S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION ISSN 0144–5596

DOI: 10.1111/spol.12094
VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015, PP. 316–334

Street-level Bureaucrats’ and the General Public’s

Deservingness Perceptions of Social Assistance Recipients
in Finland
Johanna Kallio and Antti Kouvo
Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Abstract
Perceptions of deservingness are crucial when we attempt to explain public support for welfare
policies or try to understand the development of modern welfare states. These perceptions also reveal
the status of a particular population group in society and the social cohesion between marginalized
groups and the general public. In this article, we are concerned about whether perceptions of the
deservingness of social assistance recipients vary between different street-level bureaucrat groups,
citizens and those individuals who have received social assistance or whose family members have
been recipients of social assistance at some stage of their life. We focus on the nature of the impact
of various individual level factors in these perceptions. The studied street-level bureaucrats are social
workers in municipalities, deacons of the Church of Finland and benefit officials of the Social
Security Institution of Finland. Two nationwide surveys among street-level bureaucrats (N =
2,124) and citizens (N = 1,883) are used. Descriptive statistics and rank ordered logistic regression
are utilized. According to the results, street-level bureaucrats and the general public perceive social
assistance recipients in quite a positive way. However, there are clear differences between and within
these groups. Street-level bureaucrats’ attitudes towards social assistance recipients are more positive
than those among the public. However, benefit officials have a more critical stance on the
deservingness of social assistance recipients than social workers and deacons. Those who have
received social assistance are more positive than those who have not had these experiences. Age,
education and political identification further explain the attitudes of bureaucrats and citizens.

Keywords
Social perceptions; Welfare attitudes; Deservingness; Social assistance recipients; Street-level
bureaucrats; Finland

Introduction
Perceptions of deservingness are crucial when we seek to explain public
support for welfare policies or understand the development of modern welfare
states (Larsen 2006). One may encounter questions about who is deserving of

Author Emails: jomkall@utu.fi; antti.kouvo@utu.fi

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

help in early legislation of the 19th century, as well as in the general historical
development of social policy (Van Oorschot 2000; Skocpol 1992).
Deservingness perceptions reveal the status of a particular population group
in society and the social cohesion between marginalized groups and the
general public. Whether one is seen as deserving of assistance may differ
markedly between different social groups (Van Oorschot 2000). On the other
hand, there are also differences regarding deservingness between different
types of welfare states (Larsen 2006).
From the point of view of welfare state redistribution, the question is about
who should get what and why. People are more willing to distribute resources
to the poor and provide financial support to social assistance schemes when the
target group is perceived to be deserving (Petersen et al. 2011; Kangas 2003;
Applebaum 2001). On the basis of previous research, Van Oorschot (2000) has
suggested five criteria of deservingness: need, control, identity, attitude and reciprocity.
Need is understood here as the degree of neediness, which again has an impact
on the level of support people are willing to offer to that group. In other words,
the greater the need, the higher the level of deservingness. Control refers to the
degree that those in need are seen as personally responsible for their life
situation. The more control the person has over his or her personal situation,
the less deserving he or she is thought to be. Identity is associated with the
proximity of those who provide support to those who need to be supported.
Those belonging to the in-group are often seen as more deserving than the
members of the out-group. Attitude refers to the docility or gratefulness of the
needy. The more compliant they are, the more deserving the needy are viewed
as being. Reciprocity is related to how the group to be helped has or will
contribute to society. The more reciprocating it is, the more deserving the
group is seen to be.
For example, according to the criteria presented above, the elderly are
often seen as one of the most deserving groups, as they are seen as not being
responsible for their needy situation because ageing could be seen as a phe-
nomenon that is beyond the control of an individual. Pensioners are also
often viewed as belonging to ‘us’ (identity), undemanding (attitude) and
having given proof of their worth to society during their active working
life (reciprocity). Moreover, certain groups such as the unemployed and
immigrants do not score as highly in these criteria (Van Oorschot 2000).
Immigrants, for example, are not necessarily seen as belonging to our imag-
ined community (identity) and, because they are newcomers, people may
doubt whether they have contributed to society or will do so in the future
(reciprocity).
The explanations of deservingness have been thus far been mostly based on
membership of certain socio-economic or demographic groups in society.
Comparisons between the deservingness of different needy groups have
indeed provided us with plenty of information regarding the logic of
deservingness criteria. However, this technique has only allowed us to
approach the deservingness criteria indirectly and has also often excluded some
deservingness criteria from the analyses (Van Oorschot 2008; Larsen 2006).
Moreover, we have a limited amount of information on the differences between
the public’s and bureaucrats’ perceptions of deservingness. It is reasonable to
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 317
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

expect that different experiences of, and stances on, the situation of the needy
group may have a vast impact on the shape of these perceptions.
Our aim is to analyze street-level bureaucrats’ and the general public’s
perceptions of social assistance recipients in Finland. Social assistance is the
last-resort form of financial support in the social security system and is part of
the municipal welfare services in Finland. Social assistance is a means-tested
benefit for individuals who cannot provide income for themselves and is thus
very strongly connected with the rhetoric of moral deservingness. Focusing on
a single group of means-tested benefit recipients sheds some light on the
different criteria of deservingness applied to one target group instead of
comparing different groups. In this article, we are also interested in whether
these perceptions vary between distinct street-level bureaucrat groups, citizens
and those individuals who have received social assistance or whose family
members have been recipients of social assistance at some stage of their life. In
addition, we focus on the nature of the impact of various individual level
factors in the perceptions of social assistance recipients.

