| ISSN: | 1640-1808 |
RESEARCH PAPER
Perception of the Family 500+ programme and its beneficiaries among Poles in the light of the deservingness theory: a Q methodological study
1
, Polska
Submission date: 2025-04-25
Final revision date: 2025-06-14
Acceptance date: 2025-06-19
Online publication date: 2025-07-21
Publication date: 2025-07-21
Corresponding author
Justyna Wilak
Instytut Ekonomiczno-Społeczny, Katedra Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Polska
Instytut Ekonomiczno-Społeczny, Katedra Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Polska
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The concept of deservingness relates to judgements about whether a person or group deserves support. The deservingness criteria that underlie people’s opinions play a crucial role in this process. This study examines the perception of deservingness among Polish people in relation to the Family 500+ programme and its beneficiaries. The aim was to determine which deservingness criteria are applied to evaluate the deservingness of families with children, and to distinguish groups of people who share similar views. Q methodology was employed as a research method that exemplifies a mixed approach, using both quantitative and qualitative data to explore viewpoints, opinions, beliefs and attitudes. The purpose of Q methodological studies is to identify factors that distinguish groups of people who share similar opinions about the analysed topic. Three factors were identified as a result of the study. The first is linked to the equality criterion the second to the criteria of control, reciprocity, need and adequacy, and the third to the criteria of reciprocity and social investment. The results show that people's opinions of the same social programme vary considerably, which is the result of attaching importance to different aspects. The results also revealed a certain degree of ambiguity that seems to be an intrinsic part of research focused on the deservingness of families with children - whose deservingness is really being judged: the children's or the parents'? This study has shown that people's views on this issue also vary.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Bastagli, F., Samman, E., Both, N., Evans, M., Sepúlveda, M., Yang, L., Walker, R., Salomon, H., & Orton, I. (2020). Universal child benefits: Policy issues and options. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and UNICEF.
2.
Bień, I. (2022). Skutki „świadczenia 500+”. Infos. Zagadnienia Społeczno-Gospodarcze, 8(300), 1–4.
3.
Brown, S.R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
4.
Devereux, S. (2016). Is targeting ethical? Global Social Policy, 16(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/146801....
5.
Dziopa, F. & Ahern, K. (2009). Three different ways mental health nurses develop quality therapeutic relationships. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 30(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/016128....
6.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2005). Children in the welfare state. A social investment approach. DemoSoc Working Paper, 2005–2010.
7.
Folbre, N. (1994). Children as public goods. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 86–90.
8.
Herrington, N. & Coogan, J. (2011). Q methodology: an overview. Research in Teacher Education, 1(2), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8....
9.
Heuer, J.-O. & Zimmermann, K. (2020). Unravelling deservingness: Which criteria do people use to judge the relative deservingness of welfare target groups? A vignette-based focus group study. Journal of European Social Policy, 30(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/095892....
10.
Kalwij, A. (2010). The impact of family policy expenditure on fertility in western Europe. Demography, 47(2), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.....
11.
Kamerman, S.B. (2010). Child, family, and state: The relationship between family policy and social protection policy. In S.B. Kamerman, S. Phipps & A. Ben-Arieh (Eds.), From child welfare to child well-being (429–437). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90....
12.
Laenen, T. (2020). Theoretical framework: deservingness, policy feedback and policy responsiveness. In T. Laenen (Ed.), Welfare deservingness and welfare policy. Popular deservingness opinions and their interaction with welfare state policies (20–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/978183....
13.
Laenen, T. & Gugushvili, D. (2021). Are universal welfare policies really more popular than selective ones? A critical discussion of empirical research. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 49(9/10), 1134–1147. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-....
14.
Laenen, T., Rossetti, F., & van Oorschot, W. (2019). Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research: Comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(3), 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071....
15.
Magda, I., Brzeziński, M., Chłoń-Domińczak, A., Kotowska, I. E., Myck, M., Najsztub, M., & Tyrowicz, J. (2019). „Rodzina 500+” –ocena programu i propozycje zmian. Instytut Badań Strukturalnych. https://ibs.org.pl/publication....
17.
Meuleman, B., Roosma, F., & Abts, K. (2020). Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: The CARIN deservingness principles scale. Social Science Research, 85, 102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssre....
18.
Michoń, P. (2021). Deservingness for “Family 500+” benefit in Poland: Qualitative study of internet debates. Social Indicators Research, 157, 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205....
19.
Osipovič, D. (2015). Conceptualisations of welfare deservingness by Polish migrants in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 44(4), 729–746. https://doi.org/10.1017/s00472....
20.
Paradowski, P. R., Wolszczak-Derlacz, J., & Sierminska, E. (2020). Inequality, poverty and child benefits: Evidence from a natural experiment. LIS Working Paper Series, 799. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/2....
21.
Rahma, A., Mardiatno, D., & Rahmawati Hizbaron, D. (2020). Q methodology to determine distinguishing and consensus factors (a case study of university students’ ecoliteracy on disaster risk reduction). E3S Web of Conferences, 200, 01003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3scon....
22.
Ramlo, S. (2016). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868....
23.
Risdon, A., Eccleston, C., Crombez, G., & McCracken, L. (2003). How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain. Social Science & Medicine, 56(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-....
24.
Sandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J.A., & Vira, B. (2013). What do conservationists think about markets?. Geoforum, 50, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geof....
25.
Shemmings, D. (2006). “Quantifying” qualitative data: an illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychosocial research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1191/147808....
27.
Szarfenberg, R. (2019). Dwa lata Programu 500 Plus a ubóstwo rodzin i dzieci. In E. Osewska & J. Stala (Eds.), Rodzina w społeczeństwie – relacje i wyzwania (75–97). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Papieskiego Jana Pawła II w Krakowie. http://dx.doi.org/10.15633/978....
28.
Theiss, M. (2023). How does the content of deservingness criteria differ for more and less deserving target groups? An analysis of Polish online debates on refugees and families with children. Journal of Social Policy, 52(4), 962–980. https://doi.org/10.1017/s00472....
29.
van Exel, N.J.A. & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: a sneak preview. https://qmethod.org/portfolio/....
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557....
31.
van Oorschot, W. (2002). Targeting welfare: On the functions and dysfunctions of meanstesting in social policy. In P. Townsend & D. Gordon (Eds.), World poverty: new policies to defeat an old enemy (pp. 171–193). Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policy....
32.
van Oorschot, W. & Roosma, F. (2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness. In W. van Oorschot, F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, & T. Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness (3–35). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/978178....
33.
Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Theory, method and interpretation. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/978144....
34.
Zabala, A. (2014). qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-20....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| ISSN: | 1640-1808 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
