The weakest link in welfare state legitimacy: European perceptions of moral and administrative failure in the targeting of social benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of welfare attitude research, generally studies examining critical attitudes toward the welfare state are rather limited. However, the existing studies find that people are most negative about the mis-targeting of welfare benefits – that is, people are particularly critical of the high overuse (misuse or fraud) and high underuse (non-take-up) of welfare benefits. This study contributes to the current literature by more extensively analyzing perceptions of the overuse and underuse of welfare benefits by revealing the underlying perceptions of moral failure or failed administrative implementation. We also assess how different individual- and contextual-level factors influence those perceptions. We use data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009 for 25 European countries. We find that instead of representing two manifestations of the same concept of mis-targeting, perceptions of the overuse and underuse of benefits appear to be driven by normative ideas and opinions about the administrative effectiveness of the welfare state. Whereas normative ideas about the overuse of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s political ideology and the selectivity of the redistribution system, ideas about the effectiveness of benefits are mainly influenced by people’s institutional trust, the quality of the welfare state and the economic context. We conclude that critical attitudes toward the welfare state have multiple dimensions and can be both substantive and procedural in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".