The paper is called Crowding Out Culture: Scandinavians and Americans Agree on Social Welfare in the Face of Deservingness Cues, by Danish researchers Lene Aaroe and Michael Bang Petersen.
Suppose that you survey people’s opinions about redistribution without saying anything about whether welfare recipients are not working because they are unwilling or because they are unable. Then Danes are more favorable to redistribution than Americans. However, if the people surveyed are given information that indicates whether or not the welfare recipients are unwilling to work or unable to work, average opinion among Americans and Danes is indistinguishable. This suggests that Americans do not have (relative to Danes) a cultural aversion to redistribution. Instead, they are more likely to believe that welfare recipients are unwilling to work rather than unable to work.
Pointer from Leda Cosmides in her presentation at this panel, which I again strongly recommend–the video is now up at the link.
Denmark is full of Danes, and Danes know other Danes tend to try and do the right thing. Therefore, in the absence of any information they suspect the average poor Dane is of the deserving poor.
America is full of people very different from Danes, many of which Americans suspect don’t always try to do the right thing. They have reason to believe many Americans on American welfare are not the deserving poor. There are other factors involved.
Bingo.
The researchers have a great opportunity to test the asdf’s (and mine) hypothesis through a multi-year study. Denmark (and I think at least Sweden and Norway) are in the midst of an immigration driven change in demographics. (I remember last time we visited Denmark, the tour guide was very outspoken about the undeserving poor, etc.)
Also, thanks to the puritans and Ben Franklin, we associate wealth with virtue and poverty with vice (despite that being among the worst heuristic imaginable).
So the default in the US is suspicion of the poor specifically, moreso than just strangers in general. (Though there’s definitely some wariness around strangers in general too though, it’s a big country with a frontier spirit as well.)
Also worth noting these are massive generalizations, plenty of Americans probably think like Danes. I’d love to see these results broken out by region and urban/rural residence.
“Also, thanks to the puritans and Ben Franklin, we associate wealth with virtue and poverty with vice (despite that being among the worst heuristic imaginable).”
This is the whole crux of the issue and it is not obviously a bad heuristic. If your immediate assumption about a rich person is that they a) got lucky, b) inherited it, or c) gamed the system somehow, then you will vote B. Sanders. If your immediate assumption is that they a) worked really hard, b) are really smart/talented, then you won’t.
The same goes for the poor. Are they lazy? Or did something very unfortunate happen to them (eg. disability, disease, plain old lack of talent).
Of course you don’t know for sure which case is the actual truth until you get to know the person! It is always bad to hold stereotypes about entire populations.
This all comes down to instinct and moral intuition and it is not surprising that different countries have slightly different average values.
What if your immediate assumption is all of the above?
“There are other factors involved.”
Nope. That’s very precisely the factor involved: “Americans are more likely to believe that welfare recipients are unwilling to work rather than unable to work.”
It’s more then that. Many of the people receiving welfare in America are actively hostile to my interests. The way they vote, the way they behave, etc.
It probably doesn’t help my sympathies for the poor that they tried to burn down my city. Or that their support keeps a very corrupt administration in power in my city. Every dollar I give them feels like a dollar that is going to be used against me.
The argument for paternalism.
Yes on Bingo above!
The problem of separating the poor into “unwilling” and “unable” is likely not fully solvable, and made worse by the incentive problem of “helping the poor” encourages more to act poor.
There’s one long time yet still continuing suggestion, which I find far superior to guaranteed basic income: voluntary national service.
Everybody who is willing to work would be hired, at low wages, by the National Service agency.
The gov’t would offer to give room & board & medical care, and a little money (no other necessities needed), for working at various assistance jobs. Education assistants in schools, including “reading out loud” to youngsters. Health care assistants in nursing homes. Junior military training as military assistants.
VERY paternalistic, for those who volunteer only — but it becomes much easier to claim those who don’t volunteer as being more those unwilling to work.
That still assumes all these people are fit for the workplace. Most aren’t; more trouble than they’re worth.
That is not incompatible with government work.
“Most [are] more trouble than they’re worth”, yes, at first.
But precisely for these folk, there is no amount of gov’t money which will help them improve their lives over time as much as pushing them to work. At something.
And I flatly don’t believe it’s most, tho I agree many, my guess is 20% first year, down to 5% by year 5.
Those truly not “Fit for the workplace” are, by definition, unable — and thus worthy. Tho grossly obese able to talk can still read to young kids, or elderly.
Yes, low value jobs — the point is not only to increase social wealth thru the direct job creating value, but rather to create social capital of better work habits in the poor.
To help the poor earn self-respect — no gov’t program can give them this. I believe the anger/ resentment of many poor is often because they feel the lack of self-respect and yet also feel trapped in behavior that doesn’t increase it.
Sounds like USAers would support an hourly wage subsidy.