A strand of the social policy literature investigates who the general public deems deserving of benefits or other types of assistance from public money. This is based on a deservingness heuristic – the judgmental shortcuts people use to make choices. We apply this to direct solidarity towards people who beg through a discrete choice experiment (DCE), the first study to apply the DCE approach to assess direct solidarity choices towards people in extreme poverty. This method allows for revealing preferences that are otherwise difficult to estimate reliably in non-experimental designs of questionnaire research. We assess passers-by’s criteria when deciding whether to give alms to beggars. We use pairs of digital illustrations of individual beggars depicting a combination of four attributes (gender, ethnicity, disability, and the presence of an infant). Respondents in the public space of Brussels are asked to choose between giving alms to one of the beggars and opting out, which means they do not give at all. Approximately 80% of respondents gain positive marginal utility from giving alms to disabled beggars and beggars with children. Most striking, however, is the ethnic dislike: some 70% of respondents derive a negative utility from giving alms to Roma beggars.
AdlerMBromleyCRosieM (2000) Begging as a challenge to the welfare state. In: JowellRCurticeJParkA, et al. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 17th Report. Focussing on Diversity. Sage, pp. 209–237.
2.
AdriaenssensSHendrickxJ (2011) Street level informal economic activities: estimating the yield of begging in Brussels. Urban Studies48(1): 23–40.
3.
AlthammerB (2014) Transnational expert discourse on vagrancy around 1900. In: AlthammerBGestrichAGründlerJ (eds) The Welfare State and the ‘Deviant Poor’ in Europe, 1870–1933. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 103–125.
4.
BeecheySN (2016) Social Security and the Politics of Deservingness. Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
ButovskayaMKempFDiakonovI, et al. (2004) Urban begging and ethnic nepotism in Russia: an ethological pilot study. In: SalterF (ed) Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism. New Findings and Evolutionary Theory. Frank Cass, pp. 27–52.
6.
ChoiceMetrics (2018) Ngene 1.2 User Manual & Reference Guide. Australia.
7.
CollinsDBlomleyN (2003) Private needs and public space: politics, poverty, and anti-panhandling by-laws in Canadian cities. In: Law Commission of Canada (ed) New Perspectives on the Public–Private Divide. UBC Press, p. 191.
8.
ColomboAReynaudCde CoulonG (2016) Begging in Geneva: which right to the city?Environnement Urbain/Urban Environment10: 1–26.
9.
CoughlinRM (1980) Ideology, Public Opinion, & Welfare Policy: Attitudes Toward Taxes and Spending in Industrialized Societies. Institute of International Studies, University of California.
10.
De ConinckDMatthijsK (2020) Who is allowed to stay? Settlement deservingness preferences towards migrants in four European countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations77: 25–37.
11.
De SwaanA (1988) In Care of the State: Health Care, Education, and Welfare in Europe and the USA in the Modern Era. Oxford University Press.
12.
DevliegerC (2018) Contractual dependencies: disability and the bureaucracy of begging in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. American Ethnologist45(4): 455–469.
13.
EngebrigtsenAI (2007) Exploring Gypsiness. Power, Exchange and Interdependence in a Transylvanian Village. Berghahn Books.
14.
ErskineAMcIntoshI (1999) Why begging offends: historical perspectives and continuities. In: DeanH (ed) Begging Questions. Street-level Economic Activity and Social Policy Failure. Policy Press, pp. 27–42.
15.
FeatherNT (1999) Judgments of deservingness: studies in the psychology of justice and achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Review3(2): 86–107.
16.
FeatherNT (2003) Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: earned outcomes versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology33(3): 367–385.
17.
FerranteCJolyE (2016) Begging and disability: a paradigmatic way to earn one’s living. In: GrechSSoldaticK (eds) Disability in the Global South: The Critical Handbook. Springer International Publishing, pp. 151–166.
18.
FribergJH (2020) Poverty, networks, resistance: the economic sociology of Roma migration for begging. Migration Studies8(2): 228–249.
19.
GeremekB (1980) Truands et misérables dans l'Europe moderne (1350-1600). Gallimard.
20.
GouldR (2015) Roma rights and Roma expulsions in France: official discourse and EU responses. Critical Social Policy35(1): 24–44.
21.
GrossKWronskiJ (2019) Helping the homeless: the role of empathy, race and deservingness in motivating policy support and charitable giving. Political Behavior43: 585–613.
22.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJ (2015) The hidden American immigration consensus: a conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 529–548.
23.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJYamamotoT (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political analysis22(1): 1–30.
24.
HansenKJ (2019) Who cares if they need help? The deservingness heuristic, humanitarianism, and welfare opinions. Political Psychology40(2): 413–430.
25.
HerkeB (2021) Investigating the welfare deservingness of single mothers: public image and deservingness perceptions in Hungary. East European Politics and Societies35(3): 613–637.
26.
HermerJ (2019) Policing Compassion. Begging, Law and Power in Public Spaces. Hart Publishing.
27.
HeuerJ-OZimmermannK (2020) Unravelling deservingness: which criteria do people use to judge the relative deservingness of welfare target groups? A vignette-based focus group study. Journal of European Social Policy30(4): 389–403.
28.
HwangJJPetroliaD (2025) Revisiting opt-out responses and consequentiality in contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics50(1): 162–178.
29.
