Search

This article examines Quebecers' attitudes towards welfare recipients and looks at the variation in the level of monthly assistance that Quebecers are willing to give them as a function of the recipient profile. Specifically, the article aims to study the influence of the ability to work as a merit-based heuristic structuring Quebecers' opinions. Our results indicate that Quebecers believe that social assistance recipients should receive monthly supports below what they consider to be the minimum income necessary to cover basic needs. Quebecers' views on the appropriate level of assistance to be provided to people benefiting from social assistance are also strongly structured by the issue of employability and the perception that individuals are in control of their situation. Finally, the ability to work is clearly distinguished from a variety of other individual characteristics that may influence Quebecers' opinions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares social assistance incomes, or minimum income protection, for four household types in the 10 Canadian provinces between 1990 and 2017 and relates these incomes to a number of factors, including partisan dominance over time, trade union density, the presence or absence of poverty reduction strategies, provincial social expenditures, overall redistribution efforts, debt service costs and social assistance recipiency rates. In line with findings for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) welfare states, partisan politics does not play a strong role but, as power resources theory predicts, union density and a province's overall redistribution efforts do. Social assistance recipiency rates, which capture the salience of social assistance incomes in a province, also have a significant, positive impact on welfare incomes, confirming the "welfare paradox" identified by Ivar Lødemel. Poverty reduction strategies, however, do not, and they even have a negative influence on welfare incomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press 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. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)