Social Perceptions among Street-level Bureaucrats

and Citizens
The welfare state partly manifests itself to people through street-level bureau-
crats, who are in direct contact with citizens. Different forms of social security
and financial assistance are administered by bureaucrats who are able to make
decisions, select clients and use means testing independently. Further, street-
level bureaucrats have an impact on the direction the social policy defined by
legislation will take in practice, and thus have a major role in the implemen-
tation process (Evans 2010; Lipsky 1980).
Street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of the disadvantaged might have an
impact on how they provide services, whom they help most actively, how they
react to their customers in different situations and which social policy pro-
grammes they promote. In other words, attitudes are known to affect the
implementation processes of bureaucrats (Weiss 2003; Keiser 1999).
Because of the discretionary powers of the bureaucrats, these perceptions
may also influence the accessibility of welfare services and benefits. If there are
great attitudinal differences within a given bureaucrat group, consistency of
provision of support across services or benefits may be threatened.
Social workers in municipalities, deacons of the Church of Finland and
benefit officials of the Social Security Institution of Finland (Finnish acronym,
Kela) differ from each other regarding their educational and professional back-
ground, power of discretion, form of financial help administered and exposure to margin-
alized groups in society. Selected bureaucrats are professionally different, but
they all, nonetheless, work at the street-level and use their own discretion
concerning financial help. Social workers and deacons represent professions
whose members have an extensive professional education in the social sci-
ences (social workers on a more theoretical level and deacons on a more
practical level) and must meet clear professional competence require-
ments. They share a professional identity, have their own labour unions, and
share core professional values and ethical guidelines. In addition, deacons’

318 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

work has become closer to the work of social workers, and the status of the
Finnish Church is nowadays more crucial concerning anti-poverty policies
(Kuivalainen and Niemelä 2010). In recent years, it has become evident that
the work of deacons makes up for the shortcomings of official social security
and has become an institutionalized form of charity in the Finnish welfare
state (Pyykkö 2011).
At the same time, the Kela officials cannot be seen as a professional group,
as they have, for example, very diverse educational backgrounds and are
subject to no clear professional competency requirements. Most of them have
had a vocational education, whereas qualified social workers in Finland have
a master’s degree, and deacons have a bachelor’s degree, which provides a
possible reason for our assumption that there is variation in their perceptions.
Previous studies have pointed out that education is one of the most important
factors when we try to understand citizens’ and bureaucrats’ welfare attitudes
(Kallio et al. 2013; Kangas and Sikiö 1996).
In addition, social workers and deacons have more discretionary power
than officials in Kela. Social workers represent professional bureaucrats
(Evans 2010), while the work and status of Kela officials are found to be
reminiscent of those of Weber’s (1947) classic bureaucrats in this research.
Kela officials’ work is highly regulated by legislation and decision procedures,
and they have less space and power to make independent decisions on finan-
cial help than, for example, social workers in the municipalities.
The selected bureaucrats work with different kinds of financial help and are
employees in both the public and the voluntary sectors. Kela represents the
primary source of social security and provides some of the universal benefits
of the Finnish welfare state. It is a resource for all citizens, and thus it also
provides financial help to people who are not marginalized. Kela benefit
officials differ from social workers and deacons as, instead of social welfare,
they deal more with issues of primary social security. However, there has been
public discussion that social assistance (particularly its basic part) should be a
part of Kela’s benefits and not part of Finnish municipal services, because this
could standardize the treatment of recipients between the different munici-
palities. All in all, the selected bureaucrats represent very different forms of
financial help in the welfare state, and these forms, which draw on different
criteria, are called universal, means-tested and voluntary. These forms and their
criteria come theoretically close to the deservingness literature, and thus also
to the research questions of this article.
Social workers in the municipalities act with income schemes of last resort,
and their work is partly based on means testing (chiefly social assistance and
its supplementary and preventive parts). Social workers operate most closely
with recipients of social assistance, as this is a part of the social services of
Finnish municipalities. The customers of the social work services are disad-
vantaged by being in a situation there the primary level of social security is not
sufficient to secure their living conditions. Their connection to the labour
market is usually weak and thus most of them live in deep poverty. Whilst
municipal social workers act as gate-keepers of the means-tested welfare
system in Finland, their work is also based on control, since to be a recipient
of social work services is often involuntary.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 319
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

The financial help of deacons primarily affects those in the most vulnerable
position in society who have not been helped (enough) by the official ‘actors’
of the Finnish welfare state. The work of deacons involves extreme selectivity
and it has been described as the last ‘trap’ of social welfare in Finland. In our
study, deacons represent the street-level bureaucrats of the volunteer sector
whose work is less regulated by legislation (see, also, Suyoung 2013). Conse-
quently, deacons are able to make decisions on financial help more indepen-
dently than actors in the public sector. Acceptance of the social services
provided by the Church is voluntary and there is no subjective right to receive
help as there is in the case of social assistance in the public sector. However,
deacons have a responsibility to give concrete and spiritual help to those who
are in need. Most deacons perceive their work in a very religious way: the core
is comprehensive Christian help and a desire to spread the gospel in a
concrete manner. Therefore, concrete help and pastoral care are combined in
their work (Pyykkö 2011). This confessional professional identity supports the
assumption that selected bureaucrat groups differ from each other where
social perceptions are concerned. Deacons work closely with the recipients of
social assistance. About one-third of the clients of deacons receive social
assistance, and/or most of them have received it in the near past (Kainulainen
et al. 2009: 188).
We also assume that there are variations in the perceptions of the general
public and street-level bureaucrats. This variation can be understood with
reference to exposure and professional education. Due to the nature of their training
and their work with marginalized groups, street-level bureaucrats, social
workers and deacons, in particular, will see welfare recipients as more deserv-
ing than citizens who do not necessarily have direct contact with the poor or
excluded (Weiss-Gal et al. 2009; Weiss and Gal 2007). This might also suggest
that the variation in perceptions between bureaucrats (especially among social
workers and deacons) and welfare service users is minor. This possibility is
based on the assumption that both groups interact within the same social
services environment and address the issues associated with poverty on a daily
basis (Weiss-Gal et al. 2009: 127).
It is difficult to determine how the perceptions of those with experience of
social assistance differ from the perceptions of other citizens and street-level
bureaucrats. Studies have suggested that the poor and the welfare recipients
protect their positive social identity by disassociating themselves from
in-group members by having a negative attitude towards them (Landmane
and Renge 2010: 47). Those recipients who attributed their own economic
hardship to structural causes used individual attributes to explain why others
received social assistance (Coley et al. 2000). They doubt the integrity of other
recipients, which sharply contrasts with their positive attitudes toward the
welfare system (Bullock 2004: 585).
However, there are also studies which indicate that social assistance recipi-
ents, their children and those with major economic difficulties have a more
positive view (not lazy, and genuinely in need) of welfare clients and the poor
in general (Lepianka 2007; Kangas and Sikiö 1996). A possible explanation for
their positive perceptions is the competition for scarce resources, which
encourages those in marginal positions to support the deservingness of

