Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical public opinion research on distributive justice often does not acknowledge that individuals’ social justice preferences may strongly depend on the particular type of distribution at stake and therefore does not take into account the multiplicity of justice principles that people may simultaneously apply in their distributive judgements. As a result, to contribute to the understanding of differentiated justice preferences, we analyse citizens’ preferences for the principles of equality, equity and need in the three welfare domains of health care, pensions and unemployment benefits. In particular, this paper provides insight into the domain specificity of distributive justice preferences, into specific configurations or combinations of justice preferences across domains and into the social and ideological basis of these configurations. On the basis of data from the Belgian National Elections Study of 2014, we conduct a three-step latent class analysis. Results show that the distributive justice principles are preferred to a different extent for various welfare domains and that there is a substantial proportion of respondents that combines different principles of justice across welfare domains. This study also demonstrates that configurations are mainly structured by ideology instead of the social structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is in part because the concept of pluralism has been conceived in many different ways, but only seldom in terms of the context-dependency of justice principles (De Bres, 2012). Instead, pluralism commonly refers to various grounds of justice-related judgements (ground pluralism; De Bres, 2012; Rippon, Theuns, de Maagt, Zala, & van den Brink, 2018), to multiple actors who can be subject of justice decisions (subject pluralism; De Bres, 2012) or to the mere coexistence of various justice ideals in societies (multidimensionality of justice; Cappelen et al., 2007; Leventhal et al., 1980; Taylor-Gooby et al., 2018).

  2. Originally, each question also included an answer category for people who thought the government should not organize any distributions. However, due to a very low proportion of individuals opting for this category (approximately 1 per cent for each welfare domain), this option is converted to a missing value. Note that respondents can only mark one answer category for each of the three questions. Although it is possible for respondents to combine principles across the three questions, they cannot apply multiple principles within a welfare domain. This of course entails a more restrictive approach, and ideally, a differentiation within domains would have been enabled as well. For the purpose of this study, however, the operationalization suffices, as we want to comprehend which principles are dominant within domains and how people combine distributive criteria across domains.

