Race, “Deservingness,” and Social Spending Attitudes: The Role of Policy Delivery Mechanism

Abstract

This paper examines how the means through which social benefits are delivered—either through a direct government program, or through a tax expenditure program—affects how citizens view social welfare programs and their beneficiaries. Attitudes toward social spending in the United States are strongly conditioned by both racial considerations and perceptions of the deservingness of recipients. We argue that the political cues given by spending conducted through the tax code differ from those given by direct spending in a way that both de-racializes spending attitudes and changes the lens through which citizens evaluate the deservingness of beneficiaries. Through a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that social benefits delivered through the tax code are less likely to activate racialized thinking than similar or identical benefits delivered directly. This is true, at least in part, because recipients of tax expenditures are perceived as more deserving than recipients of otherwise identical direct spending.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data to replicate the tables in this paper can be found at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UN2SMP.

  2. 2.

    This project was supported by a grant (83-14-05) from the Russell Sage Foundation, and we thank the Foundation for its generous support.

  3. 3.

    The U.S. is unique in the degree to which it funds social welfare programs through the tax code rather than directly: the U.S. ranks first internationally in per-capita spending on social tax expenditure programs (Howard 2007).

  4. 4.

    There are three main reasons for this regressive distribution of benefits. First, because tax expenditures are exclusions from a progressive tax system, a similar absolute dollar deduction is worth more to someone in a higher bracket than in a lower bracket. Second, many tax subsidies are tied to employment-based benefits, which are more likely to be offered to higher paid, full-time workers. Finally, many tax expenditures are available only to those who itemize their tax returns—a practice that is more common among the wealthy.

  5. 5.

    This racial composition of recipients is nearly identical to the racial profile of food stamp recipients, and only modestly more white (40% for TANF) than recipients of traditional welfare payments (Falk 2016).

  6. 6.

    This differential rate of growth spending is, at least in part, reflected by public perceptions toward the two programs: the EITC is consistently supported by majorities of citizens, while welfare-type programs are among the least popular types of social spending (e.g., Acs and Toder 2007; Ellis and Stimson 2012).

  7. 7.

    The deservingness heuristic is likely a universal feature of public attitudes towards social welfare spending: perceptions of deservingness are strongly associated with welfare attitudes even in countries with more communalistic orientations (van Oorschoot 2006; Petersen 2015). And the role of deservingness in shaping policy preferences is not limited to social spending: Reyna et al (2006), for example, find that perceptions of the deservingness of potential recipients plays a role in shaping whites’ attitudes toward affirmative action for African Americans.

  8. 8.

    These attitudes spill over even into opinions on programs that are designed to be race-neutral, since Americans tend to overestimate the proportion of beneficiaries of these programs that are nonwhite (Gilens 1996; Kellstedt 2003). Gilens (1999, p. 67) argues, for example, “it is now widely believed that welfare is a ‘race-coded’ topic that evokes racial imagery and attitudes, even when racial minorities are not explicitly mentioned” (see also Brown-Iannuzzi et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2004; Lei and Bodenhausen 2017).

  9. 9.

    Many citizens, for example, do not characterize benefits delivered through the tax code as being a form of government spending or government intervention in the economy (Mettler 2011).

  10. 10.

    Williamson (2017), for example, finds that citizens take pride in being taxpayers and that the categories of “deserving” and “nondeserving” overlap fairly well with the categories of “taxpayer” and “nontaxpayer.”

  11. 11.

    The question asked specifically about support for welfare spending at the state level, which (while more accurate for the purposes of understanding how welfare monies are allocated), is a bit of a departure from more conventional wordings, which just as respondents for their views on “welfare.” It is worth noting that the magnitude of the coefficients in the analyses to follow mirror closely what is seen when using similar predictors with the 2012 American National Election Study (which asks more simply about support for “welfare” spending).

  12. 12.

    Consistent with what we would expect, the EITC is more popular than welfare spending. 47% of our respondents want to increase the size of EITC, while only 26% wish to increase welfare spending. 37% of respondents want to cut welfare spending, while only 24% want to cut the EITC.

  13. 13.

    The egalitarianism scale was created by combining levels of agreement with three statements: “One of the biggest problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance;” “incomes should be more equal because every family’s need for food, housing, and so on, are the same,” and “this country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.”

  14. 14.

    In addition, we see that trust in government is predictive of attitudes toward welfare spending, but not attitudes toward the EITC. This finding is to be expected: since spending conducted through the tax code is less likely to prime thoughts of “government” than is spending conducted directly, it makes sense that a person’s level of trust in government will be less predictive of attitudes toward such spending. At least here, the distrust that leads citizens to oppose social spending (Hetherington 2005) seems to apply only to direct spending, not tax expenditures.

  15. 15.

    This survey was conducted using methods similar to those used in conducting the CCES. Yougov is an online survey firm that recruits respondents to participate in surveys from a national panel. Panelists are recruited to join the Yougov panel through a variety of different means, and are randomly invited to complete particular surveys as part of their participation. Panelists for the survey are recruited to be representative of the American public based on gender, age, and education. For more information about Yougov’s methods, and its comparison to more traditional RDD-based survey methods, see Twyman (2008).

  16. 16.

    One potential complication is that while information about the program (cost, purpose, etc.) remains identical across the two conditions, the tax expenditure description says that only citizens who earn taxable income will be eligible. We cannot say for sure how strongly this affects the results to come, though framing this program in a way that explicitly included “worker” may serve to more directly activate the counter-stereotypical perceptions of African Americans that we argue drives lower levels of symbolic prejudice for tax expenditure programs.

  17. 17.

    The order in which respondents received each of these three vignettes was also randomized.

  18. 18.