320 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

in-group members to give them a competitive advantage towards other

welfare groups, such as pensioners, the sick and the disabled (Jeene et al. 2013:
1106). According to the literature on general welfare-state attitudes, this link
can be explained by personal interest. Further, the connection between per-
sonal economic hardship/welfare dependence and more emphatic views
towards marginalized groups can be explained by the capacity to identify and
understand the situation of social assistance clients.
The study by Kangas and Sikiö (1996: 129) indicates that citizens’ attitudes
towards social assistance recipients are ambivalent. Citizens perceive that
recipients are truly in need of financial help, but suspect that individuals use
insincere means to get social assistance. In addition, most of the Finnish
population supports the argument that most of those who need social assis-
tance do not apply for it. The majority also perceive that welfare recipients are
excluded from a normal way of life. This can also be the case with street-
level bureaucrats as the recipients of social assistance are indeed a very
heterogeneous group of people, which makes ambivalent perceptions logically
possible.
There is no previous research available where perceptions of social assis-
tance recipients are compared between citizens and different bureaucrats
groups. Therefore, although our study focuses on Finland, it might also
provide some more general results on the differences between these groups.
There are, however, studies that deal separately with social workers’ and Kela
officials’ perceptions of the causes of poverty and their attitudes towards the
unemployed (Blomberg et al. 2013; Kallio et al. 2013; Niemelä 2010). Previous
findings suggest that only a minority of social workers and Kela officials
support the belief that individuals are responsible for their own poverty.
Further, the attitudes of social workers do not correspond with a more indi-
vidualistic view on unemployment. Still, Kela officials are more critical
towards marginalized groups and place more blame on such groups than
social workers.

Determinants of Perceptions at the Individual Level

One reason for variations in attitudes towards the recipients of social assis-
tance could be related to individual factors like people’s socio-economic position or
ideological orientation (Jaeger 2006). The socio-economic characteristics that we
examine here are gender, age and level of education, while ideological orien-
tation is measured by political identification.
Gender reflecting diverging normative views and interests between men and
women concerning social security is, in many cases, associated with opinions
and perceptions related to welfare and social problems (Linos and West 2003;
Svallfors 2003; Andreß and Heien 2001). The Finnish study has pointed out
that women are more empathic towards the recipients of social assistance,
while men more often question the need for help and the honesty of the
recipients (Kangas and Sikiö 1996). Further, men and male workers in social
welfare tend to favour individual explanations for social problems (such as
poverty or unemployment) to a greater extent than females or female profes-
sionals (Blomberg et al. 2013; Kallio et al. 2013; Niemelä 2010).
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 321
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Age could be of major importance for citizens’ and street-level bureaucrats’

perceptions and preferences related to the welfare state and thus also to
deservingness (Jeene et al. 2013; Furåker and Blomsterberg 2003; Van
Oorschot 2000). The study by Kangas and Sikiö (1996) showed that younger
people perceive welfare recipients more positively than their older counter-
parts in Finland. Compared to older generations, the young are not as likely
to see the recipients as people excluded from a normal way of life. Older
people possibly see reliance on social welfare as something to be ashamed of,
while younger people see this more as a social right.
Further, we argue that age explains the attitudes of street-level bureaucrats,
but in an opposite way, as studies of social workers have pointed out that those
who are younger and have less work experience perceive the poor more
negatively (Blomberg et al. 2013; Rehner et al. 1997). This may be explained by
the theory of exposure and the personal professionalization process. Personal
interaction with the marginalized groups strengthens the development of
positive emotions and empathy, increases knowledge and thus decreases ste-
reotypical thinking towards, for instance, the clients of social assistance (Lee
et al. 2004; Rehner et al. 1997). The age of welfare workers correlates strongly
with the number of years in an occupation, which can be seen as an indicator
of personal professionalization, particularly among social workers and deacons.
In this case, gaining experience during the course of a career is an essential
source of professional competence and knowledge (Dellgran and Höjer 2005).
It is possible that unprofessional behaviour and attitudes (such as placing blame
on individual clients) decrease as the number of years in the job increases. Of
course, the perceptions of bureaucrats in relation to welfare might be explained
by the generational effect, since they entered the labour market in a very
different period and have thus been socialized into different views and values
concerning social policy. Young social workers, for example, may be more in
favour of the ideas of activation and privatization, such as individual respon-
sibility, than those professionals who entered the labour market in the ‘golden
years’ of the welfare state (Van Aerschot 2011; Dellgran and Höjer 2005).
Level of education also has an influence on attitudes towards the marginalized
groups of society among the general public and street-level bureaucrats
(Kallio et al. 2013; Niemelä 2010). The Finnish study of the general public has
pointed out that the highly educated have more positive and empathetic
attitudes towards social assistance recipients. They generally perceive that the
recipients are needy and do not use dishonest means to obtain benefits. Those
with only a basic education are the most the critical towards social assistance
recipients. Their attitudes towards recipients are noted to be very strict, as
they often see recipients as lazy and dishonest (Kangas and Sikiö 1996:
116–117). Further, those social workers who have a master’s degree in social
work support the idea of structural causes of social problems and are more
empathetic towards welfare clients and the unemployed than those welfare
workers with a lower educational background (Blomberg et al. 2013; Kallio
et al. 2013; Reingold and Liu 2009). It is suggested that a university degree
(particularly in social sciences) may increase understanding about social pro-
cesses and encourage people to be socialized to egalitarian values (Linos and
West 2003).

322 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

The essential factor for understanding individuals’ attitudes towards the

disadvantaged and their deservingness is political identification, which measures
ideological orientation and social values in general (Jeene et al. 2013; Lepianka
2007; Jaeger 2006). Individuals from the political left have been seen to be
more egalitarian and to support smaller income differences, whereas those
from the political right tend to be more meritocratic and sceptical towards
redistribution or governmental interference. Moreover, previous findings
suggest that people from the political left support universalism, while support-
ers of the political right prefer selectivism, which is closely connected with
deservingness rhetoric (Larsen 2006; Jaeger 2006; Kangas 1995). For this
reason, it is very likely that the perceptions of marginalized groups are also
closely associated with political identification. Studies among Anglo-Saxon
professional social workers and social work students have noted that left-wing
and moderate liberals have more positive attitudes towards the poor than do
right-wingers and moderate conservatives (Weiss et al. 2002; Rehner et al.
1997). This has also been found among the general public in Europe: people
who attribute poverty to structural causes tend to be left-leaning in their
political sympathies (Lepianka 2007).

