PSJ 54/4 2026-09-09
Original Balancing Particularism and Universalism in Welfare Policy: Insights From China's Hukou Reform
Liu Chen, Tom Christensen, Xufeng Zhu
Abstract
ABSTRACT Welfare policies often combine particularistic and universalistic elements, yet we know less about how shifts in this balance shape public attitudes toward vulnerable low‐status groups. This article develops a three‐dimensional framework for analyzing welfare policy, distinguishing among welfare scope, welfare benefits, and inclusion criteria. We argue that public attitudes toward lower‐status groups are shaped by the combined signal about the welfare deservingness hierarchy generated by the configuration of particularistic and universalistic elements across these dimensions. Because policy design packages convey a broader normative stance about who belongs and who deserves, they can influence perceptions of groups that are not directly targeted by a policy change, lowering or raising their perceived deservingness. Using difference‐in‐differences and regression discontinuity methods, we analyze Weibo posts during China's two‐round hukou reform. We find that shifts toward more particularistic policy configurations lead to more negative attitudes toward low‐skilled migrant workers, whereas shifts toward more universalistic configurations yield more positive attitudes. Subgroup analyses yield suggestive patterns across local economic contexts and individual characteristics. These findings have broader implications for research on welfare policy systems and for reform efforts regarding social integration.
JOP — pp. 000-000 2026-05-04 Original Who Benefits? How Gender Shapes the Perceived Deservingness of Welfare Claimants
Dot Sawler
Abstract
（原文未提供摘要）
中文 谁受益？性别如何塑造对福利申领者应得性的认知
Dot Sawler
摘要
原文未提供摘要
关键词
性别、福利申领者、应得性、福利态度、公众舆论、社会政策
DOI: 10.1086/736802
查看原文 →
PSJ — 2026-04-26
Original Partisanship, Deservingness, and the Attitudinal Policy Feedback Process for Social Policy
Chris Faricy, Christopher Ellis
Abstract
ABSTRACT In an era of identity‐based partisan polarization, we examine whether social policies can still generate positive attitudinal feedback among beneficiaries. Drawing on nationally representative survey data, we demonstrate that partisanship conditions the policy feedback process through divergent perceptions of group deservingness. Democrats attribute economic vulnerability to systemic injustice and view policy beneficiaries as hardworking and sympathetic, while Republicans attribute poverty to individual failings and view beneficiaries more negatively. We show that Democrats evaluate both policy beneficiaries and taxpayers favorably, whereas Republicans sharply differentiate between these groups, viewing themselves as “makers” contributing to a system that benefits undeserving “takers.” These differences shape emotional responses to program use with Democrats reporting positive feelings about using social policies, while Republicans express more negative emotions. Even after controlling for actual policy usage and demographics, partisan gaps in attitudes toward social programs persist across diverse policy types. Experimental evidence reveals that partisan framing affects non‐users more than beneficiaries, with Democrats more responsive to group‐based cues. Our findings suggest that in American politics, partisan identities serve as powerful interpretive filters that prevent similar policy experiences from generating widespread positive political attitudes, thereby challenging the assumption that policies create new politics.