I have access to good-quality and affordable public services in…” and were provided with a list of policy areas: family supports, education, employment support services, housing, health, incapacity-related needs/disability, long-term care for the elderly, and public safety.

In none of these listed issue areas do a majority of respondents, cross-nationally, feel that they have access to good-quality and affordable public services, but governments are perceived as more effective in some policy areas than others (Figure 2.3). On average across countries, people are most satisfied with public services around education, health care, and public safety in their country. 44% of respondents across countries agree or strongly agree that they have access to good-quality and affordable education (defined as schools, universities and adult learning). In Finland, over 60% of respondents are satisfied with access to good-quality and affordable education.

The second most popular programme area is health care. 43.1% of respondents cross-nationally feel that they have access to good-quality and affordable provision of health care (defined as “public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.”). A slim majority of respondents in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States agree or strongly agree with having good access to health care – a noteworthy outcome considering the health exigencies of the pandemic and the stressors facing health care providers in this period.

41.9% of respondents cross-nationally report being satisfied with the provision of public safety (defined in RTM as policing). This is the policy area with the highest level of satisfaction in Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Switzerland and the United States (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Policy areas with the highest level of satisfaction

Note: Respondents were asked the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement “I think that my family and I have access to good-quality and affordable public services in the area of…” for different areas of social policies. Possible response options were “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither disagree nor disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.” Respondents could also choose “can’t choose” as a response option. Response options “agree” and “strongly agree” are aggregated here.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter 2020 survey, https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm.

People are least satisfied with public services supporting housing. Only 27.1% of respondents cross-nationally say they can access good-quality and affordable housing services (e.g. .social housing), and 35.6% cross-nationally report that they cannot access it. Indeed, good-quality and affordable housing services is the issue with the lowest level of public satisfaction in all but four countries. Turkey (where 39.5% of respondents say they do not have good access employment services like job search supports and skills training), Chile (where 51.5% say they do not have access to good-quality and affordable family supports like childcare), Denmark (where 24.7% say they do not have access to good-quality and affordable long-term care for elderly people) and Mexico (where 39.8% say they do not have access to good-quality public safety, e.g. policing) are the only countries where people are more dissatisfied with a public service other than housing support.

Housing policy is an area that has received a good deal of public attention during COVID‑19, reflecting concerns around housing affordability and evictions, and governments have introduced a raft of measures to try to help people stay in their homes through the economic and health crisis. Yet most of these measures have been temporary fixes that do little to address the structural challenges driving overall housing unaffordability, such as insufficient supply (OECD, 2021[14]).

2.4. Whose programme is this? Public opinion about programme design

Citizens’ feeling that they are excluded from policy design and reform is not a new issue (OECD, 2019[16]), and the pandemic has done little to change this. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I feel the government incorporates the views of people like me when designing or reforming public benefits.”

On average across countries, 49.2% of RTM 2020 respondents say that they disagree or strongly disagree that the government incorporates their views or the views of people like them. This is a slightly more positive impression than in RTM 2018, when closer to six out of ten respondents said they disagree that government incorporates their views. The addition of Korea and Switzerland to the 2020 survey sample (both of which have relatively positive impressions of governments’ incorporation of people’s views) helps marginally to lower the cross-national average, but otherwise most of the movement from 2018 to 2020 is from the “disagree” or “strongly disagree” answer choice to the middle “neither agree nor disagree” answer choice. There is little change in the share who say that they agree or strongly agree that government does incorporate their views: only 19.4% of RTM 2020 respondents report that government incorporates their views and the views of people like them.

People also tend to be dissatisfied with the distribution of public benefits. RTM 2020 asks a series of questions about the fairness of benefit receipt: whether the respondent feels she or he gets their “fair share,” whether others are getting more than they “deserve”, and how easily people can access benefits.

Cross-nationally, an average of 42.4% of people say that they do not get the fair share of benefits they deserve, given the taxes and social contributions they pay. Only 24.9% say that they do get their fair share. This is an improvement since 2018, and could be driven by the policy circumstances (e.g. the expansion of government programmes during the pandemic to a broader population). As in 2018, the countries where respondents are least likely to perceive unfairness are Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Canada and the United States (though these countries have changed rank order). People are most sceptical that they get their fair share of benefits in Chile (64.5%), Spain (61%) and Israel (60.3%).

Figure 2.4. Only one in five respondents feel that government incorporates their views

Note: Respondents were asked to what degree they feel government incorporates their views or the views of people like them. Answer choices were “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “agree,” “strongly agree,” and “cannot choose.” Figure presents aggregations of “strongly disagree” with “disagree” and “agree” with “strongly agree.”

