Why are people who live in liberal welfare regimes so reluctant to support welfare policy? And why are people who live in social democratic welfare regimes so keen to support welfare policy? This article seeks to give an institutional account of these cross-national differences. Previous attempts to link institutions and welfare attitudes have not been convincing. The empirical studies have had large difficulties in finding the expected effects from regime-dependent differences in self-interest, class interest, and egalitarian values. This article develops a new theoretical macro—micro link by combining the literature on deservingness criteria and the welfare regime theory. The basic ideas are that three regime characteristics, (a) the degree of universalism in welfare policy, (b) the differences in economic resources between “the bottom” and “the majority,” and (c) the degree of job opportunities, have a profound impact on the public deservingness discussion and thereby on public support for welfare policy.
Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kaurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 155-194.
2.
Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E.L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe. A world of difference. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Andress, H., & Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17, 337-356.
4.
Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter?Acta Sociologica, 44, 283-299.
5.
Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.). (in press). Multiculturalism and the welfare state: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bean, C., & Papadakis, E. (1998). A comparison of mass attitudes towards the welfare state in different institutional regimes, 1985-1990. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 211-236.
7.
Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes to welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19, 415-427.
8.
Bommes, M., & Geddes, A. (Eds.). (2000). Immigration and welfare: Challenging the borders of the welfare state. London: Routledge.
9.
Checchi, D., Ichino, A., & Rustichini, A. (1999). More equal and less mobile? Education, financing and intergenerational mobility in Italy and in the US . Journal of Public Economics, 74, 351-393.
10.
Cook, F. (1979). Who should be helped: Public support for social services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
11.
Checchi, R.M. (1980). Ideology, public opinion and welfare policy: Attitudes towards taxes and spending in industrial societies. Berkeley : University of California.
12.
Dean, H., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992). Dependency culture: The explosion of a myth. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
13.
De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of the state. Amsterdam , the Netherlands: Bakker.
14.
Eardley, T., & Matheson, G. (1999). Australian attitudes to unemployment and unemployed people. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales , Social Policy Research Centre.
15.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
16.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). After the golden age? Welfare state dilemmas in a global economy. In G. Esping-Andersen (Ed.), Welfare states in transition. National adaptions in global economies (pp. 1-31). London: Sage.
17.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2000). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Evans, G. (1996). Cross-national differences in support for welfare and redistribution: An evaluation of competing theories. In B. Taylor & K. Thomson (Eds.), Understanding change in social attitudes (pp. 185-208). Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
19.
Feagin, J. (1972). Poverty we still believe that God helps who help themselves. Psychology Today, 6, 101-129.
20.
Feather, N. (1974). Explanation of poverty in Australian and American samples: The person, society and fate. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 199-216.
21.
Förster, M., & Pearson M. (2002). Income distribution and poverty in the OECD area: Trends and driving forces. OECD Economic Studies, 34, 7-39.
22.
Freeman, G. (1986). Migration and the political economy of the welfare state. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485, 51-63.
23.
Gallie, D., Jacobs, S., & Paugam, S. (2000). Poverty and financial hardship among the unemployed . In D. Gallie & S. Paugam (Eds.), Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployment in Europe (pp. 47-69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
Gallie, D., & Paugam, S. (2002). Social precarity and social integration (Report for the European Commission Based on Eurobarometer 56.1). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
25.
Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137-177.
26.
Gelissen, J. (2000). Popular support for institutionalised solidarity: A comparison between European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9, 285-300.
27.
Gilens, M. (2000). Why Americans hate welfare. Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Glazer, N. (1998). The American welfare state: Exceptional no longer? In H. Cavanna (Ed.), Challenges to the welfare state: Internal and external dynamics for change (pp. 7-20). Cheltenham , UK: Edward Elgar.
29.
Goodhart, D. (2004). “Too diverse?” Prospect Magazine,95, 30-37.
30.
Gottschalk, P., & Spolaore, E. (2002). On the evaluation of economic mobility. Review of Economic Studies, 69, 191-208.
31.
Goul Andersen, J. (in press). Public support for the Danish welfare state. Interests and values, institutions and performance. In E. Albæk, L. Eliason, A. S. Nørgaard, & H. Schwartz (Eds.), Crisis, miracles and beyond: Negotiated adaptation of the Danish welfare state. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
32.
Graubard, S. R. (Ed.). (1986). Norden: The passion for equality. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian University Press.
33.
Heien, T., & Hofäcker, D. (1999). How do welfare regimes influence attitudes? A comparison of five European countries and the United States 1985-1996 (Working Paper No. 9). Bielefeld, Germany: Universität Bielefeld.
34.
Kangas, O.E. (1997). Self-interest and the common good: The impact of norms, selfishness and context in social policy opinions. Journal of Socio-Economics, 26, 475-494.
35.
Kinder, D.R., & Sanders, L.M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
37.
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63, 661-687.
38.
Larsen, C.A. (2005). The three worlds of deservingness. A comparative study of welfare regimes, deservingness criteria, and public support for welfare policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University , Denmark.
39.
Larsen, C.A. (2006). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
40.
Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. (1988). The insider—outsider theory of unemployment . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Lipset, S.M. (1996). American exceptionalism. New York: Norton.
42.
Luxembourg Income Study. (2005). LIS key figures. Available from Luxembourg Income Study Web site, http://www.lisproject.org/
43.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 738-749.
Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting. Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
46.
Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980 . New York: Basic Books.
47.
Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., & Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review , 91, 567-583.
48.
Petterson, P.A. (1995). The welfare state: The security dimension. In O. Borre & E. Scarbourgh (Eds.), The scope of government (pp. 198-234). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
Pierson, P. (2001). Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. In P. Pierson (Eds.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 410-457). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare. How racism undermined the war on poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Svallfors, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13, 283-304.
53.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Is the future American? Can Left politics preserve European welfare states from erosion through growing “racial” diversity?Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 661-673.
54.
Van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28, 33-48.
55.
Van Oorschot, W., & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 5-26.
56.
Will, J. (1993). The dimensions of poverty: Public perceptions of the deserving poor. Social Science Research,22, 312-332.
