Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:20:37.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Conditionality in Lived Experience: Aggregating Qualitative Longitudinal Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2019

Sharon Wright  and
Ruth Patrick
Sharon Wright
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Glasgow E-mail: Sharon.Wright@glasgow.ac.uk
Ruth Patrick
Affiliation:
Social Policy and Social Work, University of York E-mail: ruth.patrick@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Punitive welfare conditionality, combining tough sanctions with minimal self-directed support, is a defining feature of contemporary UK working age social security provision. This approach has been justified by policy makers on the basis that it will increase the numbers in paid employment, and thereby offer savings for the public purse that are also beneficial for individuals who are expected to be healthier and better off financially as a result. In this article, we aggregate two qualitative longitudinal studies (Welfare Conditionality, 2014–17; and Lived Experience, 2011–16) that document lived experiences of claiming benefits and using back-to-work support services. In both studies and over time, we find, contrary to policy expectations, that coercion, including sanctions, was usually experienced as unnecessary and harmful and that poverty was prevalent, both in and out of work, tended to worsen and pushed many close to destitution. Conditionality governed encounters with employment services and, perversely, appeared to impede, rather than support, transitions into employment for participants in both studies. These constitute ‘shared typical’ aspects of lived experiences of welfare conditionality. We propose Combined Study Qualitative Longitudinal Research as a new methodological approach to extend inference beyond the usual study-specific confines of qualitative generalisation.

