Public Assistance as Distributive Justice: an Exploration of the Common Man's Ideology of Relief.

Abstract

In an effort to comprehend more adequately the nature and structure of an American ideology of relief, this study was an empirical investigation of the following thesis: that attitudes toward public assistance for the poor are expressions, at least in part, of evaluative beliefs about distributive justice--in particular, those evaluative beliefs that serve to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving poor. An area probability sample of 262 white, working and middle class adults was selected in Houston, Texas, and structured interviews were completed with 212 respondents. Using several measurement approaches, the interviews and ensuing analysis focused on a particular type of recipient--young adult females with children-- and on two empirical issues: first, identifying the cognitive/evaluative bases for judgments of recipient deservingness, and second, determining the subsequent effect of perceived recipients' deservingness on recommendations for their assistance. Results indicate, first, that the deserving/undeserving distinction is a meaningful one to respondents and that judgments of recipient deservingness are based on multiple criteria. The most important of these criteria--about which there was widespread consensus--concerned the interaction of perceived ability, effort, and opportunity, with attributed deservingness inversely related to perceived ability and opportunity, and positively related to perceived effort. Second, the perception of recipients as deserving or undeserving is clearly related to the type and levels of assistance they elicit. Recommended benefit levels for the deserving recipients varied widely between respondents, but were, on the average, significantly higher than the current assistance levels in the state of Texas and somewhat lower than the Federal poverty st and ard. For the undeserving, respondents' recommendations again varied widely--on the whole, less punitive and restrictive than expected, and apparently often based on values other than "justice." Overall, the study provided strong support for the distributive justice perspective on attitudes toward public assistance. It was also concluded, however, that other variables should be incorporated in future explanatory efforts, including humanitarian and utilitarian values that may affect public support for public assistance beyond the dem and s of justice.