Search results

Executive sponsors play a significant role in the success of megaprojects which, in turn, affect national economies and millions of people. However, the literature on the requisite attributes of project sponsors on megaprojects is still sparse. The purpose of the paper is to provide guidelines to company boards and executives who are tasked to appoint suitable executive sponsors to megaprojects. Thus, the paper contributes to the sparse literature on megaproject sponsors.

A total of 26 senior managers, with experience in megaprojects ranging from 8 to 15 years – and who were involved in 6 recent megaprojects with a combined value of US$13.75bn – were interviewed on the attributes of megaproject sponsors. Transcriptions of semi-structured, open-ended interviews were analysed with computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS).

The study identified the most essential attribute as appropriate seniority, being empowered and accountable, with appropriate seniority, being empowered and accountable, with apposite credibility and with both personal and positional power. The study also uncovered 13 attributes – all components of “competence” – which have not previously been explicitly identified in literature as elements of sponsor “competence”.

In the current study guidelines are provided for the selection and appointment of appropriate megaproject sponsors.

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.

The article critically reviews the existing empirical literature on public support for universal and means-tested welfare schemes.

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.

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.

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.