Who deserves what and why during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Applying the CARIN principles of deservingness to the American welfare state

Abstract

How does the public decide who is deserving of welfare benefits? To shed light on this question, we investigate whether the CARIN principles of deservingness—specifically the ideas of control, attitude, reciprocity, identity, and need—impact the public's perception of American welfare target groups. We draw contrast between traditional welfare programs and pandemic‐related programs to gain a more comparative understanding of the principles' effects as well as to determine what role the pandemic may play in shaping welfare perceptions. We report that positive, deserving social constructions exist for recipients of both traditional and pandemic‐related welfare programs, and we find evidence that the distinction between traditional and pandemic‐related programs is important for deservingness perceptions in the US. Overall, these results suggest the importance of the CARIN criteria in an American context.

Understanding the Inflation and Social Policy Nexus

“…The situation in these states could be a challenge in terms of political stability, as the rise of populism remains a major issue in a context of acute economic uncertainty exacerbated by the current inflationary crisis (for an account of economic grievance and political instability in historical context, Daniel Béland et al see Eichengreen, 2018). Yet, like the COVID-19 pandemic suggested, this crisis might lead to a more generous understanding of social policy deservingness, as those in need are more clearly in that state without fault of their own, in the aftermath of a sudden and powerful external shock (Oorschot, 2000;Crabtree & Wehde, 2022). Naturally, one might not be able to know how stable such a change in understanding will be, also given that the variation in impact differs highly dependent on type of heating in different countries and households within a country so that the more positive attitude risk being mainly towards those most strongly hit by the inflation and not more generally those receiving welfare state benefits.…”

Who deserves exceptions in times of crisis? A comparison of policy responses to mitigate negative consequences for unemployed people and immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…In the Nordic welfare states, as well as in many other countries, the overall narrative during the pandemic was that governments had to step in (Crabtree and Wehde, 2023;Gjerde, 2021Gjerde, , 2022Greve et al, 2021;Nilsen and Skarpenes, 2020). This attitude is illustrated by the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, Jonas Gahr Støre's (2020) statement during one of the parliamentary debates that led to the introduction of an economic relief package: of the economy are grinding to a halt.…”

“…In the Nordic welfare states, as well as in many other countries, the overall narrative during the pandemic was that governments had to step in (Crabtree and Wehde, 2023; Gjerde, 2021, 2022; Greve et al, 2021; Nilsen and Skarpenes, 2020). This attitude is illustrated by the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, Jonas Gahr Støre's (2020) statement during one of the parliamentary debates that led to the introduction of an economic relief package:‘All parties are united behind a powerful package to support those affected in the labour market: those who are laid off, lose their jobs or don’t get more assignments or orders: not because they have done a poor job, but because large parts of the economy are grinding to a halt.…”

Vocational training during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Under what conditions does the public support state subsidies for training firms?

“…Governments around the world provided large‐scale support for business and industries and social policy programs to mitigate the consequences of the crisis. These support programs raise a range of questions concerning fairness perceptions and public support for such measures (Bonoli et al, 2022; Bridgman et al, 2022; Crabtree & Wehde, 2023). Fairness norms are central in dealing with the allocation of scarce resources and questions of redistribution (Alesina & Angeletos, 2005; Eichenberger & Oberholzer‐Gee, 1998; Raux et al, 2009).…”