Deservedness & Unconditional Cash in Public Discourse: A Big Qual Analysis across 5 US States

Background and Purpose:

The US welfare state reflects a deservedness narrative based on market performance and adherence to restrictive social norms. Social welfare functions as a form of social control by stigmatizing individuals to engineer desirable behavior, thereby policing or shaming those struggling (Abramovitz, 2018). Safety net recipients often reflect these narratives (Seccombe, 1988). However, as inequality continues rising, experimentation with unconditional cash is garnering support across the political aisle and research indicates an emerging willingness to consider disentangling deservedness narratives from the safety net. Nonetheless, little data exists interrogating pejorative social constructions associated with those in a position to receive unconditional cash. Without it, social welfare runs the risk of re-engineering the safety net absent understanding voices most in need. This research begins addressing this gap through a Big Qual analysis from 5 US guaranteed income (GI) pilot sites. In it we ask: To what degree is unconditional cash interpreted differently than safety benefits?

Methods:

We recruited potential recipients into GI pilots in 5 US cities through a baseline survey with open-ended questions about deservedness and how they felt most people would use a recurring unconditional cash stipend. Participants were randomized into treatment or control after baseline. All randomized participants (N= 2,600) were included in this analysis. Open-ended responses were exported to Dedoose for a Big Qual thematic analysis following the first 4 of Braun & Clark’s (2010) stages, including crosstab, comparative analysis by site. Big qual references large scale qualitative datasets from more than 100 participants participating in a larger primary quantitative or mixed-methods design that is analyzed in across a large team of researchers, and often in a rapid inquiry format (Brower et. al, 2019).

Findings:

Contrary to narratives assuming those experiencing poverty lack rational economic action, these findings indicate a profound shift in how people viewed those in need. First, our analysis found that participants often believed guaranteed income recipients would spend the money “responsibly” on basic needs, housing expenses, bills, and debts, as well as, for saving as a bulwark against income shocks. Second, most believed people would spend it on either items or experiences that would increase time with their families. Third, unlike individualistic assumptions in our current safety net, most respondents presumed the presence of financial stress rather than the presence of irresponsibility along with the presumption that people were living interdependently. Finally, how respondents framed responses further indicated the potential of fracturing in our notions of deservedness. Rather than labeling others—many resisted the question by hedging their responses or refusing to make any assumptions about how people would use the money.

Conclusions and Implications:

These findings demonstrate a profound shift away from decades of science capturing the pejorative ways most assume US welfare recipients spend. While the racialized 1980s myth of the welfare queen still looms large, these data add to a growing body of work demonstrating that our assumptions about US poverty may finally disintegrate lending weight to current movements for organizing around policy and economic justice within social work.