UNI-SEL · Universalism or selectivism? What citizens think about the institutional design of the future welfare state

Universalism or selectivism? What citizens think about the institutional design of the future welfare state

Throughout the years, it has become conventional wisdom in social policy literature that universal policies, accessible to all citizens/residents, enjoy higher levels of popular support than selective policies targeted at the poor only. At first sight, the empirical evidence in support of this claim seems convincing. A large number of public opinion studies reveal the same pattern: universally targeted programs, such as most old-age pensions and healthcare systems, consistently receive higher levels of support than selective programs, such as means-tested social assistance and housing allowances. I argue, however, that there are at least three reasons why further research into the social legitimacy of universal vis-à-vis selective welfare provision was needed. First, the studies that are typically cited to support the claim that universalism is more popular are inconclusive, because they conflate the institutional design of welfare programs with their respective target groups (which are known to have different levels of perceived deservingness). Second, a closer look at existing empirical studies shows that there is considerable variation in public support across countries, time, and policy domains. Third, I argue that also the oft-cited theoretical claim that citizens' considerations of self-interest and moral justice lead them to prefer universal over selective welfare is highly questionable. Based on a unique combination of cross-national and experimental survey data, this project investigated under which circumstances -when, where and why- one social policy design option is more popular than the other. More specifically, it: (1) advanced and empirically validated a novel theoretical model that stresses the importance of combining institutional policy design with target group deservingness to explain public support for welfare programs; (2) uncovered how citizens' attitudes towards universal and selective welfare are related to the national context in which they live; and (3) examined how considerations of self-interest and moral justice influence support for universal vis-à-vis selective welfare . The project's main conclusion is that such support is indeed contingent on (1) the social risk group under consideration (e.g., means-tested policies are particularly unpopular when targeted at deserving groups, such as the sick/disabled), (2) the country context (e.g., support for a universal basic income increased during the Covid-19 pandemic), and (3) individual characteristics (e.g., poverty-tested welfare benefits are strongly opposed by a coalition of middle- and high-income citizens).

Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз