Are welfare state reforms electorally risky? This study tackles two key gaps.

It first tests the reform-vote connection with data on actual legislative decisions, enabling robust statistical analysis. Voters reward governments for benefit expansions while punishing them for cutbacks — a phenomenon termed "compensation" that serves as an effective blame-avoidance strategy.

The second shortcoming addressed is ignoring expansionary reforms alongside cutbacks. This research finds voters respond negatively and positively to welfare changes in roughly equal magnitudes, suggesting voter negativity bias doesn't directly translate into electoral outcomes.

Key findings:

* Voters penalize governments for benefit reductions (cutbacks) but also reward them for increases (expansions)

* The magnitude of these positive and negative reactions appears similar

* This balance implies compensation is a viable political strategy

This analysis offers important insights into voter behavior regarding welfare state changes in two distinct systems.