IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v17y2025i2ne70018.html

What Do People Want From a Welfare System? Conjoint Survey Evidence From UK Adults

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Nettle
  • Joe Chrisp
  • Elliot A. Johnson
  • Matthew T. Johnson

Abstract

What do people want from a welfare system? Previous research has suggested a list of desiderata, such as that the system: reduces poverty; reduces inequality; improves mental and physical health; costs little; and rewards only the deserving. How do these different features trade off against one another to determine overall desirability? We conducted a conjoint survey experiment with 800 UK‐resident adults, presenting them with hypothetical welfare schemes that varied on a large number of attributes. The strongest driver of choice was the effect on poverty: people were more likely to choose a scheme the more it reduced poverty. Respondents were prepared to trade off their preference for lower income taxes: even for center‐right voters, some income tax rises would be acceptable in exchange for sufficiently large reductions in poverty. Taxes on wealth and carbon emissions were positively valued. Respondents paid some attention to the effects of schemes on inequality and health. Preferences over institutional design features to do with deservingness, such as means testing, conditionality and universality, were weak. Heterogeneity in preferences by age and political orientation were present but modest. We discuss the findings with respect to the envelope of welfare systems that would be publicly acceptable. 人们对福利制度有何期望?以往研究提出了一系列必需物, 例如, 该制度应:减少贫困;减少不平等;改善身心健康;成本低廉;只奖励应得的人。这些不同的特征如何相互权衡, 以确定整体的可取性?我们对800名英国成年人进行了一项联合调查实验, 向他们展示了假设的福利计划, 这些计划在很多方面存在差异。选择的最重要驱动因素是对贫困的影响:一项计划越能减贫, 人们就越有可能选择它。受访者愿意放弃对较低收入所得税的偏好:即使对于中右翼选民来说, 为了换取足够大的减贫, 一定程度的所得税上调也是可以接受的。对财富和碳排放加以征税, 受到了积极评价。受访者在一定程度上关注了计划对不平等和健康的影响。对于与应得性相关的制度设计特征 (例如经济状况调查、附加条件和普遍性), 受访者的偏好较弱。不同年龄的偏好和政治倾向的偏好都存在差异, 但差异不大。我们就公众可接受的福利制度范围, 对研究结果进行了探讨。 ¿Qué esperan las personas de un sistema de bienestar social? Investigaciones previas han sugerido una lista de deseos, como que el sistema: reduzca la pobreza; reduzca la desigualdad; mejore la salud mental y física; cueste poco; y recompense solo a quienes lo merecen. ¿Cómo se compensan estas diferentes características para determinar la conveniencia general? Realizamos un experimento de encuesta conjunta con 800 adultos residentes en el Reino Unido, presentándoles planes de bienestar hipotéticos que variaban en un gran número de atributos. El factor de elección más importante fue el efecto sobre la pobreza: las personas eran más propensas a elegir un plan cuanto más reducía la pobreza. Los encuestados estaban dispuestos a sacrificar su preferencia por impuestos sobre la renta más bajos: incluso para los votantes de centroderecha, algunas subidas del impuesto sobre la renta serían aceptables a cambio de reducciones suficientemente significativas de la pobreza. Los impuestos sobre el patrimonio y las emisiones de carbono se valoraron positivamente. Los encuestados prestaron cierta atención a los efectos de los planes sobre la desigualdad y la salud. Las preferencias sobre las características del diseño institucional relacionadas con el merecimiento, como la comprobación de recursos, la condicionalidad y la universalidad, fueron débiles. La heterogeneidad en las preferencias por edad y orientación política fue presente, pero moderada. Analizamos los hallazgos con respecto a la cobertura de los sistemas de bienestar que serían públicamente aceptables.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Nettle & Joe Chrisp & Elliot A. Johnson & Matthew T. Johnson, 2025. "What Do People Want From a Welfare System? Conjoint Survey Evidence From UK Adults," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:17:y:2025:i:2:n:e70018
    DOI: 10.1002/pop4.70018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.70018
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pop4.70018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ignacio Abásolo & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Is more health always better for society? Exploring public preferences that violate monotonicity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 539-563, April.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Carsten Jensen & Michael Bang Petersen, 2017. "The Deservingness Heuristic and the Politics of Health Care," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 68-83, January.
    4. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    5. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    6. Fernández-Albertos, José & Kuo, Alexander, 2018. "Income Perception, Information, and Progressive Taxation: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-110, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Littlefair, David & Stark, Graham & Johnson, Sophie B. & Atkinson, Joanne & Reed, Howard & Johnson, Elliott A. & Johnson, Matthew, 2026. "Reliability and affordability: understanding the reasons for UK voters’ support for nationalisation and public control," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Perna, Roberta & Umpierrez de Reguero, Sebastián, 2025. "Intra-EU migration and healthcare deservingness: A conjoint experiment in Belgium and Spain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    2. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    3. Dietmar Fehr & Johanna Mollerstrom & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2022. "Your Place in the World: Relative Income and Global Inequality," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 232-268, November.
    4. Martin Brun & Xavier Ramos, 2025. "Attitudes to income inequality and redistribution," Working Papers 33, Finnish Centre of Excellence in Tax Systems Research.
    5. Sharon Baute & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Conditional Generosity and Deservingness in Public Support for European Unemployment Risk Sharing," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 721-740, May.
    6. Marcelo M Leal & Paul Musgrave, 2023. "Hitting back or holding back in cyberspace: Experimental evidence regarding Americans’ responses to cyberattacks," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 42-64, January.
    7. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    8. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    9. Makowsky, Michael D. & Wang, Siyu, 2018. "Embezzlement, whistleblowing, and organizational architecture: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 58-75.
    10. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2012. "On the Context-Dependency of Inequality Aversion - Experimental Evidence and a Stylized Model -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    12. Robert Jiro Netzer & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Intercultural trust. An experiment in Austria and Japan," Working Papers 2009-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    14. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    15. Mujcic, Redzo & Frijters, Paul, 2013. "Still Not Allowed on the Bus: It Matters If You're Black or White!," IZA Discussion Papers 7300, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Renou, Ludovic & Schlag, Karl H., 2010. "Minimax regret and strategic uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 264-286, January.
    17. Falk Armin & Kosfeld Michael, 2012. "It's all about Connections: Evidence on Network Formation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-36, September.
    18. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:17:y:2025:i:2:n:e70018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.