Are universal welfare policies really more popular than selective ones? A critical discussion of empirical research

Abstract

PurposeIn the social policy literature, it is often assumed that universal policies are more popular than selective ones among the public, because they supposedly generate broader self-interested coalitions and are considered morally superior. The present article revisits and challenges this assumption.Design/methodology/approachThe article critically reviews the existing empirical literature on public support for universal and means-tested welfare schemes.FindingsThe main conclusion is that the popularity of universal vis-à-vis selective welfare remains very much an open question. First, the studies that are typically cited to support the claim that universalism is indeed more popular are inconclusive because they conflate the institutional design of welfare programs with their respective target groups. Second, there is considerable variation in public support for universal and selective welfare across countries, time and policy domains.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings suggest that future research should focus on scrutinizing under which circumstances – when, where and why – universal social policies are more popular than selective ones.Originality/valueThe article makes an original case for considering perceived welfare deservingness of social policies' target groups alongside the policy design when studying popular support for differently targeted welfare schemes.

Sosyal Dışlanma Unsuru Olarak Sosyal Yardım Sistemleri: Utanç ve Damgalamanın Yeniden Üretimi

“…Diğer yandan evrensel yardım sistemleri toplum içinde daha adil bir paylaşım ilişkisi kurarak vergi temelinde maliyet-fayda dengesini nüfusa eşit olarak yayar. Seçici sistemlerin tersine yüksek vergi ödeyen orta ve üst gelir grubunun sosyal yardım ve hizmetlerden yararlanmasına olanak tanır (Laenen ve Gugushvili, 2020). Seçici sosyal yardımlar yoksulluk sınırının en alt tabakasına yönelik olması, sınırın üstündekiler ve altındakiler arasında dayanışma için rasyonel bir temel oluşturmaz.…”

Welfare state regimes and social policy resistance to fiscal consolidations

“…Moreover, universal social policies are more likely to be perceived as fair and just, whereas means tested policies fuel debates about the deservingness of welfare state beneficiaries and create a polarisation between the recipients and taxpayers (Brady & Bostic, 2015, but see Laenen & Gugushvili, 2021).…”

“…Korpi and Palme (1998) contend that universal social policies are associated with more redistributive outcomes than means‐tested policies because citizens are more willing to sustain redistribution with their taxes when they also see themselves as beneficiaries of the welfare state. Moreover, universal social policies are more likely to be perceived as fair and just, whereas means tested policies fuel debates about the deservingness of welfare state beneficiaries and create a polarisation between the recipients and taxpayers (Brady & Bostic, 2015, but see Laenen & Gugushvili, 2021).…”

Universal Social Pensions Are Unaffordable … Not! Testing the Unaffordability Hypothesis in Latin America and the Caribbean

“…Even though international financial institutions and most governments worldwide continue recommending and using targeting in social protection programs (Heimo, 2019), its praised efficiency has been questioned in multiple publications (Dethier, Pestieau, & Ali, 2010;S. Devereux et al, 2015;Kidd & Wylde, 2011;Li & Walker, 2016;Sandberg, 2016). Moreover, the literature has highlighted options to expand fiscal space and generate resources for universal social protection (Ortiz et al, 2017b;Durán-Valverde & Pacheco, 2012).…”