'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa)
| dc.contributor.advisor | Seekings, JF | |
| dc.contributor.author | Arthur, Winnifred | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-11-12T11:40:25Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-11-12T11:40:25Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2026-11-12T11:39:44Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | This dissertation offers a new account of welfare attitudes among the urban poor by examining how institutional context shapes popular support for redistribution. Using Mogoditshane, Botswana, as my primary case study, I draw comparative evidence from two secondary sites–Kamanga, Zambia, and Site C, South Africa—and ask: under what conditions do individuals support welfare, and how do different policy regimes shape these preferences? Theoretically, this study challenges the dominant focus on individual-level self-interest. I show that in high-unemployment settings, the household, and not just the individual, serves as a key site of interest formation. My study also advances a context-sensitive view of deservingness, demonstrating how institutional arrangements mediate which social units matter most in shaping welfare attitudes. Methodologically, I combine an original survey (N=817) with embedded experiments and qualitative fieldwork. Using systematic door-to-door sampling, I surveyed 427 respondents in Mogoditshane, 200 in Kamanga, and 190 in Site C. I construct a continuous index of welfare support and also classify respondents into three attitudinal profiles: consistently pro-welfare, consistently hostile, and ambivalent. The survey includes a deservingness vignette in all three sites, and, in Mogoditshane alone, a forced-choice conjoint experiment that varies the design features of a basic income grant (generosity, conditionality, and funding). These quantitative data are complemented by small-group discussions with participants in Botswana's workfare and public employment programs. My findings are twofold. First, consistent with comparative welfare state theory, support for redistribution is higher in more generous and institutionalized welfare regimes, and is strongly associated with subjective evaluations of poverty and income adequacy. Second, and more novel, is the role of household-level exposure. My findings show that co-residence with grant recipients produces a distinctive ambivalence toward welfare. Individuals who live in grant-receiving households (but do not receive grants themselves) are significantly more likely to express ambivalent (rather than supportive) attitudes than nonrecipients. This pattern emerges in the Mogoditshane sample and gains further support in the pooled comparative analysis, which strengthens its robustness across diverse institutional contexts. This finding suggests that household-level exposure to welfare programs creates a unique set of cross-pressures that shape political attitudes. Experimental and qualitative evidence corroborates this mechanism, highlighting how perceptions of deservingness interact with household formation patterns, kin obligations, and welfare regime type. Specifically, individuals support welfare under conditions of greater regime generosity and institutionalization. Different policy regimes influence preferences by activating different social units—the individual in some contexts, the household in others. The study concludes therefore that understanding welfare attitudes in contexts of high unemployment and uneven provision requires a multi-level view of self-interest. It moves beyond the narrow focus on the individual and shows how the household functions as a crucial site for interest formation. Comparative, multi-method approaches are thus essential to uncovering how institutional arrangements shape the contours of welfare legitimacy from below. My findings underscore the importance of adopting comparative frameworks that capture how contexts activate different social units, from the individual to the household, as drivers of public opinion. | |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | Arthur, W. (2026). <i>'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa)</i>. (). University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Sociology. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | Arthur, Winnifred. <i>"'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa)."</i> ., University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Sociology, 2026. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Arthur, W. 2026. 'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa). . University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Sociology. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Thesis / Dissertation AU - Arthur, Winnifred AB - This dissertation offers a new account of welfare attitudes among the urban poor by examining how institutional context shapes popular support for redistribution. Using Mogoditshane, Botswana, as my primary case study, I draw comparative evidence from two secondary sites–Kamanga, Zambia, and Site C, South Africa—and ask: under what conditions do individuals support welfare, and how do different policy regimes shape these preferences? Theoretically, this study challenges the dominant focus on individual-level self-interest. I show that in high-unemployment settings, the household, and not just the individual, serves as a key site of interest formation. My study also advances a context-sensitive view of deservingness, demonstrating how institutional arrangements mediate which social units matter most in shaping welfare attitudes. Methodologically, I combine an original survey (N=817) with embedded experiments and qualitative fieldwork. Using systematic door-to-door sampling, I surveyed 427 respondents in Mogoditshane, 200 in Kamanga, and 190 in Site C. I construct a continuous index of welfare support and also classify respondents into three attitudinal profiles: consistently pro-welfare, consistently hostile, and ambivalent. The survey includes a deservingness vignette in all three sites, and, in Mogoditshane alone, a forced-choice conjoint experiment that varies the design features of a basic income grant (generosity, conditionality, and funding). These quantitative data are complemented by small-group discussions with participants in Botswana's workfare and public employment programs. My findings are twofold. First, consistent with comparative welfare state theory, support for redistribution is higher in more generous and institutionalized welfare regimes, and is strongly associated with subjective evaluations of poverty and income adequacy. Second, and more novel, is the role of household-level exposure. My findings show that co-residence with grant recipients produces a distinctive ambivalence toward welfare. Individuals who live in grant-receiving households (but do not receive grants themselves) are significantly more likely to express ambivalent (rather than supportive) attitudes than nonrecipients. This pattern emerges in the Mogoditshane sample and gains further support in the pooled comparative analysis, which strengthens its robustness across diverse institutional contexts. This finding suggests that household-level exposure to welfare programs creates a unique set of cross-pressures that shape political attitudes. Experimental and qualitative evidence corroborates this mechanism, highlighting how perceptions of deservingness interact with household formation patterns, kin obligations, and welfare regime type. Specifically, individuals support welfare under conditions of greater regime generosity and institutionalization. Different policy regimes influence preferences by activating different social units—the individual in some contexts, the household in others. The study concludes therefore that understanding welfare attitudes in contexts of high unemployment and uneven provision requires a multi-level view of self-interest. It moves beyond the narrow focus on the individual and shows how the household functions as a crucial site for interest formation. Comparative, multi-method approaches are thus essential to uncovering how institutional arrangements shape the contours of welfare legitimacy from below. My findings underscore the importance of adopting comparative frameworks that capture how contexts activate different social units, from the individual to the household, as drivers of public opinion. DA - 2026 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town KW - urban poor KW - welfare attitudes LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2026 T1 - 'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa) TI - 'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa) UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | Arthur W. 'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa). []. University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Sociology, 2026 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/43936 | en_ZA |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.language.rfc3066 | eng | |
| dc.publisher.department | Department of Sociology | |
| dc.publisher.faculty | Faculty of Humanities | |
| dc.publisher.institution | University of Cape Town | |
| dc.subject | urban poor | |
| dc.subject | welfare attitudes | |
| dc.title | 'Proper' attitudes without proper jobs? Popular support for welfare in Mogoditshane, Botswana, with comparative insights from Kamanga (Zambia) and Site C (South Africa) | |
| dc.type | Thesis / Dissertation | |
| dc.type.qualificationlevel | Doctoral | |
| dc.type.qualificationlevel | PhD |