Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains

Hootegem, Arno Van; Abts, Koenraad; Meuleman, Bart

doi:10.1007/s11211-020-00354-9

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that most people prefer universal over selective provision in the field of old-age pensions was also documented in Belgium by Van Hootegem et al (2020). When asked how the government should organize the pension system, a small majority (58.4%) answered that "everyone should get a reasonable pension that is equal for all", while only 4.6% wants their government to provide a "minimal pension for the poor elderly that covers only their basic needs" [5].…”

Section: Theoretical Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Also in Australia and Poland, there is very little support for selective old-age pensions (34.2% and 24.7% respectively), and considerably higher support for universal provision (51.7% in and 50.7% respectively) (Forma & Kangas, 1999). The fact that most people prefer universal over selective provision in the field of old-age pensions was also documented in Belgium by Van Hootegem, Abts & Meuleman (2020). When asked how the government should organize the pension system, a small majority (58.4%) answered that "everyone should get a reasonable pension that is equal for all", while only 4.6% wanted their government to provide a "minimal pension for the poor elderly that covers only their basic needs".…”

Section: The Policy Principles Approachmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In a similar vein, there is overwhelming support for universal access to public health care: 82% of the Belgian population feels that there should be "equal and reasonable health care for everyone". Selective provision of health care, by contrast is unpopular: only 8.1% thinks it would be a good idea to provide only "minimal basic health care for people who are truly in need" (Van Hootegem et al, 2020). Such strong popular opposition to selective health care systems has also been reported in cross-national research.…”

Section: Theoretical Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Laenen

Gugushvili

2021

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: The Policy Principles Approachmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Theoretical Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Laenen

Gugushvili

2021

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The implicit adoption of a moral principle conceals the social justice preferences of the modelers and thus reduces the transparency of the model. Furthermore, social justice preferences are specific in space, time, and contexts (Bell, 1993; Lau et al, 2021; Van Hootegem et al, 2020).…”

Section: Requirements For Incorporating Justice In Model‐based Climate Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, by systematically identifying ethical imperatives from conceptions of intra‐ and intergenerational distributive justice, we propose modeling requirements for enabling evaluation of distributive justice in alternative policies by using IAMs. Given that there are multiplicity of justice principles (e.g., equality, fairness, equity) that are relevant in different contexts (Van Hootegem et al, 2020); our intention is not to build preferences toward particular principles of justice, but rather facilitating, enabling and accommodating justice debates on the basis of model‐based analyses. Therefore, the systematic requirements we present in this paper are a starting point, rather than an ultimate list, for improving the assessment of distributive justice in climate change planning through the use of model‐based support tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Jafino

Kwakkel

Taebi

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models for supporting climate adaptation and mitigation planning, mostly in the form of Integrated Assessment Models, are poorly equipped for aiding questions related to fairness of adaptation and mitigation strategies, because they often disregard distributional outcomes. When evaluating policies using such models, the costs and benefits are typically aggregated across all actors in the system, and over the entire planning horizon. While a policy may be beneficial when considering the aggregate outcome, it can be harmful to some people, somewhere, at some point in time. The practice of aggregating over all actors and over time thus gives rise to problems of justice; it could also exacerbate existing injustices. While the literature discusses some of these injustices in ad‐hoc and case specific manner, a systematic approach for considering distributive justice in model‐based climate change planning is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by proposing 11 requirements that an Integrated Assessment Model should meet in order to enable the assessment of distributive justice in climate mitigation and adaptation policies. We derive the requirements from various ethical imperatives stemming from the theory of distributive justice. More specifically, we consider both intra‐generational (among people within one generation) and intergenerational (between generations) distributive justice. We investigate to what extent the 11 requirements are being met in recent model‐based climate planning studies, and highlight several directions for future research to advance the accounting for distributive justice in model‐based support for climate change planning. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

show abstract

Evaluating the distributional fairness of alternative adaptation policies: a case study in Vietnam’s upper Mekong Delta

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To support equitable adaptation planning, quantitative assessments should consider the fairness of the distribution of outcomes to different people. What constitutes a fair distribution, however, is a normative question. In this study, we explore the use of different moral principles drawn from theories of distributive justice to evaluate fairness. We use adaptation planning in Vietnam Mekong Delta as a case study. We evaluate the preference ranking of six alternative policies for seven moral principles across an ensemble of scenarios. Under the baseline scenario, each principle yields distinctive preference rankings, though most principles identify the same policy as the most preferred one. Across the ensemble of scenarios, the commonly used utilitarian principle yields the most stable ranking, while rankings from other principles are more sensitive to uncertainty. The sufficientarian and the envy-free principles yield the most distinctive ranking of policies, with a median ranking correlation of only 0.07 across all scenarios. Finally, we identify scenarios under which using these two principles results in reversed policy preference rankings. Our study highlights the importance of considering multiple moral principles in evaluating the fairness of adaptation policies, as this would reduce the possibility of maladaptation.

show abstract

Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains

Cited by 26 publications

References 76 publications

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

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

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Evaluating the distributional fairness of alternative adaptation policies: a case study in Vietnam’s upper Mekong Delta

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About