1.1. Search strategy

The review aimed to systematically identify and map: (1) existing empirical studies examining the relationship between public opinion and perceptions of welfare deservingness; (2) research analysing how street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions influence the implementation and delivery of social policies; (3) the dimensions and criteria of welfare deservingness most frequently reported in the literature; and (4) the scope and characteristics of scientific production addressing welfare deservingness in Southern European welfare state models.

This study presents a scoping review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol standards for methodological design (^{Moher et al., 2009}; ^{Page et al., 2022}), with the main goal of mapping the available theoretical and empirical evidence on welfare deservingness. Adopting this approach facilitated a structured identification of the historical evolution, conceptual frameworks and knowledge gaps concerning welfare deservingness theory, as well as potential areas for further study (^{Peters et al., 2024}).

Due to the limited number of articles addressing this topic, the search applied a broad temporal range, including all publications from 2000 to May 2023, in order to capture the evolution of the concept from the moment it gained scientific relevance in the early 2000s. Althought the review period started in 2000, the majority of articles identified were published long after that year, reflecting a gradual increase in research on welfare deservingness.

The literature search was conducted in three online databases - Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO - between January and May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographic reference lists of the selected studies and monographs were analysed to expand the research scope. Studies were included if they addressed perceptions of welfare deservingness by public opinion or street-level bureaucrats. Studies that focused exclusively on economic indicators or welfare expenditure, without reference to perceptions or deservingness criteria, were excluded (see Table 1).

1.2. Eligibility criteria

The research strategy considered studies published in Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English; however, most of the articles were written in English.

The research data used to identify articles for eligibility were independently extracted by two reviewers, according to the steps and review questions outlined in Table 2.

Data from the selected articles were thoroughly analysed through the systematisation of the most relevant information, namely, author, place, population/sample, study objectives, main results, and contributions to the field.

In recent years, qualitative studies have become increasingly relevant in this area, particularly for deepening the understanding of welfare deservingness theory and its dimensions (^{Heuer & Zimmermann, 2020}; ^{Laenen et al., 2019}). However, this review included only quantitative studies to ensure comparability of results and standardisation of sampling and measurement approaches.

1.3. Data extraction and synthesis

The research data were synthesised using tables and figures, intended to facilitate observation and analysis during the presentation of the results and discussion. The data are presented in a narrative format with the support of a flowchart (^{Moher et al., 2009}; ^{Page et al., 2022}), aligning with PRISMA’s scoping review methodology and reflecting consensus between the two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved by consulting a third reviewer.

This scoping review was prospectively registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) under the registration number INPLASY202320010 (^{Caetano et al., 2023}).

3.1. Welfare deservingness perceptions and public support for social policies

In the current social and political climate of welfare states, it is crucial to understand how perceptions of social deservingness can influence political decisions. Van Oorschot (2006) argued that social protection extends far beyond the initial systems designed for the poor, as it now encompasses, in terms of “coverage and generosity”, a wide range of groups in need (^{van Oorschot, 2006}, p. 23).

For some groups, social protection, from ^{van Oorschot’s (2000}, 2006) perspective, is more accessible, generous, durable, and/or less subject to reciprocal obligations compared to other groups. Several examples illustrate this disparity. Jan-Ocko ^{Heuer and Katharina Zimmermann (2020}), Tijs ^{Laenen et al. (2019}), and van Oorschot (2000, 2006) reported that older adults and individuals with disabilities generally receive more benefits and experience less stigma compared to unemployed individuals. According to van Oorschot (2006), widows receive greater social protection than divorced women, contract workers benefit from more comprehensive schemes compared to temporary or self-employed workers, and older adults and single parents typically face weaker job search obligations associated with benefit receipt.

Differential treatment in access to social protection measures may reflect several considerations by political legislators. Van Oorschot (2006) identified three main reasons for this differential treatment: (a) economic, less protection for less productive groups; (b) political, groups with stronger lobbies receive better protection; and (c) cultural, better protection is granted to “our kind of people” or “well-behaved” individuals (^{van Oorschot, 2006}, p. 24). These factors became central when legislators consider the economic, political, and cultural contexts with respect to allocating or distributing social protection schemes.

From the perspective of the welfare state redistribution, people tend to support social protection schemes targeting groups they consider the most deserving. Based on the examples above, the answer to a key aspect of welfare deservingness theory - “Who should get what and why?” - may not lie in the universalism of social protection but rather in society’s moral and symbolic perceptions of specific groups or individuals as deserving (^{Appelbaum, 2001}; ^{van Oorschot, 2000}, ²⁰⁰⁶).

