The paper examines the attitudes of different socio-economic groups toward means- testing. By using data from an opinion survey of 1,117 Finns, the study seeks to answer the following questions: Are universal social benefits more popular than selective ones? Who are the most vigorous opponents of means-testing, the middle classes or blue-collar workers? Results give some support to the hypothesis that selective benefits are the most unpopular. The study also shows that opinions on selectivity do not cluster in one dimension, but that there are several aspects of selectivity and that the attitudes of socio- economic groups vary depending on which aspect of selectivity is at stake. The working class and Social Democrats have more reservations toward selectivity which targets the needy, whereas they are more eager to introduce selectivity into universal welfare programs by discriminating against high-income earners. Salaried employees and voters of the Conservative Party are more reluctant to exclude well-to-do people from universal benefits, whereas they accept tighter means-testing in currently means- or income-tested schemes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alestalo, M. Flora, P. & Uusitalo, H.1985. Structure and Politics in the Making of the Welfare State In R. Alapuro et al. (eds.), Small States in Comparative PerspectiveOslo: Universitetsforlaget.
2.
Anckar, D.Nurmi, H. & Wiberg, M.1988. Rationality and LegitimacyHelsinki : The Finnish Political Science Association.
3.
Andersen, J.G.1993. Sources of Welfare State Support in Denmark In E-J. Hansen et al. (eds.), Welfare Trends in the Scandinavian Countries, pp. 25-48. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
4.
Baldwin, P.1990. The Politics of Social SolidarityCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Castles, F.1985. The Working Class and WelfareLondon and Wellington: Allen & Unwin.
6.
Castles, F.G.1994. Comparing the Australian and Scandinavian Welfare StatesScandinavian Political Studies, 17, 31-46.
7.
Coughlin, R.1980. Ideology, Public Opinion, and Welfare Policy: Attitudes Toward Taxing and Spending in Industrial SocietiesBerkeley : University of California.
8.
Coughlin, R.1991. The Economic Person in Sociological Context. Case Studies in the Mediation of Self-Interest In A. Etzioni & P. R. Lawrence. Socio-Economics: toward a new synthesis , pp. 35-57. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
9.
DeVaus, D.1991. Surveys in Social ResearchLondon : Allen & Unwin.
10.
Ervasti, H. & Kangas, O.1994. Ammattiryhmät ja hyvinvointivaltio. (Occupational Groups and the Welfare StateUniversity of Turku, Department of Social Policy, Working Papers 3.
11.
Ervasti, H. & Kangas, O.1995. Class Bases of Universal Social Policy: Pension Policy Attitudes in FinlandEuropean Journal of Political Research , 2, 27, 347-367.
12.
Esping-Andersen, G.1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare CapitalismCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Esping-Andersen, G. & Korpi, W.1984. Social Policy as Class Politics in Post-War Capitalism In J. Goldthorpe (ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, pp. 179-208. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
14.
Esping-Andersen, G. & Korpi, W.1987. From Poor Relief to Institutional Welfare States In R. Erikson et al. (eds.), The Scandinavian Model , pp. 39-74. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
15.
Forma, P.1995. The Politics of Interest Mediation: The Case of Universal Social Policy in FinlandUniversity of Turku, Department of Social Policy (mimeo).
16.
Gooding, E.R. & LeGrand, J.1987. Not Only the Poor In R. E. Gooding & J. LeGrand (eds.), Not Only the Poor. The Middle Classes and the Welfare State, pp. 203-227. London: Allen & Unwin.
17.
Halleröd, B.Marklund, S.Nordlund, A. & Stattin M.1993. Konsensuell fattigdom. En studie av konsumption och attityder till konsumptionUniversity of Umeå: Department of Sociology, Studies No 104.
18.
Hasenfeld, Y. & Rafferty, J.A.1989. The Determinants of Public Attitudes Toward the Welfare StateSocial Forces , 67, 1027-1048.
19.
Hatland, A.1992. Till dem som trenger det mest?Oslo : Universitetsforlaget.
20.
Holmberg, S. & Esaiasson, P.1988. De folkvaldaStockholm: Bonniers.
21.
Kangas, O.1992. The Politics of Universalism- the Case of Finnish Sickness InsuranceJournal of Social Policy, 21, 25-52.
22.
Kangas, O.1995. You Get What You Ask For. The Influence of Wording on Survey ResponsesPaper presented at the Meeting of Nordic Sociological Association, June 9, Helsinki
23.
Korpi, W.1980. Social Policy and Distributional Conflict in the Capitalist DemocraciesWest European Politics, 3, 294-316.
24.
Miller, D.1995. Popular beliefs about social justice: a comparative approach In S. Svallfors, (ed.), In the Eye of the Beholder: Opinions on welfare and justice in comparative perspective.Umeå: Imbello.
25.
Olsson, S.E.1990. Social Policy and Welfare State in SwedenLund: Arkiv.
26.
Papadakis, E. & Bean, C.1993. Popular Support for The Welfare State: A comparison Between Institutional RegimesJournal of Public Policy , 13, 227-254.
27.
Pöntinen S. & Uusitalo, H.1987. Stability and Change in the Public Support to the Welfare State; Finland 1975-1985International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 8, 1-24.
28.
Riker, W.H.1982. Liberalism Against Populism. A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social ChoiceSan Francisco: Freeman.
29.
Riker, W.H.1986. The Art of Political ManipulationNew Haven: Yale University Press.
30.
Salminen, K.1993. Pension Schemes in the MakingHelsinki : Eläketurvakeskus.
31.
Sihvo, T. & Uusitalo, H.1995. Economic Crises and Support for the Welfare State in Finland 1975-1993Acta Sociologica, 38, 251-262.
Svallfors, S.1993. Laborism Versus Social Democracy?: Attitudes to Inequality in Australia and Sweden University of New South Wales: Social Policy Research Centre, Reports and Proceedings No 107.
34.
Svallfors, S.1995. The End of Class Politics? Structural Cleavages and Attitudes to Swedish Welfare PoliciesActa Sociologica , 36, 53-74.
35.
Taylor-Gooby, P.1985. Public Opinion, Ideology and the Welfare StateNorfolk: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
36.
Zaller, J.R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass OpinionCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
