Social construction of a target population (Schneider and Ingram 2005) as well as work on deservingness (Oorschot 2006, Petersen et al. 2011) highlight that welfare preferences are explained by political values and perceptions of deservingness of recipients. Citizens and politicians perceive some groups as powerful and some groups as deserving. A shared understanding of societal groups and electoral accountability leads to similar views between citizens and politicians about deservingness and power. Welfare benefits are directed toward groups that appear to be powerful and deserving (such as the elderly), but target group characterized as undeserving and powerless (such as the unemployed) receive only contingent benefits. Second, we inquire into the mechanisms triggering these beliefs about recipients. Building on moral judgement theory, citizens and politicians distinguish between fairness considerations and belonging to an ingroup when assigning benefits. We survey citizens and nationally elected politicians in Canada, Germany, Luxembourg and Norway in 2022 in order to test our expectations. First, participants rate six groups (elderly, drug addicts, people with disabilities, unemployed, investment bankers and farmers) in terms of deservingness and power. A model-based cluster analysis groups these responses and compares them between citizens and politicians. Second, in an experimental design, we test if social benefits are assigned based on fairness and/or ingroup considerations. Overall, the study advances our understanding about the treatment of welfare recipients and show the congruence in perceptions of deservingness between citizens and politicians, as well the common moral judgement about these choices.