This study examines the interplay between welfare stigma and need in the decision to claim social welfare benefits in Hong Kong, a liberal welfare city where self-reliance and family obligations are highly valued. Our interviews with seventeen low-income parents, suggest that first, their availability and ability to work influence their self-perceived ‘deservingness’ of aid. This, in turn, affects their anticipated self-stigma and their assessment of needs. Second, having children influences parents’ decisions to claim social welfare benefits through both anticipated stigma and childcare needs. Finally, low-income parents are trapped in an impossible triangle of being a ‘good’ parent, caught between fulfilling parental responsibilities, providing for their children financially, and modeling self-reliance to protect them from welfare stigma. Claiming benefits fulfills the first two but sacrifices self-reliance, while choosing not to claim fulfills the latter two but sacrifices parental responsibilities. Both choices carry emotional consequences that can undermine parent-child relationships.

This article investigates the unique contribution of specific programme characteristics together with personal stigma, stigmatisation by the public, and claims stigma, to the non-take-up of targeted income support among Hong Kong older adults. Drawing on data from a sample of 3,299 Hong Kong older adults aged 65 or above, we find that between 11-14 per cent of eligible participants did not receive cash transfers from Normal and Higher Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) and old-age Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (old-age CSSA). By combining mainstream economic analysis with attempts to quantify welfare stigma (Baumberg, 2016) we find that transaction costs were most consistently and strongly related to non-take-up of targeted income support; non-take-up of old-age CSSA and Higher OALA but not Normal OALA varied with welfare stigma after controlling for personal and household characteristics of study participants. This article further adds to the literature by examining the effect of recent reforms to asset- and means-tested benefits for the same target population of older adults on take-up in the East Asian context. The article suggests that automatic switching of beneficiaries from Normal OALA to Higher OALA effectively facilitated higher take-up of the latter. The policy implications of these various findings are discussed.

Politicians engage in, and the media amplifies, social constructions of welfare recipients as undeserving. Such messaging seeks to influence mass public opinion, but what are the effects on the target population receiving welfare benefits? We test if deservingness messaging affects welfare recipients' mental health. To do so, we exploit a quasi-experiment entailing a dramatic shift in deservingness messaging after a welfare recipient in Denmark became the subject of a national debate, utilizing detailed administrative data on the ensuing consumption of antidepressants by other welfare recipients. We find evidence that welfare recipients experienced worse mental health outcomes after being exposed to deservingness messaging, reflected in a 1.2-percentage-point increase in the use of antidepressants in the weeks following the airing of a critical interview. Deservingness messaging particularly affected more vulnerable groups who had a history of mental health problems.

In this ‘state of the art’ review, we draw on the Irish and UK context to ask ‘what can welfare stigma do?’ Our question provokes thinking about welfare stigma not as an inevitable ‘cost’ of the structure of welfare provision, but as something that does socio-political work and which may be deliberately mobilised to do so. This, we argue, is a particularly pertinent question to ask in the Irish and UK contexts, bound together by some shared liberal welfare regime characteristics that are particularly associated with welfare stigma and by the effects of a period of austerity capitalism that continues to re-shape the meaning and experience of welfare. Yet, going beyond welfare stigma as inherently negative, we highlight a limited literature on resistance that suggests the potentialities of welfare stigma in the service of positive social change toward a new welfare imaginary.