Popular preferences for a fully means-tested welfare provision model: social and cross-national divides in Europe

Abstract

PurposeWhether welfare provision should be broad-based or selectively targeted at the poor is one of the most common themes in social policy discourse. However, empirical evidence concerning people's preferences about these distributive justice principles is very limited. The current paper aims to bridge this gap, by analyzing Europeans' opinions about a hypothetical transformation of the welfare state that would provide social transfers and services only to people on low incomes.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis draws on data from the 2016 European Social Survey and covers 21 countries. In order to understand what would motivate people to support the complete means testing of welfare provision, we use multilevel models with individual-level and contextual predictors.FindingsThe results show that the upper and middle classes are the most opposed to the idea, presumably as they would be the net losers from such a reform. Furthermore, our results indicate that more-egalitarian people show a higher level of support for means testing, even though the political left has traditionally promoted universalism. Some key characteristics of the welfare state also matter: People are more likely to endorse complete means testing in countries with less-generous provision and a higher incidence of poverty. However, the extent to which the existing welfare state relies on means testing has no influence on people's opinions about implementing a fully means-tested welfare model.Practical implicationsSome of the key findings are likely to be of interest to activists advocating on behalf of the poor and the socially vulnerable. Although it is generally assumed that universal provision is the best strategy to address the needs of disadvantaged people, our results suggest that from an electoral point of view, targeting within universalism may be a more appealing welfare strategy.Originality/valueThis paper details one of the very few studies to examine preferences for means-tested welfare provision in a comparative context. In addition, one of the contextual variables used in the analysis – the proportion of means-tested social benefits out of the total expenditure on social benefits – is unique to this study.

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

“…These findings seem to be in line with the central tenets of policy feedback theory, which argues that existing public policies influence the behaviors and attitudes of citizenseither in a positive, self-reinforcing way, or in a negative, selfundermining way (Campbell, 2012;Kumlin and Stadelmann-Steffen, 2014). In contrast, a more recent comparative study by Gugushvili and van Oorschot (2020) found that the extent to which a welfare state relies on means testing has no effect on individual preferences for a fully means-tested welfare provision. Yet, this study also found that country context matters: support for complete means testing was higher in countries with lower social protection spending and higher incidence of poverty, which the authors interpret as in indication of "immaturity" of the welfare state.…”

“…Second, our discussion clearly demonstrates that the social legitimacy of universal visa-vis selective welfare provision differs across countries (for example Gugushvili and van Oorschot, 2020), across time (for example Andersen, 2011) and across policy domains (for example Kangas, 1995). This suggests that a universally valid answer simply does not exist: it is not the case that one policy design option is more popular than the other, always and everywhere.…”

“…Most recently, data from the 2016 European Social Survey (ESS) show that almost half of the European population agrees that social benefits and services (without further specification) should only be provided for people on the lowest incomes, leaving people with middle and higher incomes to fend for themselves. There is, however, a large variation across countries: the proportion consenting to strictly selective welfare provision ranges from 65% in Italy to 22% in the Netherlands (Gugushvili & van Oorschot, 2020). The fact that selectivism is rather popular in some countries was also demonstrated by Goul Andersen (2011), who showed that about 70% of the Danish population considers it just to target welfare support to the poorest rather than giving it to everybody.…”

The Baby Box scheme in Scotland: A study of public attitudes and social value

“…It is often assumed that universal benefits will be most popular among (and important for) people on lower incomes. However, an analysis of the 2016 European Social Survey, covering 21 countries, reported that attitudes to the idea of completely means‐tested welfare provision were complex 12 . The analysis found that the upper and middle classes were most opposed to the idea, and that ‘more‐egalitarian people show a higher level of support for means‐testing, even though the political left has traditionally promoted universalism’.…”

“…However, an analysis of the 2016 European Social Survey, covering 21 countries, reported that attitudes to the idea of completely means‐tested welfare provision were complex. 12 The analysis found that the upper and middle classes were most opposed to the idea, and that ‘more‐egalitarian people show a higher level of support for means‐testing, even though the political left has traditionally promoted universalism’. Respondents' attitudes were also affected by the national context of different welfare state models, with people living in countries with the less generous provision and higher levels of poverty being more likely to endorse complete means testing.…”