IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hdl/improv/1511.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The social legitimacy of differently targeted benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Wim van Oorschot
  • Femke Roosma

Abstract

Against the background of a permanent process of welfare reform, in which a pivotal role is played by the socio-political debate on ‘who should get what and why’, this paper addresses the question about the social legitimacy of differently targeted welfare schemes. It aims to review what is known in the academic literature on the social legitimacy of particular types of programs and schemes that are targeted at specific needs and needy groups. The central questions addressed are 1) what factors - institutional, cultural or even evolutional - make that some forms and aims of welfare targeting are more, or less, supported by the public than others, and 2) how these factors can be interpreted and related to each other in a more general framework? The review shows that the field needs to develop further, which is why the paper concludes with a discussion of some venues for future research on the legitimacy of differently targeted benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Wim van Oorschot & Femke Roosma, 2015. "The social legitimacy of differently targeted benefits," ImPRovE Working Papers 15/11, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    • Handle: RePEc:hdl:improv:1511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.centrumvoorsociaalbeleid.be/ImPRovE/Working%20Papers/ImPRovE%20WP%201511_1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Kahan, "undated". "The Logic of Reciprocity: Trust, Collective Action, and Law," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1007, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    2. Lindert,Peter H., 2009. "Growing Public," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521529174, September.
    3. Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2001. "Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(3), pages 500-528, June.
    4. Peter Lindert, 2004. "Social Spending and Economic Growth," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 6-16.
    5. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1983. "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 175-190, March.
    6. Joakim Palme & Walter Korpi, 1998. "The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries," LIS Working papers 174, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    7. Bo Rothstein, 2001. "The Universal Welfare State As A Social Dilemma," Rationality and Society, , vol. 13(2), pages 213-233, May.
    8. Marjolein Jeene & Wim Oorschot & Wilfred Uunk, 2013. "Popular Criteria for the Welfare Deservingness of Disability Pensioners: The Influence of Structural and Cultural Factors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1103-1117, February.
    9. De Donder, Philippe & Hindriks, Jean, 1998. "The Political Economy of Targeting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1-2), pages 177-200, April.
    10. Gelbach Jonah B. & Pritchett Lant, 2002. "Is More for the Poor Less for the Poor? The Politics of Means-Tested Targeting," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, July.
    11. Durr, Robert H., 1993. "What Moves Policy Sentiment?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 158-170, March.
    12. Femke Roosma & John Gelissen & Wim Oorschot, 2013. "The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 235-255, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Wildowicz-Szumarska, 2022. "Is redistributive policy of EU welfare state effective in tackling income inequality? A panel data analysis," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 17(1), pages 81-101, March.
    2. Paula Saikkonen & Minna Ylikännö, 2020. "Is There Room for Targeting within Universalism? Finnish Social Assistance Recipients as Social Citizens," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 145-154.
    3. Mcknight, Abigail, 2015. "A fresh look at an old question: is pro-poor targeting of cash transfers more effective than universal systems at reducing inequality and poverty?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103977, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Tingyun Chen & Jean-Jacques Hallaert & Alexander Pitt & Haonan Qu & Maximilien Queyranne & Alaina Rhee & Anna Shabunina & Jérôme Vandenbussche & Irene Yackovlev, 2018. "Inequality and Poverty across Generations in the European Union," IMF Staff Discussion Notes 18/01, International Monetary Fund.
    5. Julie Janssens & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2017. "Who is to Blame? An Overview of the Factors Contributing to the Non-Take-Up of Social Rights," Working Papers 1708, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    6. Abigail McKnight, 2015. "A fresh look at an old question: is pro-poor targeting of cash transfers more effective than universal systems at reducing inequality and poverty?," CASE Papers /191, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xabier Garcia-Fuente, 2021. "The Paradox of Redistribution in Time. Social Spending in 53 Countries, 1967-2018," LIS Working papers 815, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    2. Malte Luebker, 2019. "Can the Structure of Inequality Explain Fiscal Redistribution? Revisiting the Social Affinity Hypothesis," LIS Working papers 762, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    3. Michaël Zemmour, 2015. "Economie politique du financement progressif de la protection sociale," Working Papers hal-01205217, HAL.
    4. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4596cgacdn8svqf2eog4tv7b2i is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Michaël Zemmour, 2015. "Economie politique du financement progressif de la protection sociale," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01205217, HAL.
    6. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/4596cgacdn8svqf2eog4tv7b2i is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Choi, Gwangeun, 2019. "Revisiting the redistribution hypothesis with perceived inequality and redistributive preferences," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 220-244.
    8. repec:hal:journl:hal-01205217 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Schüring, Esther & Gassmann, Franziska, 2012. "Whom to target: an obvious choice?," MERIT Working Papers 2012-028, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Philippe De Donder & Eugenio Peluso, 2018. "Politically sustainable targeted transfers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 301-313, March.
    11. Komlos, John & Lauderdale, Benjamin E., 2006. "Underperformance in affluence: the remarkable relative decline in American heights in the second half of the 20th-century," Discussion Papers in Economics 1241, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    12. Elvire Guillaud & Matthew Olckers & Michaël Zemmour, 2020. "Four Levers of Redistribution: The Impact of Tax and Transfer Systems on Inequality Reduction," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(2), pages 444-466, June.
    13. Lindbeck, Assar, 2006. "The Welfare State -- Background, Achievements, Problems," Working Paper Series 662, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    14. Gibrán Cruz‐Martínez, 2019. "Older‐Age Social Pensions and Poverty: Revisiting Assumptions on Targeting and Universalism," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1-2), pages 31-56, July.
    15. Duane Swank, 2015. "The Political Foundations of Redistribution in Post-industrial Democracies," LIS Working papers 653, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    16. Heise, Arne & Serfraz Khan, Ayesha, 2018. "The welfare state and liberal democracy: A political economy approach," ZÖSS-Discussion Papers 71, University of Hamburg, Centre for Economic and Sociological Studies (CESS/ZÖSS).
    17. Busemeyer, Marius R., 2021. "Health care attitudes and institutional trust during the COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from the case of Germany," Working Papers 01, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    18. Martin Ravallion, 2013. "The Idea of Antipoverty Policy," NBER Working Papers 19210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. De Donder, Philippe & Peluso, Eugenio, 2014. "Politically Sustainable Probabilistic Minority Targeting," TSE Working Papers 14-509, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    20. Flandreau, Marc & Zumer, Frederic & Accominotti, Olivier & Rezzik, Riad, 2008. "Black Man?s Burden: Measured Philanthropy in the British Empire, 1880-1913," CEPR Discussion Papers 6811, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    21. Bartels, Charlotte & Neumann, Dirk, 2021. "Redistribution and Insurance in Welfare States around the World," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 123(4), pages 1116-1158.
    22. Orsetta Causa & Mikkel Hermansen, 2017. "Income redistribution through taxes and transfers across OECD countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1453, OECD Publishing.
    23. Hatton, Tim & Williamson, Jeffrey G., 2006. "What Determines Immigrations' Impact? Comparing Two Global Centuries," CEPR Discussion Papers 5885, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    deservingness; welfare state; public opinion; welfare attitudes; social legitimacy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hdl:improv:1511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tim Goedem (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csbuabe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.