Public opinion can shape and constrain political agendas, either legitimising or undermining support for social policies. Van Oorschot (2006) provided evidence from multiple European countries showing distinctions in public support for different groups in need. He found a common pattern across 23 European countries: informal solidarity is strongest for older adults, followed by individuals with illnesses and disabilities, with lower levels of solidarity for the unemployed, and the least solidarity directed towards immigrants.

Although much of this evidence comes from studies conducted in Northern and Central Europe, this scoping review demonstrates that similar dynamics of moral categorisation and selective solidarity can be identified and analysed in Southern European contexts. This is particularly relevant given the distinctive characteristics of Southern welfare regimes, which combine elements of familialism, fragmented benefits, and historical legacies of social assistance (^{Ferrera, 1996}).

The collected data indicate that globalisation, contemporary social and political crises, and the erosion of social protection systems reinforce the risk of selective social policies. These policies often focus on strengthening state-level confidence rather than guaranteeing social rights. Welfare deservingness theory is therefore valuable for understanding popular support, or the lack thereof, for social protection schemes. The theory asserts that individuals’ direct solidarity toward groups they perceive as deserving, while excluding others (^{Larsen, 2008}; ^{van Oorschot, 2000}, ²⁰⁰⁶).

This scoping review contributes to consolidating existing knowledge on how these perceptions shape support for social policies across different European welfare regimes, while identifying significant gaps in the literature on Southern Europe. The evidence summarised here highlights that perceptions of welfare deservingness are key predictors of support for specific social policies, a finding particularly relevant for analysing the legitimacy and sustainability of welfare states in countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece (^{Caetano et al., 2023}).

3.2. Welfare deservingness criteria: the most and/or least valued in public opinion

The results of this study confirm that the five principles identified by ^{van Oorschot (2000}) are not fixed or inherent attributes, but rather cultural, historical, political, and social constructions. As such, they can be shaped by political agendas, partisan ideologies and broader societal values. In addition to being social perceptions, these criteria also possess a structural dimension, as they are embedded in the specific temporal and contextual settings in which they are applied. Their dynamic and context-dependent nature must not be undervalued in scientific research.

Deservingness principles are rooted in the logic of redistributive justice - equality, equity, and need (^{Meuleman et al., 2019}). According to Bart Meuleman et al. (2019), the equality principle states that everyone deserves the same, while the equity and need principles justify unequal support directed at specific groups (e.g., contributors and those who are in genuine need).

Deservingness theory builds on the foundational principles of distributive justice by introducing two additional dimensions: (1) rather than proposing normative theories of justice, it examines how the general public invokes these principles to differentiate between groups deemed deserving and undeserving; (2) it analyses the arguments used to challenge equality as a universal criterion and to redirect social solidarity toward specific target groups (^{Meuleman et al., 2019}).

In contrast to John ^{Rawls (2001}) and Nancy ^{Fraser (1998}), deservingness theory does not aim to define the normative criteria or dimensions that constitute social justice. Instead, it focuses on how redistributive policies are implemented in practice, emphasising that tensions between citizens, street-level bureaucrats, and the state often arise from the stigmatisation of socially differentiated groups.

A central question addressed by ^{van Oorschot (2000}, 2006), ^{Rawls (2001}), and ^{Fraser (1998}) concerns the nature of a just redistributive system. For Rawls (2001), an ideal normative conception of justice requires the internalisation of inequality through principles of equity and positive differentiation, prioritising the most disadvantaged groups. For Fraser (1998), justice is only achievable when accompanied by the active participation of the most vulnerable in decision-making processes.

Although deservingness theory is grounded in public perceptions of how social policies are applied, it also reveals the persistent tension between what is considered just in theory (^{Rawls, 2001}) and what is perceived as just in practice (deservingness). This disjunction between normative and perceived justice is also present in Fraser’s work. Indeed, the empirical dimension of deservingness theory captures cultural patterns of discrimination and the failure to recognise the singular identities of specific groups - issues that Fraser (1998) identifies as fundamental to the development of a more just and participatory political system.

The origins and logic underlying the deservingness criteria CARIN - Control, Attitude, Reciprocity, Identity, and Need (^{Meuleman et al., 2019}; ^{van Oorschot, 2000}, ²⁰⁰⁶; ^{van Oorschot & Roosma, 2017}) are explained from the perspective of the authors as follows.