References

  • Aalberg, T. (2003). Achieving justice: Comparative public opinion on income distribution. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abts, K., Swyngedouw, M., Meuleman, B., Baute, S., Galle, J., & Gaasendam, C. (2015). Belgian National Elections Study 2014. Codebook: Questions and frequency tables. Leuven: ISPO-KU Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achterberg, P., van der Veen, R., & Raven, J. (2014). The ideological roots of the support for welfare state reform: Support for distributive and commodifying reform in The Netherlands. International Journal of Social Welfare,23(2), 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter? Acta Sociologica,44(4), 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernts, T. (1988). Sanctioning risky life-styles: Attitudes toward solidarity or equitable distribution of health care. Social Justice Research,2(4), 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet, J., Abts, K., & Swyngedouw, M. (2015). Right-wing Flanders and left-wing Wallonia? Public opinions on redistribution, the welfare state and immigrants. In B. Rihoux, V. Van Gingelgom, & S. Defacq (Eds.), La Légitimité de la science politique: Construire une discipline, au-delà des clivages (pp. 81–100). Louvain-la-Neuve: UCL Presses Universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet, J., Maddens, B., & Frognier, A.-P. (2006). Does Belgium (still) exist? Differences in political culture between Flemings and Walloons. West European Politics,29(5), 912–932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonoli, G. (2006). New social risks and the politics of post-industrial social policies. In K. Armingeon & G. Bonoli (Eds.), The Politics of post-industrial welfare states: Adapting post-war social policies to new social risks (pp. 3–26). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, P., Folger, R., Goode, E., & Schul, Y. (1981). Microjustice and macrojustice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change (pp. 173–204). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, H., & Mulligan, T. (2018). Why not be a desertist? Three arguments for desert and against luck egalitarianism. Philosophical Studies,176, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review,97(3), 818–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clasen, J., & Van Oorschot, W. (2002). Changing principles in European social security. European Journal of Social Security,4(2), 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review,18(1–3), 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, B. (1992). Philosophical theories of justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 15–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusack, T., Iversen, T., & Rehm, P. (2006). Risks at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,22(3), 365–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Anjou, L., Steijn, A., & Van Aarsen, D. (1995). Social position, ideology, and distributive Justice. Social Justice Research,8(4), 351–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bres, H. (2012). The many, not the few: Pluralism about global distributive justice. Journal of Political Philosophy,20(3), 314–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues,31(3), 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, P. (2000). Welfare rights and responsibilities: Contesting social citizenship. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1992). Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, J., & Simonson, J. (2018). Social justice beliefs regarding old-age provisions in Germany: A latent profile analysis. Social Justice Research,31(2), 182–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1967). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furåker, B., & Blomsterberg, M. (2003). Attitudes towards the unemployed. An analysis of Swedish survey data. International Journal of Social Welfare,12(3), 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (1996). Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research,25(3), 201–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelissen, J. (2001). Old-age pensions: Individual or collective responsibility? An investigation of public opinion across European welfare states. European Societies,3(4), 495–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerkens, S., & Merkur, S. (2010). Belgium: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition,15(5), 1–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1999). Risk and responsibility. The Modern Law Review,62(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieselink, G., Peeters, H., Van Gestel, V., Berghman, J., & Van Buggenhout, B. (2003). Onzichtbare pensioenen in België: Een onderzoek naar de aard, de omvang en de verdeling van de tweede en derde pensioenpijler. Gent: Academia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green-pedersen, C., & Jensen, C. (2019). Electoral competition and the welfare state. West European Politics,42(4), 803–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halman, L. (1996). Individualism in individualized society? Results from the European Values Surveys. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,37(3), 195–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Cook, K. S. (2002). Distributive justice: Recent theoretical developments and applications. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 93–132). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, K. (1997). Social insurances and the culture of solidarity: The moral infrastructure of interpersonal redistributions—with special reference to the German health care system. ZeS-Arbeitspapier,3(97), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülle, S., Liebig, S., & May, M. J. (2018). Measuring attitudes toward distributive justice: The basic social justice orientations scale. Social Indicators Research,136(2), 663–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, M. M. (2006). What makes people support public responsibility for welfare provision: Self-interest or political ideology? A longitudinal approach. Acta Sociologica,49(3), 321–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, M. M. (2008). Does left–right orientation have a causal effect on support for redistribution? Causal analysis with cross-sectional data using instrumental variables. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,20(3), 363–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, M. M. (2012). Do we all (dis)like the same welfare state? Configurations of public support for the welfare state in comparative perspective. In J. Kvist, J. Fritzell, B. Hvinden, & O. Kangas (Eds.), Changing social equality: The Nordic welfare model in the 21st century (pp. 45–68). Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C. (2012). Labour market- versus life course-related social policies: Understanding cross-programme differences. Journal of European Public Policy,19(2), 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C., & Bang Petersen, M. (2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science,61(1), 68–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J. (2001). Fair and square: The four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,46(2), 137–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, F., & Kaminska, M. E. (2012). Welfare state values in the European Union, 2002–2008. A multilevel investigation of formal institutions and individual attitudes. Journal of European Public Policy,19(6), 900–920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumlin, S., & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2014). How welfare states shape the democratic public: Policy feedback, participation, voting, and attitudes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laenen, T., & Meuleman, B. (2017). A universal rank order of deservingness? Geographical, temporal and social-structural comparisons. In W. van Oorschot, F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, & T. Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness (pp. 37–54). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepianka, D., Van Oorschot, W., & Gelissen, J. (2009). Popular explanations of poverty: A critical discussion of empirical research. Journal of Social Policy,38(3), 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). Bern: Hans Huber Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebig, S., & Sauer, C. (2016). Sociology of justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 37–59). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magni-Berton, R. (2019). Is perceived equal opportunity corrosive for support for equal outcomes? Individual-based evidence. Social Justice Research,32(4), 403–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, G., Swift, A., Routh, D., & Burgoyne, C. (1999). What is and what ought to be popular beliefs about distributive justice in thirteen countries. European Sociological Review,15(4), 349–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascini, P., Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2013). Neoliberalism and work-related risks: Individual or collective responsibilization? Journal of Risk Research,16(10), 1209–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mau, S. (2003). The moral economy of welfare states: Britain and Germany compared. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mau, S., & Sachweh, P. (2014). The middle-class in the German welfare state: Beneficial involvement at stake? Social Policy and Administration,48(5), 537–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mau, S., & Veghte, B. (2007). Introduction: Social justice, legitimacy and the welfare state. In S. Mau & B. Veghte (Eds.), Social justice, legitimacy and the welfare state (pp. 1–16). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeusen, C., Meuleman, B., Abts, K., & Bergh, R. (2018). Comparing a variable-centred and a person-centred approach to the structure of prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science,9(6), 645–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, B. (2019). The economic context of solidarity. Period vs. cohort differences in support for income redistribution in Britain and the United States. European Societies,192, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, B., Roosma, F., & Abts, K. (2020). Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: The CARIN deservingness principles scale. Social Science Research,85, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 127–166). Bern: Hans Huber Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1992). Distributive justice: What the people think. Ethics,102(3), 555–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mythen, G. (2005). Employment, individualization and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective. The Sociological Review,53(1), 129–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S. H., & Allen, M. W. (2005). Perception of economic distributive justice: Exploring leading theories. Social Behavior and Personality,33(5), 435–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. (1979). Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. Social Theory and Practice,5(2), 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling,14(4), 535–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2019). Social expenditure update 2019: Public social spending is high in many OECD countries. http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/OECD2019-Social-Expenditure-Update.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2019.

