不仅仅是免费的午餐:荷兰推特上关于全民基本收入争议的内容分析

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Social Policy and Society Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1017/s1474746422000422
Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg
{"title":"不仅仅是免费的午餐:荷兰推特上关于全民基本收入争议的内容分析","authors":"Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg","doi":"10.1017/s1474746422000422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Universal Basic Income (UBI) reached political agendas as a proposal to radically reform welfare systems, followed by scholarly interest in its public legitimacy. While surveys find UBI support to be mostly redistribution-driven, the discussion in science and media suggests a more nuanced understanding. To comprehensively grasp the public response to UBI policy, this article explores the controversies surrounding UBI policy through a content analysis of Dutch tweets. In addition to identifying established controversies, our analysis points to two avenues for the study of UBI legitimacy. First, a multidimensional measure of UBI support should include redistributive, conditionality, and efficiency aspects. Second, dissatisfaction with targeted activation policy and ‘post-productivist’ attitudes should receive greater attention as drivers of UBI support. Overall, we find the pressure to reform welfare is more than the promise of a ‘free lunch’: it is anchored in fundamental critiques of economic and welfare institutions.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More than a Free Lunch: A Content Analysis of the Controversies Surrounding Universal Basic Income on Dutch Twitter\",\"authors\":\"Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1474746422000422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Universal Basic Income (UBI) reached political agendas as a proposal to radically reform welfare systems, followed by scholarly interest in its public legitimacy. While surveys find UBI support to be mostly redistribution-driven, the discussion in science and media suggests a more nuanced understanding. To comprehensively grasp the public response to UBI policy, this article explores the controversies surrounding UBI policy through a content analysis of Dutch tweets. In addition to identifying established controversies, our analysis points to two avenues for the study of UBI legitimacy. First, a multidimensional measure of UBI support should include redistributive, conditionality, and efficiency aspects. Second, dissatisfaction with targeted activation policy and ‘post-productivist’ attitudes should receive greater attention as drivers of UBI support. Overall, we find the pressure to reform welfare is more than the promise of a ‘free lunch’: it is anchored in fundamental critiques of economic and welfare institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Policy and Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Policy and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746422000422\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746422000422","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

全民基本收入(UBI)作为一项彻底改革福利制度的提案被列入政治议程,随后学术界对其公共合法性产生了兴趣。虽然调查发现UBI的支持主要是由再分配驱动的,但科学和媒体的讨论表明,人们的理解更为微妙。为了全面了解公众对UBI政策的反应,本文通过对荷兰推文的内容分析,探讨了围绕UBI政策存在的争议。除了确定既定的争议之外,我们的分析还指出了研究UBI合法性的两条途径。首先,UBI支持的多层面措施应包括再分配、条件和效率方面。其次,对有针对性的激活政策和“后生产主义”态度的不满应作为UBI支持的驱动因素得到更多关注。总的来说,我们发现改革福利的压力不仅仅是“免费午餐”的承诺:它植根于对经济和福利机构的根本批评。
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
More than a Free Lunch: A Content Analysis of the Controversies Surrounding Universal Basic Income on Dutch Twitter
Universal Basic Income (UBI) reached political agendas as a proposal to radically reform welfare systems, followed by scholarly interest in its public legitimacy. While surveys find UBI support to be mostly redistribution-driven, the discussion in science and media suggests a more nuanced understanding. To comprehensively grasp the public response to UBI policy, this article explores the controversies surrounding UBI policy through a content analysis of Dutch tweets. In addition to identifying established controversies, our analysis points to two avenues for the study of UBI legitimacy. First, a multidimensional measure of UBI support should include redistributive, conditionality, and efficiency aspects. Second, dissatisfaction with targeted activation policy and ‘post-productivist’ attitudes should receive greater attention as drivers of UBI support. Overall, we find the pressure to reform welfare is more than the promise of a ‘free lunch’: it is anchored in fundamental critiques of economic and welfare institutions.
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
3.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
The ‘Perfect Storm’: Food Banks and Food Insecurity During the Covid-19 Pandemic Five Factors for Effective Policy to Improve Attitudes towards People with Disability Homelessness Transitions, Risks, and Prevention Across the Life Course Silent Elements of Policy Change: Inflation and Uprating Mechanisms in the Low Countries Exclusionary Mechanisms of Social Policy Redistribution in Hungary
×
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