Research Questions, Data and Methods

This article aims to increase our knowledge on the following questions:

1. How do the general public, those who have experience of social assistance
and street-level bureaucrats perceive social assistance recipients? How
deserving of help are they seen to be?
2. Are there variations in perceptions between the general public, those with
experience of social assistance and street-level bureaucrats? Do different
bureaucrat groups differ from each other in their perceptions?
3. What factors, if any, seem to determine variations in attitudes on the
individual level?

Two nationwide surveys among street-level bureaucrats (N = 2,124) and

citizens (N = 1,883) are utilized. The street-level bureaucrat survey was under-
taken in the autumn of 2011. All social workers who were trade union members
of the Union of Professional Social Workers and had an email address (circa 70
per cent of the members) were sent an electronic questionnaire. The effective
sample size of the survey concerning social workers consisted of about 1,600,
and 530 respondents filled in the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 33 per
cent.1 The electronic questionnaire was sent to deacons via the central admin-
istration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. The survey reached
all (1,240) diaconal workers who were working on behalf of the Church at that
time. The response rate was 57 per cent (N = 707). In comparison with the
official statistics concerning Church employees, the deacon survey appears to
be highly representative regarding the socio-economic and demographic char-
acteristics of the population (Kiiski 2013: 15–19). In Kela, the electronic ques-
tionnaires were sent by email to randomly chosen officials who worked in Kela’s
local offices and whose job title was customer secretary, insurance secretary or
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 323
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

customer adviser. The sample was drawn from the employee register of Kela.
The sample size was 1,500, and 887 respondents filled in the electronic ques-
tionnaire, giving a response rate of 60 per cent.
The WEBE survey is a nationally representative sample of almost 2,000
Finnish speaking mainland Finns and includes numerous indicators of well-
being and the correlates thereof. It is the first survey in Finland in which
well-being experiences are monitored in such a detailed manner. The data
was gathered during spring 2012 through a postal survey, and the overall
response rate was 38 per cent (N = 1,883). The data appear to be relatively
representative as far as geographic, socio-economic and demographic distri-
bution is concerned. However, the weight variable (age and gender) was also
constructed to correct slight demographic biases in the representativeness
(Kainulainen and Saari 2013). We apply the weight variable when presenting
descriptive statistics. In multivariate models, age and gender are included as
control variables in order to avoid possible biases in the parameters that the
weighting of the data might have caused.
The exact wording of the chosen statements was as follows:

1. Most of those who receive social assistance are really in need of it

(deservingness criteria: level of need ).
2. Most of those who receive social assistance are lazy and they lack the
willpower to solve their problems (control over neediness).
3. The recipient of social assistance can be any one of us whose economic
situation has unexpectedly weakened (identity).
4. Recipients of social assistance should be grateful to society for the benefits
they receive (attitude).2
5. Most of those who receive social assistance have participated in, or will
participate in financing the welfare state (reciprocity).

The response categories were strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. For the purposes of multivariate
analyses we coded the responses into three categories:

1. strongly disagree, disagree;

2. neither disagree nor agree; and
3. strongly agree or agree.

The chosen wording of the items is based on earlier studies on the related
topics (e.g. Larsen 2006; Kangas and Sikiö 1996). Since our study focuses on
perceptions of deservingness regarding a single needy group for the first time,
these statements have not been used in previous questionnaires as such. Before
preparing the final versions, people from different higher educational institu-
tions tested the items and also professionals from different fields of social
sciences commented on them.
Our analysis is built around five independent variables: age, gender, edu-
cational level, political identification, and status of respondent (citizen, a
person who has experience of social assistance and/or social worker, deacon,
benefit official).

324 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

In addition to descriptive statistics, we apply rank ordered logistic regres-

sion in order to explain how different explanatory factors are associated with
perceptions of deservingness. Rank ordered logistic regression is suitable for
our purposes in which the dependent variable is categorical with an ordinal
scale (Long and Freese 2005: 4).

Results
The findings of the descriptive analysis indicate that social assistance recipi-
ents in Finland are seen as quite a deserving group (see table 1). Contrary to
earlier research, social workers’ and deacons’ attitudes towards welfare recipi-
ents are not ambivalent. They perceive recipients as needy, but not as lazy.
However, citizens’ and benefit officials’ perceptions are rather contradictory.
The results suggest that there are clear differences between the general
public and street-level bureaucrats, but differences are present also within
these groups (see also Blomberg et al. 2013; Kangas and Sikiö 1996). Social
workers’ and deacons’ attitudes are rather similar, while benefit officials are
more critical towards welfare recipients. Perceptions between the general
public and those who have experience of social welfare differ from each other,
particularly when need, identity and reciprocity are focused on. In line with
our assumption, those with experience of social assistance perceive social
assistance clients as more deserving than others who have not had such
experience.
Next the detailed findings of our descriptive analyses are reported. Those
who have received (or who have a family member who has received) social
assistance at some stage in their life perceive more often (76 per cent) than
other citizens (70 per cent) that welfare recipients are really in need. Street-
level bureaucrats often believe that assistance goes to those in need. More than
95 per cent of social workers and deacons perceive recipients of social assis-
tance to be in need, while only 85 per cent of benefit officials think the same.
Around one-third of the general public, with or without experience of social
assistance believes that assistance recipients are lazy and lack willpower.
Blaming marginalized groups attitudes seems to be a stable stance among
Finnish citizens, as in the data collected in the mid-2000s (Niemelä 2008)
roughly the same number of Finns saw poverty as being caused by individuals.
Approaching one-third of benefit officials support this statement, therefore
differences between them and the general public are minor. Findings clearly
suggest, however, that only a minority of social workers (7 per cent) and
deacons (11 per cent) blame welfare recipients for being lazy (see, also,
Blomberg et al. 2013).
Those most critical in their identification of benefit recipients are members
of the general public without experience of social assistance (79 per cent), as
well as benefit officials (89 per cent). More than 90 per cent of social workers,
deacons and those who have had experience of welfare agree with the state-
ment that the recipients of social assistance can be any one of us whose
economic situation has unexpectedly weakened. The findings suggest that
there are major differences of opinion when the criterion of attitude is con-
cerned. The general public (67 per cent) and those with experience of social
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 325
326
Table 1

