Our project has been the first one to deliver reliable data at both citizens' and elite's levels on social policy priorities and divides regarding these priorities. We were able to show that only if we include priorities in our conceptualization of welfare politics do we see the current conflict configuration around social policy reform. The most salient divides are along class lines, along education and along socio-cultural values (universalism-particularism) and they refer to strikingly different priorities regarding social consumption vs. social investment; universalistic vs. means-tested, poverty-oriented policies; as well as inclusion or exclusion of migrants and other new risk groups. The policy implications are important: behind apparent high levels of support for generous social policies lie deep-rooted conflicts about the relative importance of different social policy (reforms). Citizens and parties are deeply divided about the ways in which governments should allocate scarce resources. Their priorities do not simply depend on left-right or state-market divides, but on conflict over investment-consumption, universalism-particularism and inclusion-exclusion of minorities. Hence, social policy reforms need to foster alliances between electorates and parties along these dimensions. In the later project phase, our focus has been on mechanisms that foster solidarity, support and alliances in social policy reform processes. Our findings show that policy frames geared towards recognition, dignity and deservingness are more effective in fostering alliances than traditional solidaristic or ideological frames.
