Access to social policy benefits is highly conflictual, especially in contexts of tight budgets and restrained opportunities in global credit markets. Previous research has identified a set of factors determining the deservingness to access welfare goods from the viewpoint of public opinion, among which nationality in the form of in/out-group dynamics plays a role. Out-group status can, however, also be determined through labor market status (formal/informal), party identity or other attitudes on, e. g., globalization or within-country migration. A more differentiating view on control, reciprocity and identity taking into account globalization effects, has, so far, been neglected in academic research. In this paper, I look at control, reciprocity and identity while keeping need constant in the middle-income country context of Brazil. I make use of a Conjoint experiment that was conducted as part of a larger, original, sub-national survey in 2019. Respondents received fictional, randomly assembled profiles of beneficiaries and were asked to indicate whom of the two profiles they would give access to a pension. Preliminary results show that especially globalization losers (individuals that lost their job to offshoring) are deemed deserving to a pension. Reciprocity does not seem to play a big role in this context since formal workers are perceived as less deserving, but nationality does determine access.