Different understandings of welfare benefits among the Dutch public: A focus group study

Thijs Lindner*, Willem De Koster, Jeroen Van der Waal

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Numerous studies have assessed the extent to which citizens support or oppose welfare benefits (shorthand: benefits). To properly understand this support or opposition, it is important to consider what benefits actually mean to citizens. Indeed, because citizens' understandings of benefits are likely to vary, there may be similar (different) levels of support for very different (similar) reasons. Consequently, in-depth insights into these understandings are required to properly grasp public attitudes on welfare benefits. Therefore, this study adopts an inductive approach, holding focus-group discussions with Dutch citizens with different social backgrounds (48 respondents/11 gatherings). Three distinct discourses were identified: (1) benefits as self-responsibility and reciprocity; (2) benefits as participation and solidarity; and (3) benefits as well-being and self-actualization. These diverging discourses each involve closely intertwined understandings of the function of benefits, their relationship to work and welfare deservingness. We discuss the relevance of our findings and make suggestions for future research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)990-1005
Number of pages16
JournalSocial Policy and Administration
Issue number7
Early online date2022
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by a Vidi grant awarded to Willem de Koster by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) (016.Vidi.185.207). Funding information

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Social Policy & Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Research programs



Dive into the research topics of 'Different understandings of welfare benefits among the Dutch public: A focus group study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this