The first criterion refers to one’s Control over need, that is, the degree to which those most in need are seen as personally responsible for their particular life situation. The more control a person has over their situation, the less deserving they are considered to be. In the literature, this concept helps explaining why, for example, in times of higher unemployment, people tend to support those who are unemployed to a greater extent.

The second criterion, Attitude, refers to the docility or gratitude of those in need; thus, individuals who appear more compliant and appreciative are deemed more deserving. The public tends to prefer beneficiaries who are perceived as conforming to normative standards.

Reciprocity evaluates whether a group contributes - or is likely to contribute - to society. Groups perceived as reciprocal are seen as more deserving. Reciprocity is related to the concept of “equity”, where the act of giving affords a person the right to receive.

Identity is associated with the proximity or similarity to the in-group. Those within the in-group are often seen as more deserving than those belonging to the out-group. Proximity can take the form of kinship relationships, place of residence, or group identification. This criterion explains the low legitimacy attributed to social support for immigrants (^{van Oorschot, 2006}).

Finally, the fifth criterion, Need, refers to whether people are more willing to provide help if the intensity of the need is greater. It is understood that the degree of need has an impact on the level of support that individuals are willing to offer: the greater the need, the greater the perceived deservingness.

Deservingness criteria mediate the relationship between sociostructural characteristics and concrete political preferences. They represent refined logics of social justice that challenge equality by arguing that certain groups deserve more support than others. ^{Meuleman et al. (2019}) emphasised that deservingness criteria are not inherent characteristics of target groups or social protection systems but rather abstract moral principles to which individuals adhere to varying degrees.

When evaluating different target groups, immigrants are often scored low on Identity and Reciprocity criteria. They are frequently accused of relying on welfare systems without contributing sufficiently. The unemployed, while sometimes viewed as responsible for their situation, generally score higher on Identity and Reciprocity than immigrants, especially in contributory welfare regimes. By contrast, sick and disabled individuals are seen as more deserving due to less ambiguity regarding their Control over need. Elderly individuals are often perceived as the most deserving group. They cannot be blamed for their age, are closely connected to the in-group (particularly through kinship), have presumably contributed to society during their lives, and are typically viewed as docile and grateful. However, deservingness remains a relative concept, with most target groups falling along a spectrum between the most deserving and the most undeserving.

In conclusion, the articles included in this scoping review demonstrate methodological coherence. When analysing popular support for social policies directed at specific groups through the categorisation of the deservingness criteria, the selected studies have reinforced that these five dimensions play a critical role in mediating between sociostructural characteristics and political preferences (^{Meuleman et al., 2019}). This synthesis highlights the need for further research on how these perceptions operate in Southern European welfare contexts, where cultural and historical specificities may shape deservingness criteria differently.

3.3. Street-Level bureaucrats’ perceptions of welfare deservingness

Since the publication of Michael Lipsky’s seminal work in 1980, perspectives on working conditions within organisations have evolved considerably. According to Lipsky (2010), street-level bureaucrats typically operate in environments where resources - such as time or information - are not enough to address every individual adequately. As a result, the routines they develop to manage these constraints and the decisions they make “effectively become the public policies they carry out” (Lipsky, 2010, p. xiii). In this context, discretionary decision-making remains an intrinsic element of policy implementation (^{Evans & Harris, 2004}), with frontline workers describing discretion as an inherent aspect of their roles, even in environments governed by strict rules.

While discretion has been the focus of numerous empirical studies on policy implementation, less attention has been devoted to the mechanisms underlying discretionary decision-making, particularly among frontline workers (^{Senghass, 2021}). Decision-making on behalf of clients involves not only the provision of services - such as family counselling or determining eligibility for benefits - but also moral judgements about their deservingness, the causes of their circumstances, and the appropriate outcomes. Therefore, street-level bureaucrats often base their decisions on attributes that align with social deservingness categories (^{Jilke & Tummers, 2018}).

The perceptions which street-level bureaucrats hold of the most disadvantaged groups can influence how social protection resources are allocated, which clients are prioritised, how clients are treated in different situations and which social policy programs are promoted (^{Kallio & Kouvo, 2015}). In this sense, client attitudes and perceived deservingness play a significant role in shaping the implementation process.

Due to their discretionary powers, street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions can also impact equitable access to social protection services and benefits. Large variations in attitudes within a group of professionals may threaten the consistency of service provision or benefits distribution (^{Kallio & Kouvo, 2015}).

Regarding individual characteristics, Johanna ^{Kallio and Antti Kouvo (2015}) found that, among the groups studied, social workers exhibited the most positive perceptions of deservingness. Among the general public, individuals who are or were beneficiaries of social support tended to display higher levels of positive perceptions. The study emphasised the importance of individual characteristics - such as age, education, and political identification - in shaping these perceptions.