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter 2020 survey, https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm

Figure 2.5. About a quarter of respondents say they get their fair share of benefits, given the taxes and social contributions they pay

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay”. Possible response options were “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “agree” and “strongly agree”. Respondents could also choose “can’t choose”.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter 2020 survey, https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm

There is also a widespread sense that other people get benefits without deserving them. 61.3% of respondents express this sentiment. This is largely unchanged from 2018. 84.1% of respondents in Portugal, 73.3% in Greece and around 70% in Mexico, Italy and France feel that many people get benefits they do not deserve. Respondents in Denmark, Israel, Estonia and Korea, in contrast, have relatively more charitable views of the deservingness of benefit recipients.

The question of how easily people can access benefits is especially important in an environment of heightened economic insecurity. Across countries, nearly half of the sample – 47.7% – say that they do not think they could receive public benefits if they needed them. In contrast, in five countries – the Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Denmark and the United States – more than a third of respondents report that they do think they could access benefits if they needed them. This is still a low share expressing confidence in benefit access, and it is on par with the share in those same countries who feel they cannot access benefits.

These results raise important questions: Why do some people feel that they cannot access benefits? Does it perhaps relate to the application and enrolment process? Respondents who said they do not feel that they could easily access benefits if they needed them were asked to clarify what they perceive to be the challenge.

Figure 2.6. Most people think others get benefits without deserving them

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement “Many people receive public benefits without deserving them”. Possible response options were “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “agree” and “strongly agree”. Respondents could also choose “can’t choose”.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on the OECD Risks That Matter 2020 survey, https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm

Figure 2.7. Most respondents feel they would not be able to receive public benefits if they needed them

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I think I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them”. Possible response options were “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “agree” and “strongly agree”. Respondents could also choose “can’t choose”.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on OECD Risks that Matter survey (2020).

The most commonly cited barrier to accessing benefits, across countries, was the respondents’ uncertainty about whether or not they would qualify for public benefits (Table 2.1). 57.6% of respondents cross-nationally listed this as a perceived barrier to benefit receipt, with rates as high as 74% in Korea, 73.7% in Canada, and 71.4% in Finland. The second most common barrier, cited by 54.8% of respondents cross‑nationally, is the concern that the application process would be difficult, lengthy or time‑consuming.

Table 2.1. Respondents are very uncertain about their eligibility for public benefits

Percent of respondents indicating various perceived difficulties in accessing benefits, among respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I believe I could access public benefits if I needed them,” 2020.

Country	You are not sure whether you would qualify for public benefits	You are not sure how to apply for public benefits	You think the application process would be difficult, lengthy and/or time‑consuming	You are not sure that you would be treated fairly by the government office processing your claim	Other
	%	%	%	%	%
Austria	50.4	25.6	49.6	45.1	16.1
Belgium	65.0	31.8	55.7	37.5	8.4
Canada	73.7	29.0	51.5	43.1	8.5
Chile	57.8	13.6	53.8	45.3	15.3
Denmark	57.7	17.6	49.7	44.5	9.3
Estonia	62.6	33.3	56.9	52.1	4.9
Finland	71.4	14.7	41.5	25.8	12.0
France	64.8	11.0	39.0	28.4	10.6
Germany	50.8	23.0	56.0	36.9	11.8
Greece	59.8	16.8	44.8	58.8	7.5
Ireland	66.3	25.4	52.2	44.0	7.5
Israel	46.8	25.0	85.6	57.9	4.0
Italy	51.1	12.5	51.0	39.9	7.1
Korea	74.0	23.8	65.1	43.1	4.5
Lithuania	64.2	26.9	54.6	61.2	4.8
Mexico	50.8	26.5	67.9	55.4	7.2
Netherlands	62.4	13.8	52.2	33.8	8.7
Norway	41.2	19.4	73.9	49.6	6.1
Poland	61.7	25.7	58.7	57.6	3.9
Portugal	46.0	19.4	69.6	55.3	6.7
Slovenia	64.9	17.2	43.1	60.3	7.3
Spain	52.5	12.7	44.4	49.6	9.6
Switzerland	55.0	22.9	56.2	42.4	10.3
Turkey	21.3	12.6	50.2	77.0	6.5
United States	69.0	30.3	46.8	40.1	9.3
Average	57.6	21.2	54.8	47.4	8.3

Note: Respondents who indicated that they did not think they could easily access public benefits if needed were asked for the reasons behind this perceived difficulty. They were presented with five possible reasons and asked to tick all that they think apply. They could also choose “don’t know”.

Source: OECD Secretariat estimates based on OECD Risks that Matter survey (2020), https://www.oecd.org/social/risks-that-matter.htm.

Note

← 1.  This is the net mandatory and voluntary pension replacement rate, as percent of pre-retirement earnings for male earner at 100% of average wage entering the labour market today