This project has led to six scientific papers focused on the social legitimacy of universally accessible and/or means-tested welfare policies.
The first paper aimed to answer two research questions: (1) How did support for a basic income (BI) evolve in reaction to the COVID-19 crisis? and (2) To what extent did the evolution in support differ across regional contexts and social groups with varying levels of deprivation? Relying on a natural experiment embedded in the Belgian National Elections Study, results indicate an increase in support for a BI due to the pandemic, although it seems short lived and not necessarily specific to a BI. Importantly, however, the increase in popularity was only observable in the high-unemployment French-speaking region of Belgium and among relatively deprived groups.
The second paper used a vignette experiment to chart popular support for a broad range of differently designed types of BI. The results demonstrate that support for BI is indeed inherently multidimensional, for three main reasons. First, some types of BI are more popular than others, especially those that are conditional and equity-based. Second, people make significant trade-offs between various policy design dimensions and the deservingness criteria associated with them. Third, there are important differences in the types of BI preferred by specific ideological groups: while left-wing people differentiate little between various proposals, their right-wing counterparts clearly prefer more-restrictive proposals.
The third paper used data from opinion polls and newly developed experiments collected in 36 countries and between 1989 and 2021 to demonstrate that popular support for BI is contingent on four key factors: (1) the context people live in (e.g. it is greater in economically more deprived countries), (2) individual characteristics such as age, income and political ideology (e.g. older people tend to be less supportive), (3) the policy design features of BI (e.g. more generous schemes are more popular), and (4) the framing of the predicted social outcomes of BI (e.g. support decreases more strongly when outcomes are framed negatively).
The fourth paper explored how income targeting policies are related to popular targeting preferences. the results show that whether these preferences are affected more by the de jure targeting design or the de facto targeting outcome varies between two very different policy domains. In the case of unemployment benefits, the results suggest positive policy feedback: support for high-income targeting increases when unemployment benefits are designed to benefit those with previously higher incomes. For income taxation, by contrast, the results suggest negative policy feedback. In that case, it is not so much the de jure design but rather the de facto outcome that matters: the more taxes effectively work to the advantage of higher-income earners, the less support there is for a tax that levies the same amount on everyone, regardless of income.
The fifth paper investigated the income differences underlying popular support for two radically opposing redistributive welfare reforms, going in the direction of either a fully means-tested welfare state targeting the poor only or a universal BI. Using data from the European Social Survey, we confirm the long-standing hypothesis that middle-income earners align with high-income earners against means-tested welfare. Regarding universal BI, income differences prove considerably smaller. Furthermore, contrary to much prior research, our findings do not corroborate predictions from policy feedback theory that support coalitions between different income groups are shaped by the progressivity of countries’ tax-transfer systems.
The sixth paper started from the observation that social policy scholars often argue that policy programs are more popular when they are universally accessible, targeted at deserving social risk groups, or provided in kind rather than in cash. Using data from a factorial vignette experiment in Belgium and the United States, this paper is the first to uncover both the relative and additive causal impact of these factors on popular support for social policy. Results show that while policy design has a stronger impact relative to risk group deservingness and delivery mode, it is the specific combination of these factors that matters most for programs’ popularity.