Attitudes towards deservingness, professional positions and experience of social assistance (%)

% Need: Control: Identity: Attitude: Reciprocity:

Most of those who receive social Most of those who receive social The recipient of social assistance The recipients of social assistance Most of those who receive social
assistance are really in need of it assistance are lazy and they have low can be any one of us whose economic should be grateful to society assistance have participated or will
willpower to solve their problems situation has unexpectedly weakened for the benefits they receive participate in financing the welfare state

Agree Neither agree Disagree Agree Neither agree Disagree Agree Neither agree Disagree Agree Neither agree Disagree Agree Neither agree Disagree
nor disagree nor disagree nor disagree nor disagree nor disagree

Public sample
Public: no experience 70.3 11.0 18.7 36.0 20.1 43.3 78.6 12.4 9.0 66.8 21.3 12.0 38.0 36.1 25.9
(N = 1,206)
Public: experience 76.3 6.1 17.7 35.4 17.1 47.5 91.0 2.3 6.7 63.3 23.8 13.0 49.9 32.2 17.9
(N = 638)
P *** ns. *** ns. ***
Professional sample
Social worker 96.0 1.5 2.5 7.2 9.9 83.0 93.8 2.3 4.0 24.3 29.8 46.0 61.9 20.3 17.8
(N = 530)
Deacon (N = 707) 97.6 1.1 1.3 11.1 15.5 73.4 94.6 2.0 3.4 32.1 32.2 35.7 56.6 24.2 19.2
Benefit official 85.2 5.8 9.0 28.0 20.1 51.2 88.9 4.1 7.0 51.2 28.0 20.9 46.4 28.6 25.1
(N = 887)
P *** *** *** *** ***
S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Notes: Pearson χ2 tests: *** = p < 0.001; ** = p > 0.01; * = p > 0.05; ns. = no significance.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

assistance (63 per cent) perceive gratitude as a requirement in a very similar

way. The differences within the street-level bureaucrat group are clear.
Approximately every second benefit official agrees that recipients should be
grateful, whereas only about 25 per cent of social workers and just over 30 per
cent of deacons support the statement. An interesting detail is that social
workers demand that welfare recipients should be grateful more often than
other risk groups such as the unemployed (Kallio et al. 2013: 224).
Approaching 40 per cent of the general public perceive that most of those
who receive social assistance have participated, or will participate, in financ-
ing the welfare state, while approaching 50 per cent of those who have had
experience of social assistance agree with this reciprocity statement. Those
who come the closest to this opinion level are benefit officials (46 per cent).
Social workers (62 per cent) and deacons (57 per cent) perceive more often
than others that social assistance recipients also make an input into the welfare
state. Support for this statement could be stronger when we compare these
numbers with those who support the identity indicator. There is a clear
paradox in thinking that recipients can be any one of us, but nonetheless
believing that these recipients do not make an input into the welfare system.
It is also noteworthy that some statements seem to be more difficult to gauge
than others. These difficulties are posed especially with the items on attitude
and reciprocity, where the percentage of those choosing the category ‘neither
agree nor disagree’ is relatively high. The control item seems to gather more
neutral answers from Kela officials than from other professional groups.
Moreover, social distance might play a role among the general public, since the
statement concerning identity seems to be considerably more difficult to answer
for those without any experience of social assistance than for others.
According to our multivariate analyses, women members of the general
public perceive recipients of social assistance as more deserving than men do
(see, also, Niemelä 2008; Kangas and Sikiö 1996) (see tables 2 and 3). The
difference between males and females is only statistically insignificant in the
case of reciprocity. On the other hand, gender does not explain perceptions of
deservingness in the street-level bureaucrat sample, even though earlier
research on social workers’ perceptions of the causes of social problems has
argued that men support individual blame slightly more than women
(Blomberg et al. 2013; Sun 2001; Jones 1994).
Our results suggest that older street-level bureaucrats perceive welfare
recipients as more deserving than the younger age group (Kallio et al. 2013;
Sun 2001; Rehner et al. 1997). The differences between the age groups are
most noteworthy when identity and attitude criteria are in focus. The picture
is different where the general public are concerned. The older generation
seem to perceive social assistance recipients as being more deserving than the
younger generation. However, age alone does not explain general public’s
attitudes when need and identity criteria are analyzed.
Education explains attitudes to deservingness in both samples (see, also,
Kangas Sikiö 1996; Niemelä 2010). Those who have at least tertiary education
perceive welfare recipients more positively than those who have no more
than secondary education. Education is particularly associated with the
control criterion. The better educated less often perceive that social assistance
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 327
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Table 2

Public attitudes towards deservingness with experience of social assistance; ordered logistic
regression models, odds ratios presented (standard errors in italics)

Need Control Identity Attitude Reciprocity

I II I II I II I II I II

Age (ref. -35)

36–50 1.08 1.21 .69** .60*** .77 .82 .63*** .59*** 1.07 1.12
.16 .18 .09 .08 .14 .15 .09 .09 .13 .14
51– 1.16 1.36* .51*** .44*** .93 1.10 .34*** .31*** 1.39*** 1.56***
.16 .19 .06 .05 .16 .20 .05 .04 .16 .18
Gender (ref. male)
Female 1.25* 1.25* .61*** .60*** 1.92*** 1.87*** .68*** .68*** 1.05 1.03
.13 .14 .06 .06 .25 .25 .07 .07 .09 .10
Education (ref. secondary or less)
Tertiary 1.24* 1.40** .48*** .44*** 1.01 1.15 1.08 .99 1.25* 1.37**
.15 .17 .05 .05 .14 .17 .12 .11 .12 .14
Social assistance (ref. yes)
No .71** 1.18 0.48*** 1.22 .66***
.09 .12 .08 .13 .06
Ideology (ref. left)
Centre .63** 2.22*** .58* 1.90*** .53***
.11 .31 .13 .26 .07
Right .39*** 3.27*** .44*** 2.89*** .43***
.07 .49 .10 .43 .06
/cut 1 −1.23 −1.91 −1.03 −.28 −2.22 −3.19 −2.66 −2.01 −1.00 −1.82
.13 .21 .12 .17 .17 .28 .15 .18 .11 .17
/cut 2 −.69 −1.36 −.18 .60 1.44 −2.41 −1.35 −.63 .53 −.25
.13 .20 .12 .17 .16 .26 .14 .18 .11 .16

