A recurring theme in welfare state research is that public support for social welfare is related to the institutional design of welfare policies. However, strong empirical evidence for the institutional embeddedness of welfare attitudes has been lacking to date, and the underlying theoretical mechanisms remain underexplored. This article diverges from the widespread macro-perspective of welfare regime theory, by shifting the focus of its analysis from countries to income benefit schemes within the heterogeneous welfare context of the Netherlands. Based on the 2006 Welfare Opinions Survey, results show that the institutional design of three differently organized benefit schemes (the people’s pension, workers’ unemployment insurance and social assistance) is meaningfully related to popular perceptions of self-interest, programme performance and welfare deservingness. These intermediate perceptions, in turn, appear to have a significant impact on the social legitimacy of welfare allocation to the target groups of the schemes: pensioners, unemployed people and social assistance recipients.
ArtsW.GelissenJ. (2002) ‘Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A State-Of Report’, Journal of European Social Policy12(2): 137–58.
2.
BeanC.PapadakisE. (1998) ‘A Comparison of Mass Attitudes Towards the Welfare State in Different Institutional Regimes, 1985–1990’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research10(3): 211–36.
3.
BlombergH.KrollC. (1999) ‘Do Structural Contexts Matter? Macro-sociological Factors and Popular Attitudes Towards Public Welfare Services’, Acta Sociologica42(4): 319–35.
4.
BoldersenH.MabettD. (1995) ‘Mongrels or Thoroughbreds: A Cross-National Look at Social Security Systems’, European Journal of Political Research28(1): 119–39.
5.
BrooksC.ManzaJ. (2006) ‘Social Policy Responsiveness in Developed Democracies’, American Sociological Review71(3): 474–94.
6.
ClasenJ. (1997) ‘Social Insurance – an Outmoded Concept of Social Protection?’, in ClasenJ. (ed.) Social Insurance in Europe, pp. 1–13. Bristol: The Policy Press.
7.
ClasenJ.Van OorschotW. (2002) ‘Changing Principles in European Social Security’, European Journal of Social Security4(2): 89–115.
8.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
Esping-AndersenG. (1999) Social Foundations of Post-industrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
FormaP. (1997) ‘The Rational Legitimacy of the Welfare State: Popular Support for Ten Income Transfer Schemes in Finland’, Policy and Politics25(3): 235–49.
11.
GelissenJ. (2001) Worlds of Welfare, Worlds of Consent? Public Opinion on the Welfare State. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
12.
GoldschmidtT. (2015) ‘Anti-Immigrant Sentiment and Majority Support for Three Types of Welfare’, European Societies17(5): 620–52.
13.
GoodinR.Le GrandJ. (1987) Not Only the Poor: The Middle Classes and the Welfare State. London: Allen & Unwin.
14.
JaegerM.M. (2006) ‘What Makes People Support Public Responsibility for Welfare Provision: Self-Interest or Political Ideology? A Longitudinal Approach’, Acta Sociologica49(3): 321–38.
15.
JensenC.PetersenM.B. (2016) ‘The Deservingness Heuristic and the Politics of Health Care’, American Journal of Political Science61(1): 68–83.
16.
KangasO.E. (1995) ‘Attitudes on Means-Tested Social Benefits in Finland’, Acta Sociologica38(4): 299–310.
17.
KorpiW.PalmeJ. (1998) ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries’, American Sociological Review63(5): 661–87.
18.
KvistJ.PlougN. (1996) Social Security in Europe: Development or Dismantlement?The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
19.
LarsenC.A. (2006) The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
20.
MauS. (2004) ‘Welfare Regimes and the Norms of Social Exchange’, Current Sociology52(1): 53–74.
21.
PageB.ShapiroR. (1983) ‘Effects of Public Opinion on Policy’, American Political Science Review77(1): 175–90.
22.
PiersonP. (1994) ‘When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change’, World Politics45: 595–628.
23.
PiersonP. (2001) ‘Coping With Permanent Austerity Welfare State Restructuring in Affluent Societies’, in PiersonP. (ed.) The New Politics of the Welfare State, pp. 410–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
RavenJ. (2012) Popular Support for Welfare State Reforms: On Welfare State Preferences and Welfare State Reforms. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
25.
RavenJ.AchterbergP.Van Der VeenR.YerkesM. (2011) ‘An Institutional Embeddedness of Welfare Opinions? The Link between Public Opinion and Social Policy in the Netherlands (1970–2004)’, Journal of Social Policy40(2): 369–86.
26.
ReeskensT.Van der MeerT. (2017) ‘The Relative Importance of Welfare Deservingness Criteria’, in Van OorschotW.MeulemanB.RoosmaF.ReeskensT. (eds) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 55–70.
27.
RingenS. (1987) The Possibility of Politics: A Study in the Political Economy of the Welfare State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
28.
RollerE. (1995) ‘The Welfare State: The Equality Dimension’, in BorreO.ScarbroughE. (eds) The Scope of Government, pp. 165–97. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
RoosmaF.GelissenJ.Van OorschotW. (2013) ‘The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study’, Social Indicators Research113(1): 235–55.
30.
RoosmaF.Van OorschotW.GelissenJ. (2016) ‘The Achilles’ Heel of Welfare State Legitimacy: Perceptions of Overuse and Underuse of Social Benefits in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy23(2): 177–96.
31.
RoosmaF.Van OorschotW.GelissenJ. (2014) ‘The Preferred Role and Perceived Performance of the Welfare State: European Welfare Attitudes from a Multidimensional Perspective’, Social Science Research44(1): 200–10.
32.
RothsteinB. (1998) Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
RothsteinB. (2001) ‘The Universal Welfare State as a Social Dilemma’, Rationality and Society13(2): 213–33.
34.
SachwehP.UlrichC.ChristophB. (2007) ‘The Moral Economy of Poverty On the Conditionality of Public Support for Social Assistance Schemes’, in MauS.VeghteB. (eds) Social Justice, Legitimacy and the Welfare State, pp. 123–42. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
35.
SchaferJ.GrahamJ. (2002) ‘Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art’, Psychological Methods7(2): 147–77.
36.
SvallforsS. (2003) ‘Welfare Regimes and Welfare Opinions: A Comparison of Eight Western Countries’, Social Indicators Research64(1): 495–520.
37.
SvallforsS. (2013) ‘Government Quality, Egalitarianism, and Attitudes to Taxes and Social Spending: A European Comparison’, European Political Science Review5(3): 363–80.
38.
Van OorschotW. (2006a) ‘Making the Difference in Social Europe: Deservingness Perceptions among Citizens of European Welfare States’, Journal of European Social Policy16(1): 23–42.
39.
Van OorschotW. (2006b) ‘The Dutch Welfare State: Recent Trends and Challenges in Historical Perspective’, European Journal of Social Security8(1): 57–76.
40.
Van OorschotW.RoosmaF. (2017) ‘The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare and Welfare Deservingness’, in Van OorschotW.MeulemanB.RoosmaF.ReeskensT. (eds) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 3–33.
41.
Van OorschotW.ReeskensT.MeulemanB. (2012) ‘Popular Perceptions of Welfare State Consequences: A Multilevel, Cross-National Analysis of 25 European Countries’, Journal of European Social Policy22(2): 181–97.
42.
YerkesM. (2011) Transforming the Dutch Welfare State: Social Risks and Corporatist Reform. Bristol: Policy Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
