The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support
Abstract
Why are people who live in liberal welfare regimes so reluctant to support welfare policy? And why are people who live in social democratic welfare regimes so keen to support welfare policy? This article seeks to give an institutional account of these cross-national differences. Previous attempts to link institutions and welfare attitudes have not been convincing. The empirical studies have had large difficulties in finding the expected effects from regime-dependent differences in self-interest, class interest, and egalitarian values. This article develops a new theoretical macro—micro link by combining the literature on deservingness criteria and the welfare regime theory. The basic ideas are that three regime characteristics, (a) the degree of universalism in welfare policy, (b) the differences in economic resources between “the bottom” and “the majority,” and (c) the degree of job opportunities, have a profound impact on the public deservingness discussion and thereby on public support for welfare policy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism
Kymlicka, W. (2015) · Comparative Migration Studies · doi:10.1186/s40878-015-0017-4 · Cited by 382 · see citing works
The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences
Cavaillé, C., & Trump, K.-S. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/678312 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Van Der Waal, J., De Koster, W., & Van Oorschot, W. (2013) · Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/13876988.2013.785147 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
The case for welfare state universalism, or the lasting relevance of the paradox of redistribution
Jacques, O., & Noël, A. (2018) · Journal of European Social Policy · doi:10.1177/0958928717700564 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Undeserving, Disadvantaged, Disregarded: Three Viewpoints of Charity Food Aid Recipients in Finland
Salonen, A. S., Ohisalo, M., & Laihiala, T. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15122896 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Larsen, C. A.
- Affiliations
- Aalborg University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Larsen, Christian Albrekt
- Venue
- Comparative Political Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10-31
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-168
- ISSN
- 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3829
- OpenAlex
- W4256708066
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 39.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Comparative Political Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Sciences and Policies
- Keywords
- welfare attitudes, welfare regime theory, liberal welfare regime, social democratic welfare regime, universalism, economic inequality, employment opportunities, egalitarian values, class interests, self-interest, cross-national differences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review