This article argues that the ever-growing research field of welfare deservingness is in need of qualitative research. Using focus group data collected in Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom, we show that citizens discussing matters of social welfare make explicit reference not only to the deservingness criteria of control, reciprocity, and need but also to a number of context-related criteria extending beyond the deservingness framework (e.g. equality/universalism). Furthermore, our findings suggest the existence of an institutional logic to welfare preferences, as the focus group participants to a large extent echoed the normative criteria that are most strongly embedded in the institutional structure of their country’s welfare regime. Whereas financial need is the guiding criterion in the “liberal” United Kingdom, reciprocity is dominant in “corporatist-conservative” Germany. In “social-democratic” Denmark, it appears impossible to single out one dominant normative criterion. Instead, the Danish participants seem torn between the criteria of need, reciprocity, and equality/universalism.

中文翻译：

---

为什么应得理论需要定性研究：比较三种福利制度中社会福利的焦点小组讨论

本文认为，不断发展的福利应得性研究领域需要定性研究。使用在丹麦、德国和英国收集的焦点小组数据，我们表明，讨论社会福利问题的公民不仅明确参考控制、互惠和需要的应得标准，而且还参考了许多与背景相关的标准超出应得性框架（例如平等/普遍主义）。此外，我们的研究结果表明福利偏好存在制度逻辑，因为焦点小组参与者在很大程度上呼应了最强烈地嵌入其国家福利制度的制度结构中的规范标准。鉴于经济需要是“自由”联合王国的指导标准，互惠在“社团主义-保守主义”的德国占主导地位。在“社会民主”的丹麦，似乎不可能挑出一个占主导地位的规范标准。相反，丹麦参与者似乎在需要、互惠和平等/普遍主义的标准之间左右为难。