IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hdl/wpaper/1706.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Implementation of Social Policy: A Factorial Survey Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Marjolijn De Wilde
  • Peter Goos

Abstract

The implementation of social policies has a multidimensional character. We present an experimental method (factorial survey) by means of which one can gather data from a large number of respondents from several agencies and across countries. A concrete research example involves a survey among Belgian social assistance case managers, who were asked to predict the likelihood of experimentally varied hypothetical clients being sanctioned. The data had a multi-level structure (3=organisation [n=79]; 2=respondent [n=594]; and 1=client descriptions [n=4855]). We empirically show how the method is useful for studies on issues such as conditionality (client level), discretion (social worker and organisation level), decentralisation (municipality/region level) and international policymaking (country level). Our recommendations for the use of factorial surveys with regard to social policy implementation research are: asking for expected and not for preferred treatment, adding a questionnaire about respondents and their organisation, stratified sampling of respondents and using multi-level techniques for analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjolijn De Wilde & Peter Goos, 2017. "The Implementation of Social Policy: A Factorial Survey Approach," Working Papers 1706, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
  • Handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:1706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://medialibrary.uantwerpen.be/oldcontent/container2453/files/CSB%20WP%202017/CSB_WP_17_06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guillermina Jasso, 2006. "Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(3), pages 334-423, February.
    2. Skarlicki, Daniel P. & Turner, R. Anthony, 2014. "Unfairness begets unfairness: Victim derogation bias in employee ratings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 34-46.
    3. Yuri Kazepov, 1999. "At the Edge of Longitudinal Analysis. Welfare Institutions and Social Assistance Dynamics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 305-322, August.
    4. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    5. Sarah Marchal & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2014. "A new kid in town? Active inclusion in European minimum income schemes," ImPRovE Working Papers 14/07, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    6. Natascha Van Mechelen & Sarah Marchal & Tim Goedemé & Ive Marx & Bea Cantillon, 2011. "The CSB-Minimum Income Protection Indicators dataset (CSB-MIPI)," Working Papers 1105, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    7. F. Johnson, 2006. "Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 45-50, May.
    8. Kittel, Bernhard & Obinger, Herbert, 2002. "Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    9. Sarah Carpentier & Karel Neels & Karel Van den Bosch, 2014. "How Do Exit Rates from Social Assistance Benefit in Belgium Vary with Individual and Local Agency Characteristics?," Research in Labor Economics, in: Safety Nets and Benefit Dependence, volume 39, pages 151-187, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Olivier Bargain & Herwig Immervoll & Heikki Viitamäki, 2012. "No claim, no pain. Measuring the non-take-up of social assistance using register data," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(3), pages 375-395, September.
    11. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marjolijn De Wilde & Sarah Marchal, 2018. "Weighing up work willingness in social assistance: a balancing act on multiple levels," Working Papers 1808, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    2. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Nakayama, Shoichiro & Chikaraishi, Makoto, 2015. "Unified closed-form expression of logit and weibit and its extension to a transportation network equilibrium assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 672-685.
    6. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    8. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    9. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    10. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    11. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    12. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    15. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2013. "Preference discontinuity in choice experiment: Determinants and implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 138-145.
    16. Herwig Immervoll & Stephen P. Jenkins & Sebastian Königs, 2015. "Are Recipients of Social Assistance 'Benefit Dependent'?: Concepts, Measurement and Results for Selected Countries," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 162, OECD Publishing.
    17. Bea Cantillon & Sarah Marchal & Chris Luigjes, 2015. "Decent incomes for the poor: which role for Europe?," ImPRovE Working Papers 15/20, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    18. Ms. Chie Aoyagi & Alistair Munro, 2019. "Guilt, Gender, and Work-Life Balance in Japan: A Choice Experiment," IMF Working Papers 2019/261, International Monetary Fund.
    19. Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    20. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2014. "Does attribute cut-off elicitation affect choice consistency? Contrasting hypothetical and real-money choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 16-29.

    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:hdl:wpaper:1706. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Santiago Burone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csbuabe.html .

    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.