Universalism or selectivism? What citizens think about the institutional design...
Universalism or selectivism? What citizens think about the institutional design of the future welfare state
Throughout the years, it has become conventional wisdom in social policy literature that universal policies, accessible to all citizens/residents, enjoy higher levels of popular support than selective policies targeted at the poor...
ver más
¿Tienes un proyecto y buscas un partner? Gracias a nuestro motor inteligente podemos recomendarte los mejores socios y ponerte en contacto con ellos. Te lo explicamos en este video
Proyectos interesantes
WELFAREPRIORITIES
Welfare state politics under pressure Identifying prioritie...
1M€
Cerrado
ECO2015-63727-R
DESIGUALDAD DENTRO DEL HOGAR, POLITICAS SOCIALES Y BIENESTAR
8K€
Cerrado
CSO2012-30773
¿REDEFINIENDO LA CIUDADANIA? EL IMPACTO DE LA CRISIS SOCIOEC...
16K€
Cerrado
CSO2017-85598-R
LA RESTRUCTURACION DE LA GOBERNANZA DEL ESTADO DEL BIENESTAR...
61K€
Cerrado
WSREPE
Welfare State and the Rise of Extreme Politics in Europe
166K€
Cerrado
PSYPOL
The Psychology of Public Policy Inequality Immigration and...
2M€
Cerrado
Información proyecto UNI-SEL
Duración del proyecto: 37 meses
Fecha Inicio: 2021-04-29
Fecha Fin: 2024-05-31
Fecha límite de participación
Sin fecha límite de participación.
Descripción del proyecto
Throughout the years, it has become conventional wisdom in social policy literature that universal policies, accessible to all citizens/residents, enjoy higher levels of popular support than selective policies targeted at the poor only. At first sight, the empirical evidence in support of this claim seems convincing. A large number of public opinion studies, conducted in different countries and different years, reveal the same pattern: universally targeted programs, such as most old-age pensions and healthcare systems, consistently receive higher levels of support than selective programs, such as means-tested social assistance and housing allowances. There are, however, two very good reasons why we need further research into the social legitimacy of universal vis-à-vis selective welfare. First, the studies that are typically cited to support the claim that universalism is more popular are inconclusive, because they conflate the institutional design of welfare programs with their respective target groups: the programs that are compared differ not only in terms of their design, but also in terms of the groups they target. Second, there appears to be considerable variation in public support for universalism and selectivism across countries, time, and policy domains. Therefore, the social legitimacy of universal vis-à-vis selective welfare provision remains very much an open question for future research to explore. Based on a unique combination of cross-national, experimental and longitudinal data, this project will reveal under which circumstances -when, where and why- one social policy design option is more popular than the other. In doing so, it makes a vital contribution to ongoing academic and political debates on the institutional design of the future welfare state.