The weakest link in welfare state legitimacy: European perceptions of moral and administrative failure in the targeting of social benefits

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY International Journal of Comparative Sociology Pub Date : 2014-12-01 DOI:10.1177/0020715214565932
Femke Roosma, Wim van Oorschot, J. Gelissen
{"title":"The weakest link in welfare state legitimacy: European perceptions of moral and administrative failure in the targeting of social benefits","authors":"Femke Roosma, Wim van Oorschot, J. Gelissen","doi":"10.1177/0020715214565932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the field of welfare attitude research, generally studies examining critical attitudes toward the welfare state are rather limited. However, the existing studies find that people are most negative about the mis-targeting of welfare benefits – that is, people are particularly critical of the high overuse (misuse or fraud) and high underuse (non-take-up) of welfare benefits. This study contributes to the current literature by more extensively analyzing perceptions of the overuse and underuse of welfare benefits by revealing the underlying perceptions of moral failure or failed administrative implementation. We also assess how different individual- and contextual-level factors influence those perceptions. We use data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009 for 25 European countries. We find that instead of representing two manifestations of the same concept of mis-targeting, perceptions of the overuse and underuse of benefits appear to be driven by normative ideas and opinions about the administrative effectiveness of the welfare state. Whereas normative ideas about the overuse of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s political ideology and the selectivity of the redistribution system, ideas about the effectiveness of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s institutional trust, the quality of the welfare state and the economic context. We conclude that critical attitudes toward the welfare state have multiple dimensions and can be both substantive and procedural in nature.","PeriodicalId":51601,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","volume":"55 1","pages":"489 - 508"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0020715214565932","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715214565932","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

In the field of welfare attitude research, generally studies examining critical attitudes toward the welfare state are rather limited. However, the existing studies find that people are most negative about the mis-targeting of welfare benefits – that is, people are particularly critical of the high overuse (misuse or fraud) and high underuse (non-take-up) of welfare benefits. This study contributes to the current literature by more extensively analyzing perceptions of the overuse and underuse of welfare benefits by revealing the underlying perceptions of moral failure or failed administrative implementation. We also assess how different individual- and contextual-level factors influence those perceptions. We use data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009 for 25 European countries. We find that instead of representing two manifestations of the same concept of mis-targeting, perceptions of the overuse and underuse of benefits appear to be driven by normative ideas and opinions about the administrative effectiveness of the welfare state. Whereas normative ideas about the overuse of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s political ideology and the selectivity of the redistribution system, ideas about the effectiveness of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s institutional trust, the quality of the welfare state and the economic context. We conclude that critical attitudes toward the welfare state have multiple dimensions and can be both substantive and procedural in nature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
福利国家合法性中最薄弱的一环:欧洲人对社会福利目标的道德和行政失败的看法
在福利态度研究领域,一般对福利国家批判态度的研究相当有限。然而,现有的研究发现,人们对福利的错误目标是最消极的-也就是说,人们对福利的高度过度使用(滥用或欺诈)和高度使用不足(不接受)特别挑剔。本研究通过揭示道德失败或行政执行失败的潜在观念,更广泛地分析了对福利过度使用和使用不足的看法,从而为当前的文献做出了贡献。我们还评估了不同的个人和背景因素如何影响这些看法。我们使用的数据来自欧洲社会调查2008/2009年25个欧洲国家。我们发现,对福利的过度使用和使用不足的看法似乎是由关于福利国家行政有效性的规范观念和意见驱动的,而不是代表同一概念的两种表现形式。关于福利过度使用的规范性观念主要受人们的政治意识形态和再分配制度的选择性的影响,而关于福利有效性的观念主要受人们的制度信任、福利国家的质量和经济环境的影响。我们得出结论,对福利国家的批评态度有多个维度,本质上可以是实质性的,也可以是程序性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Comparative Sociology was established in 1960 to publish the highest quality peer reviewed research that is both international in scope and comparative in method. The journal draws articles from sociologists worldwide and encourages competing perspectives. IJCS recognizes that many significant research questions are inherently interdisciplinary, and therefore welcomes work from scholars in related disciplines, including political science, geography, economics, anthropology, and business sciences. The journal is published six times a year, including special issues on topics of special interest to the international social science community.
期刊最新文献
Book review: Women in Yoruba Religions How anti-corruption actions win hearts: The evaluation of anti-corruption performance, social inequality and political trust—Evidence from the Asian Barometer Survey and the Latino Barometer Survey Trust is personal and professional: The role of trust in the rise and fall of a South African civil society coalition Book review: Migration and Mortality: Social Death, Dispossession, and Survival in the Americas Book review: The World Cup as World History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1