Notes: *** = p < 0.001; ** = p > 0.01; * = p > 0.05.

recipients are lazy and lack willpower. In neither sample is the variation in
attitude and identity criteria explained by education. In the street-level
bureaucrat sample, the statistically significant differences become weaker or
disappear when a profession is introduced into the model. This can be under-
stood by the fact that profession and education strongly correlate.
Political ideology seems to have an effect on perceptions of deservingness.
Those citizens identifying themselves with the political left see social assistance
recipients as generally more deserving. Among professionals, however, the
left-right continuum seems to only have a significant importance when
explaining the control and attitude criteria. It is possible that the differences
between public and professional samples are associated with the different
ideology measures available.
Experience of social assistance predicts citizens’ perceptions of deservingness
when explaining the need, identity and reciprocity criteria. In the professional
sample, the differences between professional groups also matter, but these
differences are the weakest when explaining the identity criterion. To sum up,

328 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Table 3

Professionals’ attitudes towards deservingness; ordered logistic regression models, odds ratios
presented (standard errors in italics)

Need Control Identity Attitude Reciprocity

I II I II I II I II I II

Age (ref. -35)

36–50 1.58* 1.13 .57*** .72* 1.29 1.13 .51*** .60*** 1.40** 1.29*
.37 .27 .07 .19 .28 .25 .06 .07 .17 .16
51– 1.99** 1.26 .43*** .60*** 2.00** 1.65* .29*** .37*** 1.83*** 1.63***
.49 .32 .06 .09 .48 .40 .04 .05 .23 .21
Gender (ref. male)
Female .92 .82 .88 .92 .84 .85 .87 .91 .80 .77
.30 .28 .16 .17 .27 .21 .14 .14 .13 .13
Education (ref. secondary or less)
Tertiary 2.35*** 1.41 .46*** .77* 1.22 1.02 .69*** 1.12 1.48*** 1.22
.42 .31 .05 .09 .22 .21 .06 .12 .14 .13
Professional group (ref. soc. worker)
Deacon 2.07* 1.32** 1.26 1.20** 1.01
.76 .22 .36 .19 .13
Benefit official .39*** 3.52*** 0.60* 3.14*** .72**
.11 .54 .15 .40 .09
Ideology (ref. left*)
No information .42*** 1.82*** .69 1.37* .78*
.10 .26 .18 .17 .10
Other party 39** 2.04*** .87 1.69** .63**
.12 .40 .31 .31 .11
Green league 1.01 .93 .67 1.12 1.21
.43 .20 .22 .18 .21
Chr. Dem. 1.04 1.74** .72 1.88*** .71
.53 .35 .26 .31 .12
Centre party .93 1.43* .82 1.05 .92
.32 .24 25 .15 .13
National coalition .58 2.19*** .60 1.72*** .71*
.18 .39 18 .28 .11
/cut 1 −2.30 −3.36 −.40 1.22 −2.64 −3.29 −1.89 −.59 −.95 −1.49
.38 .48 .21 .28 .38 .49 .19 .24 .20 .26
/cut 2 −1.76 −2.82 .53 2.21 −2.16 −2.82 −.60 .76 .23 −.29
.37 .47 .21 .29 .37 .49 .19 .25 .20 .25

Notes: *** = p < 0.001; ** = p > 0.01; * = p > 0.05.

close experience with social assistance recipients – in private life or in a

professional capacity – predicts the perceptions of deservingness when various
alternative explanatory sources are included in the model. We discuss the
implications of this finding in our concluding section.
Discussion
Street-level bureaucrats and the general public perceive social assistance
recipients in a rather positive way and, therefore, see them as deserving
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 329
 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

collectively organized financial help. However, there are clear differences

between and within these groups. Street-level bureaucrats’ attitudes towards
welfare recipients are more positive than those among the public. Further,
Kela benefit officials have a more critical stance on the deservingness of social
assistance recipients than social workers and deacons. In addition, those who
have received social assistance are more positive than those who (or whose
family members) have not had this experience.
The findings suggest that the legitimacy of social assistance is quite strong,
as its recipients are seen as deserving. In particular, the legitimacy of social
assistance is strong among social workers who are working closely with the
recipients. The results give us reason to be sceptical about plans to transfer the
responsibility for social assistance to Kela because its benefit officials still
blame recipients for their situation.3 The results also give us cause to think
more critically about the general ongoing process of welfare services in
Finland and elsewhere where responsibilities and tasks are directed to new
groups of bureaucrats, such as caseworkers and service advisers, who have no
academic education or professional qualifications in social work (Healy and
Meagher 2004). This development is problematic also in the light of previous
research from various countries, which suggests that frontline workers without
an academic degree perceive clients in a more critical manner and have a
higher proportion of unprofessional responses than bureaucrats with an aca-
demic degree in social work (e.g. Kallio et al. 2013; Blomberg et al. 2013; Holm
2002).
We assume that educational background, exposure and general attitudinal
climate help us to understand the more critical perceptions of Kela benefit
officials. When interpreting Kela officials’ perceptions, we must remember
that their educational qualifications differ from those of the other two profes-
sional groups. Most of the officials have not received an education in the social
sciences, nor do they have a university degree. This might explain our results,
since earlier research has pointed out that educational background is one of
the most essential factors explaining the general public’s or bureaucrats’ social
perceptions. Kela officials also have fewer contacts with social assistance
recipients, which leads us to assume that officials base their perception on
stereotypes and general images of social assistance recipients. In addition,
according to the Finnish study of Niemelä (2010), the perceptions among Kela
officials are very homogenous, with length of experience in the job causing
little or no variation in their views of the poor. This result could indicate that
the attitudinal climate in Kela is slightly more critical than in other bureau-
cracies and that socialization to this climate might happen quite rapidly.
The difference in views between those who have experience of social
assistance and those who do not might be explained by self-interest, self-
respect and the ability to understand the living conditions of social assistance
recipients. Earlier research on this theme has provided us with mixed results.
It has been argued that recipients can have rather strict attitudes towards
in-group members, because of an aim to protect their social identity, while
other studies have produced opposite results (Landmane and Renge 2010;
Coley et al. 2000; Kangas and Sikiö 1996). Our results are in line with those
studies where recipients’ in-group attitudes are positive. This might partly be

