Benefit ‘Myths’? The Accuracy and Inaccuracy of Public Beliefs about the Benefits System

Abstract

There is a widespread assumption by academics and commentators that negative public attitudes to the benefits system are due to 'myths' held by the British public. However, there is little research on whether the public believe these 'myths', nor critical scrutiny of benefit 'truths'. This article therefore investigates what British people believe about the benefits system, and the extent to which these beliefs can be regarded as correct. To do this, we use 46 measures from 18 datasets (including British Social Attitudes, the European Social Survey, Eurobarometer, and surveys by YouGov and Ipsos MORI made available for academic study for the first time), and compare these perceptions to true figures obtained from a variety of sources. We find thatagainst expectationsthere are some areas where the public are (on average) relatively accurate (e.g. the share of the population who currently claim out-of-work benefits). Yet overall, our evidence shows that the British public have low levels of understanding of the benefits system, primarily in ways that seem likely to undermine public support. People wildly overestimate unemployment benefits compared to pensions, the value of unemployment benefits, and misperceive trends in claims. While it is difficult to know the true level of benefit fraud exactly, the public overestimate fraud compared to any reasonable figure. We conclude by discussing the implications for both understanding and changing attitudes towards benefits.

Numbers and Attitudes towards Welfare State Generosity

“…By contrast, objective reference points – or at least the minimum wage income – matter rather less. These findings add to an emerging literature on ‘benefit myths’ and how these may affect popular attitudes towards the welfare state (Geiger, 2017a, 2017b; Jensen and Tyler, 2015). More broadly, we also contribute to the literatures on information (e.g.…”

“…This strand of research suggests that voters are open to elite messages that present the social policy programmes as a burden. If voters accept the narrative, they tend to become less supportive of the welfare state (see, for example, Geiger, 2017a). In our reading, this is what politicians, as well as varied media outlets, are trying to achieve when they use inflated figures on benefit generosity (see Baumberg et al, 2012); yet it is, of course, not terribly surprising that people will become more sceptical of the welfare state if they think recipients receive some outlandish amount in benefits.…”

“…(Jacobs and Shapiro, 1999; Kuklinski et al, 2000; Taylor-Gooby et al, 2003). As Geiger (2017a: 17), concludes:[k]nowledge about the benefits system is low, as even where the public are right on average , on almost no measure do more than one-third of individuals provide a correct answer as we define it; and the public are often not right on average (emphasis in original).…”

Policy knowledge among ‘elite citizens’

“…As mentioned, previous research has tended to focus on aspects of the welfare state that do not directly relate to citizens’ social rights, but rather, say, how large a share of the budget spending on the unemployed is, or how many people make fraudulent benefit claims (e.g. CNN, ; Geiger, ; Page and Shapiro 1999). Knowledge about these fiscal and behavioral effects of existing social rights is generally rather low.…”

“…Research also suggests that many harbor substantial misperceptions about the outcomes of benefit systems in terms of the amount of fraud, trends in claims, and overall costs (e.g. Jacobs & Shapiro, ; Geiger, ). Yet, we lack solid insights into people's knowledge about the design of social rights (what we label ‘policy knowledge’ for short).…”