Renegotiating deservedness: A Big Qual analysis across eight guaranteed income experiments

Abstract Accessing the US safety net depends on labour market participation and demonstrating behaviour policymakers deem responsible. These prescriptions create moral distinctions between deserving and undeserving recipients, generating stigma and shame. Despite increasing experimentation with unconditional cash, little data exists interrogating perceptions of deservedness among recipients and potential recipients. Using a Big Qual analysis of survey data ( N = 1517) and interviews ( N = 197) from eight guaranteed income experiments, this study explores how participants reflect traditional deservedness narratives. Respondents exhibited lessened internalized stigma, renegotiated or disengaged from dominant blame narratives, and presumed that widespread structural inequality rather than irresponsibility created financial stress.