Disabled but not deserving? The perceived deservingness of disability welfare benefit claimants

While disability benefits make up the largest group of claimants in high-income countries, we know surprisingly little about which disabled people are seen as ‘deserving’ benefits, nor whether different people in different countries judge deservingness-related characteristics similarly. This is surprising given they are increasingly the focus of retrenchment, which often affirms the deservingness of ‘truly deserving’ disabled people while focusing cuts and demands on those ‘less deserving’. This paper addresses this gap using two vignette-based factorial survey experiments: (i) the nine-country ‘Stigma in Global Context-Mental Health Study’ (SGC-MHS); (ii) a new YouGov survey in Norway/the UK, together with UK replication. I find a hierarchy of symptoms/impairments, from wheelchair use (perceived as most deserving), to schizophrenia and back pain, fibromyalgia, depression, and finally asthma (least deserving). Direct manipulations of deservingness-related characteristics also influence judgements, including membership of ethnic/racial ingroups and particularly blameworthiness and medical legitimation. In contrast, the effects of work ability, age and work history are relatively weak, particularly when compared to the effects on unemployed claimants. Finally, for non-disabled unemployed claimants, I confirm previous findings that right-wingers respond more strongly to deservingness-related characteristics, but Norwegians and Britons respond similarly. For disabled claimants, however, the existing picture is challenged, with e.g. Britons responding more strongly to these characteristics than Norwegians. I conclude by drawing together the implications for policy, particularly the politics of disability benefits, the role of medical legitimation, and the legitimacy challenges of the increasing role of mental health in disability benefit recipiency

Benefit ‘myths’? The accuracy and inaccuracy of public beliefs about the benefits system

There is a widespread assumption by academics and commentators that negative public attitudes to the benefits system are due to ‘myths’ held by the British public. However, there is little research on whether the public believe these ‘myths’, nor critical scrutiny of benefit ‘truths’. This article therefore investigates what British people believe about the benefits system, and the extent to which these beliefs can be regarded as correct. To do this, we use 46 measures from 18 datasets (including British Social Attitudes, the European Social Survey, Eurobarometer, and surveys by YouGov and Ipsos MORI made available for academic study for the first time), and compare these perceptions to true figures obtained from a variety of sources. We find that – against expectations – there are some areas where the public are (on average) relatively accurate (e.g. the share of the population who currently claim out-of-work benefits). Yet overall, our evidence shows that the British public have low levels of understanding of the benefits system, primarily in ways that seem likely to undermine public support. People wildly overestimate unemployment benefits compared to pensions, the value of unemployment benefits, and misperceive trends in claims. While it is difficult to know the true level of benefit fraud exactly, the public overestimate fraud compared to any reasonable figure. We conclude by discussing the implications for both understanding and changing attitudes towards benefits

Benefits conditionality for disabled people: Stylized facts from a review of international evidence and practice

While behavioural conditionality for disability benefit claimants has been increasing, there is little evidence on its implementation or impacts. This article summarises existing studies, alongside an international review based on 140 documents and 38 expert interviews, into four 'stylised facts': (1) requirements for disability benefit claimants are common, but sanctioning is rare; (2) assessment and support are critical for implementing conditionality; (3) limited but robust existing evidence suggests that sanctioning may have zero or even negative impacts on work-related outcomes for disabled people; and (4) individual case studies suggest that sanctioning can lead to destitution and affect mental health

Benefits conditionality for disabled people: Stylized facts from a review of international evidence and practice

While behavioural conditionality for disability benefit claimants has been increasing, there is little evidence on its implementation or impacts. This article summarises existing studies, alongside an international review based on 140 documents and 38 expert interviews, into four 'stylised facts': (1) requirements for disability benefit claimants are common, but sanctioning is rare; (2) assessment and support are critical for implementing conditionality; (3) limited but robust existing evidence suggests that sanctioning may have zero or even negative impacts on work-related outcomes for disabled people; and (4) individual case studies suggest that sanctioning can lead to destitution and affect mental health

The growing American health penalty: International trends in the employment of older workers with poor health

Many countries have reduced the generosity of sickness and disability programs while making them more activating – yet few studies have examined how employment rates have subsequently changed. We present estimates of how employment rates of older workers with poor health in 13 high-income countries changed 2004–7 to 2012–15 using HRS/SHARE/ELSA data. We find that those in poor health in the USA have experienced a unique deterioration: they have not only seen a widening gap to the employment rates of those with good health, but their employment rates fell per se. We find only for Sweden (and possibly England) signs that the health employment gap shrank, with rising employment but stable gaps elsewhere. We then examine possible explanations for the development in the USA: we find no evidence it links to labor market trends, but possible links to the USA's lack of disability benefit reform and wider economic trends

Beyond 'mythbusting': how to respond to myths and perceived undeservingness in the British benefits system

In a context of ‘hardening’ attitudes towards benefit claimants in Britain, some argue that social security can only be rebuilt when ‘benefit myths’ and negative attitudes are tackled. However, this paper argues that some of these concerns are misplaced, based on evidence on (i) the extent of myths; (ii) the effectiveness of mythbusting; and (iii) the existence of myths/negative attitudes in times/places the benefits system is more popular. It argues that public attitudes are fundamentally characterised by ambivalence, and the critical issue is the balance between positive and negative aspects and which of these are triggered in public debate

Social class bias in welfare sanctioning judgements: Experimental evidence from a nationally representative sample

In this study, we examine whether welfare deservingness judgements in the UK are affected by a bias against claimants from stigmatised social class backgrounds. In the UK, as in other countries, stereotypes of a perceived social ‘underclass’ are widespread. Political and media discourse frequently portrays members of this ‘underclass’ as lazy, feckless, and not genuinely in need of support. Yet despite strong academic interest in perceived welfare deservingness, existing research has largely neglected the role of social class bias in deservingness judgements. To address this gap, we use a novel vignette experiment administered to a representative sample of British respondents to provide the first direct evidence of discrimination against welfare claimants with ‘underclass signifiers’. We find that the British public are more likely to endorse a sanction against a claimant from an ‘underclass’ background than against an otherwise identical claimant from a less stigmatised class background. We also asked respondents to justify their decisions and, applying computational methods to analyse these free-text responses, we find that ‘underclass’ claimants are more likely to be blamed for violating the conditions of their benefit, while claimants from other class backgrounds are more often given the ‘benefit of the doubt’. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of the relationship between social class background and public deservingness perceptions, and potentially for the differential treatment of claimants by the benefits system

Tax avoidance and benefit manipulation: Views on its morality and prevalence

This chapter identifies a double standard in attitudes to tax avoidance and benefit manipulation: while around half or more regard both as wrong, benefit recipients are judged more harshly than tax offenders for what might be considered similar ‘offences’. This doublestandard varies across different groups: people in the highest income group and who are right-wing are less likely to say that tax avoidance is wrong, while people who hold liberal views are less likely to say that benefit manipulation is wrong. There has been a sudden drop in the perceived prevalence of benefit manipulation, which, if sustained, indicates a major shift in attitudes towards benefit claimants