    Our argument is that attitudes toward recipients of tax expenditures are likely to be less racialized because aid delivered through the tax code severs some of the connections between “black” and “nonworking” that are often seen in attitudes toward recipients of direct aid. If this vignette directly primes “worker” in both of its versions, then the effects of spending mode in shaping perceptions of recipients may be overwhelmed by the fact that we directly state that the beneficiary is, in fact, working.

References

  1. Aarøe, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2014). Crowding out culture: Scandinavians and Americans agree on social welfare in the face of deservingness cues. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 684–697.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acs, G., & Toder, E. (2007). Should we subsidize work? Welfare reform, the earned income tax credit and optimal transfers. International Tax and Public Finance, 14(3), 327–343.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Athreya, K. B., Riley, D., & Simpson, N. B. (2010). Earned income tax credit recipients: Income marginal tax rates, wealth, and credit constraints. Economic Quarterly, 96(3), 229–258.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action: Unanswered questions and new directions. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(7), 985–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Dotsch, R., Cooley, E., & Keith Payne, B. (2017). The relationship between mental representations of welfare recipients and attitudes toward welfare. Psychological Science, 28(1), 92–103.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burman, L. E., & Phaup, M. (2012). Tax expenditures, the size and efficiency of government, and implications for budget reform. Tax Policy and the Economy, 26(1), 93–124.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clawson, R., & Trice, R. (2000). Poverty as we know it: Media portrayals of the poor. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(1), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review, 18(1), 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeSante, C. D. (2013). Working twice as hard to get half as far: Race, work ethic, and America’s deserving poor. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 342–356.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Falk, G. (2016). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Size and characteristics of the cash assistance caseload. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Faricy, C. G. (2015). Welfare for the wealthy: Parties, social spending, and inequality in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Faricy, C., & Ellis, C. (2014). Public attitudes toward social spending in the United States: The differences between direct spending and tax expenditures. Political Behavior, 36(1), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperceptions and the American news media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 515–541.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gitterman, D. P. (2010). Boosting paychecks: The politics of supporting America’s working poor. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goren, P. (2008). The two faces of government spending. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grogger, J., & Karoly, L. A. (2009). Welfare reform: Effects of a decade of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hacker, J. S. (2002). The divided welfare state: The battle over public and private social benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hancock, A.-M. (2004). The politics of disgust: The public identity of the welfare queen. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haselswerdt, J., & Bartels, B. L. (2015). Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 607–621.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hedegaard, T. F. (2014). The policy design effect: Proximity as a Micro-level explanation of the effect of policy designs on social benefit attitudes. Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(4), 366–384.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henry, P. J., Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2004). Hate welfare but help the poor: How the attributional content of stereotypes explains the paradox of reactions to the destitute in America. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 34–58.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology, 23(2), 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why Trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hetherington, M., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hoffman, S. D., & Seidman, L. S. (2003). Helping working families: The earned income tax credit. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holt, S. (2006). The earned income tax credit at age 30: What we know. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Howard, C. (1997). The hidden welfare state: Tax expenditures and social policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Howard, C. (2007). The welfare state nobody knows. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jacoby, W. G. (1994). Public attitudes toward government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 336–361.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750–767.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kellstedt, P. M. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lei, R. F., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2017). Racial assumptions color the mental representation of social class. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(4), 519–533.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Link, M. W., & Oldendick, R. W. (1996). Social construction and white attitudes toward equal opportunity and multiculturalism. Journal of Politics, 58(1), 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lupia, A. (2016). Uninformed: Why people know so little about politics and what we can do about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McCall, L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American Beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. McCloskey, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward democracy and capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Moffitt, R. (2003). The role of nonfinancial factors in exit and entry in the TANF program. Journal of Human Resources, 56(6), 1221–1254.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Murray, C., & Kneebone, E. (2017). The earned income tax credit and the white working class. Washington, DC: The Urban-Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Page, B. I., & Jacobs, L. R. (2009). Class war?: What Americans really think about economic inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2011). Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 24–52.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Piston, S. (2018). Class attitudes in America: Sympathy for the poor, resentment of the rich, and political implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reyna, C., Henry, P. J., Korfmacher, W., & Tucker, A. (2006). Examining the principles in principled conservatism: The role of responsibility stereotypes as cues for deservingness in racial policy decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660–671.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schroedel, J. R., & Jordan, D. R. (1998). Senate voting and social construction of target populations: A study of AIDS policy making, 1987–1992. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 23, 107–132.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Slothuus, R. (2007). Framing deservingness to win support for welfare state retrenchment. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. L. (1995). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stimson, J. (2011). The issues in representation. In P. Enns & C. Wlezien (Eds.), Who gets represented? (pp. 347–360). New York: Russell Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stimson, J. (2016). Tides of consent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Surrey, S. S. (1970). Tax incentives as a device for implementing government policy: A comparison with direct government expenditures. Harvard Law Review, 84, 705–738.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tesler, M. (2016). Post-racial or most-racial? Race and politics in the Obama Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Twyman, J. (2008). Getting it right: YouGov and online survey research in Britain.”. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18, 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  62. van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  63. van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Will, J. A. (1993). The dimensions of poverty: Public perceptions of the deserving poor. Social Science Research, 22(3), 312–332.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Williamson, V. S. (2017). Read my lips: Why Americans are proud to pay taxes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Winter, N. (2006). Beyond welfare: Framing and the racialization of white opinion on social security. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 400–420.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Ellis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ellis, C., Faricy, C. Race, “Deservingness,” and Social Spending Attitudes: The Role of Policy Delivery Mechanism. Polit Behav 42, 819–843 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09521-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public opinion
  • Social spending
  • Symbolic racism
  • Social policy
  • Inequality