gh regarding stipulation of those people and groups that are eligible for social provision. The first school of thought consists of the Universalist view which, in essence, holds that provision should be available to all who apply for them. The second school of thought is the Selectivist school which holds that services ought to be provided solely to those who fall into a category specifying parameters of economic need. These parameters usually revolve around statistical definitions of income wherein those eligible fall at or below some computed mean of yearly income.
Of these two schools of thought, Kahn (1986) is a universalist because, his view, holds that the universalist framework avoids stigmatizing recipients, while selectivist provisions are associated with stigma. Indeed, Kahn states that there are several advantages to the Universalist view beyond the avoidance of stigma. First, the universalist approach departs from the idea that social provision is to be given only in times of extreme
...