Differences in welfare deservingness perceptions are also linked to individual socioeconomic characteristics and political ideology, as previously demonstrated in studies of the general public (^{Kallio & Kouvo, 2015}; ^{van Oorschot, 2006}). However, it is less frequently acknowledged that street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions are similarly influenced by deservingness criteria. Consequently, the perceptions of those involved in the implementation process can serve as a critical predictor of the political support directed toward certain policies. This is especially relevant in Southern European welfare systems, where fragmented benefits and stronger discretionary practices may amplify the influence of professional attitudes.

3.4. European studies on welfare deservingness: Southern European studies

The results of the scoping review indicate that the investigations used quantitative methodologies with a large participant samples, ensuring robust internal consistency. In studies conducted within a single European country, sample sizes ranged from 1,400 to 28,890 respondents (^{Kallio & Kouvo, 2015}; ^{Meuleman et al., 2019}; ^{Rubinat, 2020}; ^{van Oorschot, 2000}). In comparative studies across European countries, sample sizes ranged from 25,679 to 28,894 respondents (^{Larsen, 2008}; ^{van Oorschot, 2006}).

The analysis of the selected articles highlights a shared cultural foundation of deservingness in European countries (^{van Oorschot, 2006}). Social categories often follow a typical pattern in which older adults are perceived as the most deserving and immigrants as the least deserving. This pattern tends to be more pronounced in countries with higher unemployment rates, lower levels of trust in institutions and weaker welfare infrastructures. Van Oorschot (2006) found that in 17 of the 23 European countries examined, solidarity shown to the unemployed and to immigrants was significantly lower. In the remaining six countries (Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Slovenia), solidarity towards elderly individuals, the sick, and people with disabilities was equally high.

In highly developed welfare states such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, solidarity perceptions tend to polarise into two groups: higher for the elderly, sick and disabled, and lower for the unemployed and immigrants. By contrast, in most Western and Southern European countries, these differences are less pronounced. In Central and Eastern Europe, the gap between immigrants and other groups is relatively large, while the distances between the elderly, sick and unemployed are smaller.

Van Oorschot (2006) emphasised that differences in conditionality are influenced by sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics, as well as by specific national contexts. Christian ^{Larsen (2008}) observed that attitudes towards policies targeting the poor and unemployed reflect a welfare regime pattern: (1) low support in liberal regimes; (2) moderate support in conservative regimes; and (3) high support in social democratic regimes. Larsen (2008) argued that the institutional structures of welfare regimes significantly influence public perceptions of the poor and unemployed. Political preferences are therefore not entirely exogenous, as posited by rational choice theory, but are strongly influenced by institutional frameworks.

Overall, ^{Larsen (2008}) systematised the effects of deservingness dimensions on a social policy. In welfare states with selective measures, debates about Need and deservingness remain open. In contrast, in universalist welfare states, discussions about Need, Control, Identity, and Reciprocity are largely suppressed, and the attitudes of beneficiaries toward social protection services become less relevant. Three characteristics of welfare regimes influence welfare deservingness and public support: (1) the extent of universalism in welfare policies; (2) economic disparities between “the base” and “the majority”; and (3) the extent of employment opportunities.

However, in Southern European countries, research on welfare deservingness remains limited. Laura ^{Brito (2019}), in the ETHOS report, noted the absence of a consistent narrative on welfare deservingness theory in Portugal. This gap makes it difficult to assess the challenges arising from reduced social protection, particularly during economic crisis, when welfare states are often underdeveloped and heavily reliant on informal welfare societies.

Xavier ^{Rubinat (2020}) conducted a study in Southern Europe and found that active labour market policies and the social investment paradigm promote debates on the increasing conditionality of social policies. Based on public opinion surveys in Catalonia (Spain) and literature reviews, Rubinat (2020) concluded that the theoretical distinction between deservingness dimensions and social policy conditionality provides a strong foundation for empirical analysis. This study also confirmed the mediating role of welfare deservingness perceptions between sociostructural characteristics and political preferences. While this framework has been widely validated in other European countries, Rubinat’s work underscores its relevance in the context of Mediterranean welfare regimes, where unique sociopolitical factors shape perceptions of deservingness.

Overall, the findings of this scoping review reinforce that, despite some empirical contributions, the analysis of welfare deservingness in Southern Europe remains fragmented and underdeveloped, underscoring the need for further systematic research.