  • Osipovič, D. (2015). Conceptualisations of welfare deservingness by Polish migrants in the UK. Journal of social policy,44(4), 729–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paz-fuchs, A. (2011). The social contract revisited: The modern welfare state. Oxford: The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1972). A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeskens, T., & van Oorschot, W. (2013). Equity, equality, or need? A study of popular preferences for welfare redistribution principles across 24 European countries. Journal of European Public Policy,20(8), 1174–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippon, S., Theuns, T., de Maagt, S., Zala, M., & van den Brink, B. (2018). Report on the European heritage of philosophical theorizing about justice. Utrecht: ETHOS consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roller, E. (1995). The welfare state: The equality dimension. In O. Borre & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The scope of government (pp. 165–197). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosma, F., Gelissen, J., & van Oorschot, W. (2013). The multidimensionality of welfare state attitudes: A European cross-national study. Social Indicators Research,113(1), 235–255.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roosma, F., van Oorschot, W., & Gelissen, J. (2014). The preferred role and perceived performance of the welfare state: European welfare attitudes from a multidimensional perspective. Social Science Research,44(400), 200–210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (2016). Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachweh, P. (2012). The moral economy of inequality: Popular views on income differentiation, poverty and wealth. Socio-Economic Review,10(3), 419–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachweh, P. (2016). Social justice and the welfare state: Institutions, outcomes, and attitudes in comparative perspective. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 293–313). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T., & Bornstein, B. H. (2009). What’s fair in foul weather and fair? Distributive justice across different allocation contexts and goods. The Journal of Politics,71(3), 831–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science,45(4), 749–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevä, I. J. (2009). Local contexts, social risks and social spending preferences: A multi-level approach. Acta Sociologica,52(3), 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staerklé, C. (2009). Policy attitudes, ideological values and social representations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,3(6), 1096–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staerklé, C., Likki, T., & Scheidegger, R. (2012). A normative approach to welfare attitudes. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), Contested welfare states: Welfare attitudes in Europe and beyond (pp. 81–118). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, A. (1999). Public opinion and political philosophy: The relation between social-scientific and philosophical analyses of distributive justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,2(4), 337–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby, P., Hvinden, B., Mau, S., Leruth, B., Schoyen, M. A., & Gyory, A. (2018). Moral economies of the welfare state: A qualitative comparative study. Acta Sociologica,62, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Meulen, R. (2015). Solidarity and justice in health care. A critical analysis of their relationship. Diametros,14(6), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Meulen, R., & Maarse, H. (2008). Increasing individual responsibility in Dutch health care: Is solidarity losing ground ? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,33, 262–279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker, W., Marchal, S., Schuerman, N., Van Mechelen, N., & Van Kerm, P. (2015). Leven aan de dop: De impact van werkloosheid op het inkomen in België in vergelijkend perspectief. CSB Berichten,6104(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why. Policy and Politics,28(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy,16(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oorschot, W. (2010). Public perceptions of the economic, moral, social and migration consequences of the welfare state: An empirical analysis of welfare state legitimacy. Journal of European Social Policy,20(1), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oorschot, W., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Welfare performance and welfare support. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), Contested welfare states: Welfare attitudes in Europe and beyond (pp. 25–57). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oorschot, W., & Roosma, F. (2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness. In W. van Oorschot, F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, & T. Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness (pp. 3–33). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis,18(4), 450–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. (2009). Commentary: The emergence and application of active aging in Europe. Journal of Aging and Social Policy,21(1), 75–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by the support of the KU Leuven Research council (OT/13/30), the National Science Foundation—FWO-Vlaanderen (Grant No.: 11H2619N) and the Belgian National Lottery.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arno Van Hootegem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Social and Societal Ethic Committee KU Leuven) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Question wordings and standardized factor loadings for utilitarian individualism, authoritarianism and economic liberalism (N = 1900)
Table 7 Multinomial logistic regression of social structure and ideology on the residual selectivist class relative to the meritocratic selectivist class (N = 1898)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Hootegem, A., Abts, K. & Meuleman, B. Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains. Soc Just Res 33, 257–283 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00354-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00354-9

Keywords

Navigation