Concepts
On the allocation question of who gets benefits, universalism treats benefits as social rights regardless of income, while selectivism concentrates resources on people with verified need. Public assistance is the classic selective scheme; child allowances and basic education lean universal, and social insurance is categorical and contribution-based.
Gilbert and Terrell's bases of allocation
- Attributed need: membership of a category such as children or older people.
- Compensation: for contributions or harms suffered.
- Diagnostic differentiation: professional judgment, such as disability assessment.
- Means-tested need: income and asset tests.
These form a continuum from more universal to more selective.
Trade-offs
Universal schemes avoid stigma, are simple to run and win middle-class support, but cost more. Selective schemes are target-efficient and cheaper but risk stigma, gaps in coverage and poverty traps.
Titmuss and the paradox of redistribution
Titmuss proposed universal services as a base, with "positive discrimination" in favour of those in need without stigma. Korpi and Palme (1998) found that countries targeting the poor most heavily reduce poverty and inequality less, because the size of the welfare budget depends on broad political support.
Korean debates
The 2010-2011 free school meals dispute made the issue a political flashpoint. Korea's child allowance began in 2018 excluding the top 10 per cent and became universal in 2019, partly because of screening costs.
References
- Titmuss, R. M. (1968). Commitment to Welfare. Allen & Unwin.
- Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2013). Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy (8th ed.). Pearson.
- Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661-687.