In this article, I argue first that ALMP support does not follow the “traditional” generosity conflict patterns which are characteristic for passive welfare benefits. Rather, I maintain that the endorsement of particular ALMPs can be explained in terms of being pro or contra conditionality. Using a novel comparative survey on labour market attitudes I show that the higher the level of labour market vulnerability the more likely and individual is to support non-conditional ALMP (training/public job creation) as compared to conditional ones (sanctions).
Moreover, I show that ideological orientation interacts with labour market and social status. In more detail, I find that unemployed individuals with a left-libertarian ideology are more likely to reject conditional ALMPs as compared to left-leaning employed. Interestingly, the effect for this group is constant independently of their socioeconomic status. Instead, this is not the case for individuals adhering to the right political spectrum. In this group employed are more likely to favour conditionality as compared to unemployed, however, this effect becomes markedly stronger with increasing socioeconomic status. In sum, this article demonstrates that modelling interactions between vulnerability, socioeconomic status and ideological affiliation is pivotal to understand support patterns for conditional and non-conditional ALMPs.
