Purpose

In the social policy literature, it is often assumed that universal policies are more popular than selective ones among the public, because they supposedly generate broader self-interested coalitions and are considered morally superior. The present article revisits and challenges this assumption.

Design/methodology/approach

The article critically reviews the existing empirical literature on public support for universal and means-tested welfare schemes.

Findings

The main conclusion is that the popularity of universal vis-à-vis selective welfare remains very much an open question. First, the studies that are typically cited to support the claim that universalism is indeed more popular are inconclusive because they conflate the institutional design of welfare programs with their respective target groups. Second, there is considerable variation in public support for universal and selective welfare across countries, time and policy domains.

Research limitations/implications

The findings suggest that future research should focus on scrutinizing under which circumstances – when, where and why – universal social policies are more popular than selective ones.

Originality/value

The article makes an original case for considering perceived welfare deservingness of social policies' target groups alongside the policy design when studying popular support for differently targeted welfare schemes.

中文翻译：

---

全民福利政策真的比选择性福利政策更受欢迎吗？实证研究的批判性讨论

目的

在社会政策文献中，通常假设普遍政策在公众中比选择性政策更受欢迎，因为它们据称会产生更广泛的自利联盟，并且被认为在道德上更优越。本文重新审视并挑战了这一假设。

设计/方法/方法

这篇文章批判性地回顾了关于公共支持普遍和经济状况调查福利计划的现有实证文献。

发现

主要结论是，普遍性相对于选择性福利的普及仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。首先，通常被引用以支持普遍主义确实更受欢迎的说法的研究没有定论，因为它们将福利计划的制度设计与其各自的目标群体混为一谈。其次，不同国家、时间和政策领域对普遍和选择性福利的公共支持存在相当大的差异。

研究限制/影响

研究结果表明，未来的研究应侧重于审查在何种情况下——何时、何地以及为什么——普遍社会政策比选择性社会政策更受欢迎。

原创性/价值

在研究对不同目标的福利计划的大众支持时，本文提出了一个原始案例，即在政策设计的同时考虑社会政策目标群体的感知福利应得性。