IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v21y2022i3p359-374_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information and legitimacy: results from an experimental survey on attitudes to the 2017 pension reform in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Kangas, Olli
  • Airio, Ilpo
  • Koskenvuo, Karoliina
  • Kuivalainen, Susan
  • Tenhunen, Sanna

Abstract

The legitimacy of a pension system or any social security program depends on its credibility and perceived fairness. In order to gauge this legitimacy, we need to understand the relation between people's knowledge and attitudes. This experimental survey into the role of knowledge and perceptions divided respondents into two groups: the ‘treatment’ group received an information letter about a forthcoming pension reform before they were interviewed, while the control group was interviewed without receiving this ‘treatment’. Comparisons of the responses from the two groups allow us to assess how the level of knowledge and the provision of information affect people's opinions on policy reform. We also consider the patterns of covariation between background factors, people's concerns, and attitudes toward pension reform. The results show that the information letter had a significant impact on subjective but not on the objective level of knowledge. Receiving the information letter improved acceptance and perceptions of the fairness of the reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Kangas, Olli & Airio, Ilpo & Koskenvuo, Karoliina & Kuivalainen, Susan & Tenhunen, Sanna, 2022. "Information and legitimacy: results from an experimental survey on attitudes to the 2017 pension reform in Finland," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 359-374, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:21:y:2022:i:3:p:359-374_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474747220000396/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:21:y:2022:i:3:p:359-374_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.