Tijs Laenen and Dimitri Gugushvili
In 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…
Abstract
Purpose
In 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/approach
The article critically reviews the existing empirical literature on public support for universal and means-tested welfare schemes.
Findings
The 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/implications
The 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/value
The 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.