330 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

explained by the fact that we focused on those who had had experiences of
social assistance at some stage of their life (e.g. a family member being a
claimant). The results might have been different if we had focused on a
comparison between those who are currently recipients and those who are
not. This is something which should be focused on in the future.
It is interesting that political identification is also strongly linked to percep-
tions of a more homogeneous group, for example, street-level bureaucrats. It
seems that political ideology impacts intensively on the way citizens process
social issues. In other words, an ideology gives some kind of frame through
which to perceive and evaluate society. The previous research has, indeed,
pointed out that political identification explains both concrete social policy
attitudes and quite abstract social perceptions such as those of the causes of
poverty (Lepianka 2007; Jaeger 2006).
The findings give us reason to question the utility of the notion of street-
level bureaucrats introduced by Lipsky (1980). The results suggest that the use
of such a broad category has noteworthy limitations in terms of analyzing the
perceptions of frontline workers because those with a professional background
have distinct perceptions of deservingness compared to those with a non-
professional background. The division between professional and non-
professional bureaucrats introduced by Evans (2010) is thus more applicable at
least in terms of research into attitudes.
As is often the case when new kinds of measures for social phenomena are
created, there are also some limitations in this study. Although the chosen
framing of our dependent variables is, to a great extent, based on earlier
studies, different framings should be tested in future studies. It is also impos-
sible to say whether the results derived from the analysis of social assistance
recipients are generalizable to other marginal groups in society, as there are
currently no such studies that illuminate this possibility.
Overall, in the future there will continue to be a need to study perception
differences among different street-level workers in order to better understand
the mechanisms that produce different ways of perceiving social problems,
disadvantaged groups and social policy programmes. It is essential to compare
the attitudes of street-level workers to those of the managers of social security
and welfare services if we are to be able to focus more deeply on attitude
formation processes and how, for example, the status of the professionals and
their exposure to social security clients are part of that process.

Acknowledgements
This study was part-funded by the Academy of Finland (grant SA/252317).

Notes
1. As there is no official professional register concerning social workers in Finland, this
was the only manner in which to conduct the survey. During the period when our
data was gathered, the general trade union density in Finland was about 75 per cent
of the labour force (Findikaattori 2013). Kallinen-Kräkin (2011) estimated in 2001
that about 80 per cent of Finnish social workers were trade union members. Given

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 331

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

that information, it is possible that our sample favours social workers with a degree
since union density is probably lower among those without higher education. In
addition, although email and computers can be regarded as essential tools in
Finnish social workers’ everyday tasks, it is possible that expired email addresses
might have restricted accessibility to the questionnaire among some respondents.
However, the geographical distribution of the data seems to represent Finnish
municipalities relatively well.
2. The ‘attitude’ indicator is problematic as it includes the notion that recipients should
be grateful. Therefore, it differs from other statements. Since it was planned to use
the ‘deservingness’ criteria (which has not been done before) we had to use the best
indicators that were available.
3. In fact, the government of Finland decided in spring 2014 to transfer responsibility
for social assistance from the municipalities to Kela. The decision will be imple-
mented at the beginning of 2017. Preventative and supplementary social assistance
will remain as a part of the municipality’s social services.

References
Andreß, H. and Heien, T. (2001), Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison
of Germany, Norway, and the United States, European Sociological Review, 17, 4:
337–56.
Applebaum, L. (2001), The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions
regarding aid to the poor, Political Psychology, 22, 3: 419–42.
Blomberg, H., Kroll, C., Kallio, J. and Erola, J. (2013), Social workers’ perceptions of
the causes of poverty in the Nordic countries, Journal of European Social Policy, 23, 1:
68–82.
Bullock, H. (2004), From the front lines of welfare reform: an analysis of social worker
and welfare recipient attitudes, The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 6: 571–90.
Coley, R., Kuta, A. and Chase-Lansdale, P. (2000), An insider view: knowledge and
opinions of welfare from African American girls in poverty, Journal of Social Issues, 56,
4: 707–26.
Dellgran, P. and Höjer, S. (2005), Privatisation as professionalisation? Attitudes,
motives and achievements among Swedish social workers, European Journal of Social
Work, 8, 1: 39–62.
Evans, T. (2010), Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-level Bureaucracy,
Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Findikaattori (2013), Ammatillinen järjestäytyminen [Trade Union Density], Statistics Finland,
http://www.findikaattori.fi/fi/36 (accessed 25 February 2014).
Furåker, B. and Blomsterberg, M. (2003), Attitudes towards the unemployed. An
analysis of Swedish survey data, International Journal of Social Welfare, 12, 3: 193–203.
Healy, K. and Meagher, G. (2004), The reprofessionalization of social work: collab-
orative approaches for achieving professional recognition, British Journal of Social
Work, 44, 1: 243–60.
Holm, U. (2002), Empathy and professional attitude in social workers and non-trained
aides, International Journal of Social Welfare, 11, 1: 66–75.
Jaeger, M. (2006), What makes people support public responsibility for welfare pro-
vision: self-interest or political ideology? A longitudinal approach, Acta Sociologica,
49, 3: 321–38.
Jeene, M., van Oorschot, W. and Uunk, W. (2013), Popular criteria for the welfare
deservingness of disability pensioners: the influence of structural and cultural
factors, Social Indicators Research, 110, 3: 1103–17.
Jones, L. (1994), Direct service workers’ attitudes toward employment, unemployment,
and client’s problems, Journal of Social Service Research, 19, 1–2: 161–79.

