Distributing the Rights and Obligations of the Unemployed: Investigating Support for Activation Policies through the Lens of Distributive Justice

In an era of increasing welfare state retrenchment, the social question “who should get what and why” comes back to the fore (van Oorschot, 2000). In particular, this recurs the question of which of the three principles of distributive justice should form the basis of the distribution of the burdens and benefits of our welfare system: equality, equity or need (Deutsch, 1975). Although the issue of distributive justice structures many of the contemporary welfare discussions, it has especially been represented in the debates on the rights and obligations of the unemployed (Ervak, Kildal, & Nilssen, 2015; Mau & Veghte, 2007). In the aftermath of the economic crisis, there are increasing oppositions between those who advocate for unconditional and universal unemployment benefits and those who defend more conditional welfare schemes (cf. Andersson & Kangas, 2005). Although the topic of distributive justice is clearly central to these debates and forms a more fundamental way of theorizing about these developments, research has only limitedly recognized this. Especially in public opinion studies, the potentially crucial role of distributive justice remains underexplored. Hence, the current study sets out to determine whether, and how, preferences for the three social justice principles predict public support for one of the most debated ‘welfare-to-work’ initiatives, namely activation policies. First, we hypothesize that a preference for the principle of need, which legitimizes a distribution of unemployment benefits targeted at the neediest in society, increases support for activation policies, as both rely on the notion of self-reliance in the providence of a sufficient living standard (Clasen & van Oorschot, 2002; Larsen, 2005). Second, preferring the principle of equity, which justifies reciprocal distributions of unemployment benefits on the basis of past contributions, is anticipated to foster support for the activation of the unemployed. This is because activation policies are deeply rooted in the idea of ‘justice as reciprocity’, which emphasizes conditional rights and duties (Buchanan, 1990; Ervak, Kildal, & Nilssen, 2015). Last, a preference for equality-based unemployment benefit distributions is expected to go hand in hand with lower support for work incentives for the unemployed, as the principle of equality disregards conditional requirements for access to welfare (Clasen & van Oorschot, 2002). To test this relation, we conduct a stepwise regression analysis on data from the Belgian National Elections Study of 2014. Preliminary results indicate that, as expected, individuals who prefer need- or equity-based distributions instead of an equal distribution of unemployment benefits are more in favor of the activation of the unemployed. Rather surprisingly, however, especially preferences for the principle of need rather than for equity seem to increase support for activation policies. This illustrates that support for activation policies is strongly grafted onto justifications of individual responsibility and self-reliance in obtaining a reasonable living standard. The main conclusion of our paper is that distributive justice is indeed central to discussions on the rights and work-related obligations of the unemployed and that its explanatory potential should be considered in future studies.