福利陈规定型观念和有条件现金转移方案:来自巴西Bolsa Família的证据

IF 1.6 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Politics in Latin America Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1177/1866802X20914429
Matthew L. Layton
{"title":"福利陈规定型观念和有条件现金转移方案:来自巴西Bolsa Família的证据","authors":"Matthew L. Layton","doi":"10.1177/1866802X20914429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some observers claim that conditional cash transfer programmes limit the stigma of taking welfare and thereby promote social inclusion for beneficiaries. This article uses data from the 2014 AmericasBarometer to test these claims in relation to Brazil’s Bolsa Família programme (BFP). The results show that, despite the programme’s innovative design, beneficiaries encounter the stigmatisation and negative self-stereotypes that characterise more traditional anti-poverty programmes. Many Brazilians, recipient and non-recipient alike, endorse explicitly negative stereotypes of Bolsa Família assistance recipients. Moreover, the level to which respondents endorse these stereotypes strongly predicts their level of support for the BFP. These results highlight the pervasive nature of negative stereotypes towards the poor, even in the context of the developing world, and are consistent with the predictions of social psychological theories of system justification.","PeriodicalId":44885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1866802X20914429","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Welfare Stereotypes and Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes: Evidence from Brazil’s Bolsa Família\",\"authors\":\"Matthew L. Layton\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1866802X20914429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some observers claim that conditional cash transfer programmes limit the stigma of taking welfare and thereby promote social inclusion for beneficiaries. This article uses data from the 2014 AmericasBarometer to test these claims in relation to Brazil’s Bolsa Família programme (BFP). The results show that, despite the programme’s innovative design, beneficiaries encounter the stigmatisation and negative self-stereotypes that characterise more traditional anti-poverty programmes. Many Brazilians, recipient and non-recipient alike, endorse explicitly negative stereotypes of Bolsa Família assistance recipients. Moreover, the level to which respondents endorse these stereotypes strongly predicts their level of support for the BFP. These results highlight the pervasive nature of negative stereotypes towards the poor, even in the context of the developing world, and are consistent with the predictions of social psychological theories of system justification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Politics in Latin America\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1866802X20914429\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Politics in Latin America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X20914429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X20914429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

一些观察家声称,有条件的现金转移方案限制了领取福利的耻辱感,从而促进了受益人的社会包容。本文使用2014年美国晴雨表的数据来测试这些与巴西Bolsa Família计划(BFP)有关的说法。结果表明,尽管该方案设计新颖,但受益者仍会遇到更传统的反贫困方案所特有的污名化和负面的自我刻板印象。许多巴西人,无论是受援者还是非受援者,都明确支持对Bolsa Família援助受援者的负面刻板印象。此外,受访者对这些刻板印象的认可程度有力地预测了他们对BFP的支持程度。这些结果突出了对穷人的负面刻板印象的普遍性,即使在发展中国家也是如此,并且与系统正当性的社会心理学理论的预测一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Welfare Stereotypes and Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes: Evidence from Brazil’s Bolsa Família
Some observers claim that conditional cash transfer programmes limit the stigma of taking welfare and thereby promote social inclusion for beneficiaries. This article uses data from the 2014 AmericasBarometer to test these claims in relation to Brazil’s Bolsa Família programme (BFP). The results show that, despite the programme’s innovative design, beneficiaries encounter the stigmatisation and negative self-stereotypes that characterise more traditional anti-poverty programmes. Many Brazilians, recipient and non-recipient alike, endorse explicitly negative stereotypes of Bolsa Família assistance recipients. Moreover, the level to which respondents endorse these stereotypes strongly predicts their level of support for the BFP. These results highlight the pervasive nature of negative stereotypes towards the poor, even in the context of the developing world, and are consistent with the predictions of social psychological theories of system justification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Why Are Constitutional Amendments in Mexico so Frequent? Assessing Electoral Personalism in Latin American Presidential Elections Where did Hyper-Presidentialism Go? The Origin of Bills and Laws Passed in Chile, 1990–2022 Assessing the Relationship Between Compulsory Voting and Over-Representation of Extreme Parties Do Disciplinary Sanctions Affect Political Parties’ Re-election? Evidence from Colombia
×
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