InnesJ (2021) The regulation of charity and the rise of the state. In: HitchcockDMcClureJ (eds) The Routledge History of Poverty, c.1450–1800. Routledge, pp. 3–20.
30.
KassahAK (2008) Begging as work: a study of people with mobility difficulties in Accra, Ghana. Disability & Society23(2): 163–170.
31.
KlaiberHAvon HaefenRH (2019) Do random coefficients and alternative specific constants improve policy analysis? An empirical investigation of model fit and prediction. Environmental and Resource Economics73: 75–91.
32.
KootstraA (2016) Deserving and undeserving welfare claimants in Britain and the Netherlands: examining the role of ethnicity and migration status using a vignette experiment. European Sociological Review32(3): 325–338.
33.
LaenenTMeulemanB (2017) A universal rank order of deservingness? Geographical, temporal and social-structural comparisons. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Edward Elgar Publishing, 37–54.
34.
LankenauSE (1999) Stronger than dirt. Public humiliation and status enhancement among panhandlers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography28(3): 288–318.
35.
LeesonPTHardyRA (2022) American panhandlers. Cities124: 103601.
36.
LorgnierJ (2005) Malheureuses et importunes à renfermer. Les femmes dans les premières procédures administratives de mendicité diligentées par la maréchaussée à Lille (1768-1772). Histoire, Économie et Société24(3): 399–410.
37.
LovelandMTPopescuD (2016) The Gypsy threat narrative: explaining anti-roma attitudes in the European Union. Humanity & Society40(3): 329–352.
38.
MaussM (1923–1924) Essai sur le don. Forme archaique de l'échange. L'Année Sociologique1: 30–186.
39.
McFaddenD (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: ZarembkaP (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, pp. 105–142.
40.
McIntoshIErskineA (1999) I feel rotten. I do, I feel rotten': exploring the begging encounter. In: DeanH (ed) Begging Questions. Street-level Economic Activity and Social Policy Failure. Policy Press, pp. 183–202.
41.
McIntoshIErskineA (2000) “Money for nothing”?: understanding giving to beggars. Sociological Research Online5(1): 107–115.
42.
MichońP (2021) Deservingness for “family 500+” benefit in Poland: qualitative study of internet debates. Social Indicators Research157(1): 203–223.
43.
MukherjeeD (2008) Laws for beggars, justice for whom: a critical review of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959. International Journal of Human Rights12(2): 279–288.
44.
NielsenMHFrederiksenMLarsenCA (2020) Deservingness put into practice: constructing the (un) deservingness of migrants in four European countries. The British Journal of Sociology71(1): 112–126.
45.
O’RourkeKHSinnottR (2006) The determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy22(4): 838–861.
46.
PaynterE (2022) Border crises and migrant deservingness: how the refugee/economic migrant binary racializes asylum and affects migrants’ navigation of reception. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies20(2): 293–306.
47.
PetersenMB (2012) Social welfare as small-scale help: evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 1–16.
48.
PetersenMBSlothuusRStubagerR, et al. (2011) Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: the automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research50(1): 24–52.
49.
PetersenMBSznycerDCosmidesL, et al. (2012) Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions, and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology33(3): 395–418.
50.
PolanyiK (1944) The Great Transformation. The Great Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Farrar & Rinehart.
51.
PolanyiK (1957) The economy as instituted process. In: PolanyiKArensbergCM (eds) Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Economies in History and Theory. Free Press, pp. 243–270.
52.
ReeskensTvan der MeerT (2019) The inevitable deservingness gap: a study into the insurmountable immigrant penalty in perceived welfare deservingness. Journal of European Social Policy29(2): 166–181.
53.
ReeskensTVan OorschotW (2012) Disentangling the ‘New Liberal Dilemma’: on the relation between general welfare redistribution preferences and welfare chauvinism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology53(2): 120–139.
54.
RoseL (1988) Rogues and Vagabonds'. Vagrant Underworld in Britain 1815-1985. Routledge.
55.
SahlinsM (2017) Stone Age Economics. Routledge.
56.
SoareTAdriaenssensSHermansK (2024) Housing quality and homelessness among people who beg. Housing Studies40: 1401–1427.
57.
SowulaJ (2024) Mind the gap: young people and welfare-state related knowledge in deservingness and welfare attitude research. Journal of European Social Policy34(1): 101–114.
58.
TavárezHÁlamoC (2021) Using choice experiments to estimate the value of differentiated cow's milk in Puerto Rico. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems5: 671049.
59.
TitmussRM (1972) The Gift Relationship. From Human Blood to Social Policy. Vintage.
60.
TrattnerWI (2007) From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America. Simon and Schuster.
61.
TyldumGFribergJH (2023) Mobility at the margins: the facilitating and risk‐reducing role of clustered migration in migration for begging between Romania and Norway. International Migration61(1): 205–219.
62.
van der MeerTReeskensT (2021) Welfare chauvinism in the face of ethnic diversity: a vignette experiment across diverse and homogenous neighbourhoods on the perceived deservingness of native and foreign-born welfare claimants. European Sociological Review37(1): 89–103.
63.
van OorschotW (2000) Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy and Politics28(1): 33–48.
64.
van OorschotW (2006) Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy16(1): 23–42.
65.
Watkins-HayesCKovalskyA (2016) The discourse of deservingness morality and the dilemmas of poverty relief in debate and practice. In: BradyDBurtonLM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty. Oxford University Press, pp. 193–220.
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.