332 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Kainulainen, S. and Saari, J. (2013), Koettu huono-osaisuus Suomessa [The perceived

disadvantageousness in Finland]. In M. Niemelä and J. Saari (eds), Huono-osaisten
hyvinvointi Suomessa [The Well-being of the Disadvantaged in Finland], Helsinki: KELA, pp.
22–42.
Kainulainen, S., Karjalainen J. and Kinnunen, K. (2009), Kirkon diakoniarahastosta
avustusta hakeneiden elinehdot ja terveydentila. In K. Kinnunen (eds), Sairas
köyhyys. Tutkimus sairauteen liittyvästä huono-osaisuudesta diakoniatyössä, Helsinki: Suomen
ev.lut kirkon kirkkohallitus.
Kallinen-Kräkin, S. (2011), Sosiaalityön luokituksen lähtökohdat, Helsinki: Stakes.
Kallio, J., Blomberg, H. and Kroll, C. (2013), Social workers’ attitudes towards the
unemployed in the Nordic countries, International Journal of Social Welfare, 22, 1:
219–29.
Kangas, O. (1995), Attitudes on means-tested social benefits in Finland, Acta Sociologica,
38, 4: 299–310.
Kangas, O. (2003), The grasshopper and the ants: popular opinions of just distribution
in Australia and Finland, Journal of Socio-economics, 31, 6: 721–43.
Kangas, O. and Sikiö, J. (1996), Kunnon kansalaisia vai laiskoja lurjuksia?
Suomalaisten käsitykset toimeentulotuen saajista. In O. Kangas and V-M.
Ritakallio (eds), Kuka on köyhä? Köyhyys 1990-luvun puolivälin Suomessa, Helsinki: Stakes,
pp. 107–36.
Kiiski, J. (2013), Diakoniatyöntekijä–rinnallakulkija ja kaatopaikka. Diakoniabarometri 2013
[Deacon Barometer 2013], Helsinki: Church Research Institute, Internet Publications
33, http://sakasti.evl.fi/julkaisut.nsf/D0EEDB73195BF81BC2257BE10029E3DC/
$FILE/verkkojulkaisu33.pdf (accessed 25 February 2014).
Keiser, L. (1999), State bureaucratic discretion and the administration of social welfare
programs: the case of social security disability, Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 9, 1: 87–106.
Kuivalainen, S. and Niemelä, M. (2010), From universalism to selectivism: the ide-
ational turn of the anti-poverty policies in Finland, Journal of European Social Policy,
20, 3: 263–76.
Landmane, D. and Renge, V. (2010), Attributions for poverty, attitudes toward the
poor and identification with the poor among social workers and poor people, Baltic
Journal of Psychology, 11, 1–2: 37–50.
Larsen, A. C. (2006), The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes. How Welfare Regimes
Influence Public Support, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.
Lee, B., Farrell, C. and Link, B. (2004), Revisiting the contact hypothesis: the case of
public exposure to homelessness, American Sociological Review, 69, 1: 40–63.
Lepianka, D. (2007), Are the poor to be blamed or pitied?: A comparative study of popular poverty
attributions in Europe, Tillburg: Tillburg University.
Linos, K. and West, M. (2003), Self-interest, social beliefs, and attitudes to redistribu-
tion. Re-addressing the issue of cross-national variation, European Sociological Review,
19, 4: 393–409.
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Long, J. and Freese, J. (2005), Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes using Stata, College
Station, TX: Stata Press.
Niemelä, M. (2008), Perceptions of the causes of poverty in Finland, Acta Sociologica, 51,
1: 23–40.
Niemelä, M. (2010), Kelan etuuskäsittelijöiden näkemykset köyhyyden syistä, Janus, 18,
4: 337–54.
Petersen, M., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R. and Togeby, L. (2011), Deservingness versus
values in public opinion on welfare: the automaticity of the deservingness heuristic,
European Journal of Political Research, 50, 1: 24–52.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 333

 S OCIAL P OLICY & A DMINISTRATION, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY 2015

Pyykkö, R. (2011), Hengellisen ja maallisen rajalla. Kamppailu seurakuntien diakoniatyöntekijöiden

sosiaalisesta ja kulttuurisesta toimialueesta, Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Rehner, T., Ishee, J., Salloum, M. and Velasques, D. (1997), Mississippi social workers’
attitudes toward poverty and the poor, Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 1: 131–42.
Reingold, D. and Liu, H. (2009), Do poverty attitudes of social service agency directors
influence organizational behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 2:
307–32.
Skocpol, T. (1992), Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sun, A. (2001), Perceptions among social work and non-social work students concern-
ing causes of poverty, Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 1: 161–73.
Suyoung, K. (2013), Voluntary organizations as new street-level bureaucrats: frontline
struggles of community organizations against bureaucratization in a South Korean
welfare-to-work partnership, Social Policy & Administration, 47, 5: 565–85.
Svallfors, S. (2003), Welfare regimes and welfare opinions: a comparison of eight
western countries, Social Indicator Research, 64, 3: 495–520.
Van Aerschot, P. (2011), Activation Policies and the Protection of Individual Rights: A Critical
Assessment of the Situation in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
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.
Van Oorschot, W. (2008), Solidarity towards immigrants in European welfare states,
International Journal of Social Welfare, 17, 1: 3–14.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (translated by A. M.
Henderson and T. Parson), New York, NY: The Free Press.
Weiss, I. (2003), Social work students and social change: on the link between views on
poverty, social work goals and policy practice, International Journal of Social Welfare, 12,
2: 132–41.
Weiss, I. and Gal, J. (2007), Poverty in the eyes of the beholder: social workers
compared to other middle-class professionals, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 5:
893–908.
Weiss, I., Gal, J., Cnaan, R. A. and Majlaglic, R. (2002), What kind of social policy do
social work students prefer? A comparison of students in three countries, International
Journal of Social Work, 45, 1: 59–81.
Weiss-Gal, I., Benyamini, Y., Ginzburg, K., Savaya, R. and Peled, E. (2009), Social
workers’ and service users’ causal attributions for poverty, Social Work, 54, 2: 125–33.

334 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Copyright of Social Policy & Administration is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.