Keywords

Welfare conditionalitylived experiencesanctionsqualitative longitudinal research
Type
Themed Section: Rethinking Welfare-to-Work for the Long-Term Unemployed
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 597 - 613
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbas, J. and Jones, K. (2018) In-Work Conditionality is Based on weak Evidence – But Will the Policy Sink or Swim?, LSE British Politics and Policy Blog, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/in-work-conditionality-public-opinion/ [accessed 20.09.2018].Google Scholar
Adler, M. (2016) ‘A new Leviathan: Benefit sanctions in the twenty-first century’, Journal of Law and Society, 43, 2, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M. (2018) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment? Benefit Sanctions in the UK, London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguirre, R. T. and Bolton, K. W. (2014) ‘Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory’, Journal of Social Work, 14, 3, 279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacchi, C. (1999) Women, Policy and Politics, London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Barbier, J-C. and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2004) ‘Introduction: the many worlds of activation’, European Societies, 6, 4, 423–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2010) ‘The political economy of active labor-market policy’, Politics and Society, 38, 4, 435–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds) (2013) Work and the Welfare State: Street-level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M. and Pill, R. (2002) ‘Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example,’ Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7, 4, 209–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. and Cochrane, A. (1998) ‘The social construction of social problems’, in Saraga, E. (ed.), Embodying the Social, London: Routledge, 13–42.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (2006) ‘Beyond activation: reforming European unemployment protection systems in post-industrial labour markets’, European Societies, 8, 4, 527–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. and Valentine, J. C. (eds) (1994), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta Analysis, New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Daguerre, A. and Etherington, D. (2014) Workfare in 21st Century Britain: The Erosion of Rights to Social Assistance, London: Middlesex University.Google Scholar
Davis, A., Hirsch, D., Padley, M. and Shepherd, C. (2018) A Minimum Income Standard for the UK 2008-2018: Continuity and Change, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2011) Conditionality Measures in The 2011 Welfare Reform Bill: Impact Assessment, https://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-022AI.pdf [accessed 20.09.2018].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2012) DWP Explanatory Memorandum to The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2007) ‘Between workfare and enablement– the different paths to transformation of the welfare state: a comparative analysis of activating labour market policies’, Journal of European Social Policy, 46, 6, 823–51.Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A. and Young, B. (2006) ‘How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective’, Qualitative research, 6, 1, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, E. and Lambie-Mumford, H. (2015) ‘How can households eat in austerity? Challenges for social policy in the UK’, Social Policy and Society, 14, 3, 417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2016) ‘Citizenship, conduct and conditionality: sanction and support in the 21st century UK welfare state’, in Fenger, M., Hudson, J. and Needham, C. (eds.), Social Policy Review 28, Bristol, The Policy Press, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Wright, S. (2014) ‘Universal Credit, ubiquitous conditionality and its implications for social citizenship’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22, 1, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmiston, D. (2017) ‘Review article. Welfare, austerity and social citizenship in the UK’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 2, 261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2008) Contingent Convergence: A Comparative Analysis of Activation Policies, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1997) The New Golden Rule, London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., Sosenko, F., Blenkinsopp, J., Wood, J., Johnsen, S., Littlewood, M. and Watts, B. (2018) Destitution In The UK: 2018, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Fletcher, D. R. and Wright, S. (2018) ‘A hand up or a slap down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain via strategies of surveillance, sanctions and deterrence’, Critical Social Policy, 38, 2, 323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flick, U. (2006) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1971) Status Passage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2009) ‘US welfare reform: rewriting the social contract’, Journal of Social Policy, 38, 3, 383–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulden, C. (2018) Sanctions are Going too Far and Causing Destitution, https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/sanctions-going-too-far-causing-destitution, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation [accessed 07.11.2018].Google Scholar
Griggs, J. and Bennett, F. (2009) Rights and Responsibilities in the Social Security System, Social Security Advisory Committee Occasional Paper No. 6., London: Social Security Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
Grover, C. (2010) ‘Social security policy and vindictiveness’, Sociological Research Online, 15, 2, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, C. (2018) ‘Violent proletarianisation: social murder, the reserve army of labour and social security ‘austerity’ in Britain’, Critical Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018318816932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heins, E. and Bennett, H. (2018) ‘Retrenchment, conditionality and flexibility: UK labour market policies in the era of austerity’, in Theodoropoulou, S. (ed.), Labour Market Policies in the Era of Pervasive Austerity: A European Perspective., Bristol: Policy Press, 225–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henwood, K. and Shirani, F. (2012) ‘Researching the temporal’, in Cooper, H., Camic, P. M., Long, D. L., Panter, A. T., Rindskopf, D. and Sher, K. J. (eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Publications, 209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, J. (2015) Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hood, A. and Waters, T. (2017) Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2017–18 To 2021–22, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
Immervoll, H. and Knotz, C. (2018) How Demanding are Activation Requirements for Jobseekers?, Bonn: IZA Institute for Labour Economics.Google Scholar
Knotz, C. M. (2018) ‘A rising workfare state? Unemployment benefit conditionality in 21 OECD countries, 1980-2012’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 34, 2, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, F. and van Berkel, R. (2009) The New Governance and Implementation of Labour Market Policies, Copenhagen: DJOF.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manji, K. (2017) ‘Social security reform and the surveillance state: exploring the operation of “hidden conditionality” in the reform of disability benefits since 2010’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 2, 305–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, G. and McDonald, C. (2008) ‘Feeling motivated yet? Long-term unemployed people’s perspectives on the implementation of workfare in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43, 2, 255–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. (2017) Qualitative Researching: Third Edition, London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
McIntosh, I. and Wright, S. (2018) ‘Exploring what the notion of ‘lived experience’ offers for social policy analysis’, Journal of Social Policy, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279418000570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVey, E. (2018) ‘Speech: The way forward: personalisation and digitalisation of benefits and support’, 18 July, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-way-forward-personalisation-and-digitalisation-of-benefits-and-support [accessed 20.09.18].Google Scholar
Mead, L. M. (1986) Beyond Entitlement, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mead, L. (1992) The New Politics of Poverty, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W. (1940) ‘Situated actions and vocabularies of motive’, American Sociological Review, 5, 6, 904–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. (1984) Losing Ground, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (1990) The Emerging British Underclass, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Neale, B. and Hanna, E. (2012) ‘The ethics of researching lives through time’, in Neale, B. and Henwood, K. (eds.), Timescapes Method Guide Series, Leeds: Timescapes.Google Scholar
Noblit, G. W. and Hare, R. D. (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies, Vol. 11, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, E., Melendez-Torres, G. J. and Bonell, C. (2016) ‘Origins, methods, and advances in qualitative metasynthesis’, Review of Education, 4, 1, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, L. and Northcott, D. (2016) ‘Qualitative generalising in accounting research: concepts and strategies’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29, 6, 1100–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, R. (2011) ‘Disabling or enabling: the extension of work-related conditionality to disabled people’, Social Policy and Society, 10, 3, 309–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, R. (2017) For Whose Benefit? The Everyday Realities of Welfare Reform, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Payne, G. and Williams, M. (2005) ‘Generalization in Qualitative Research’, Sociology, 39, 2, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paz-Fuchs, A. (2008) Welfare to Work: Conditional Rights in Social Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, K. (2012) ‘Combining qualitative methods’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.), Qualitative Organizational Research, London: SAGE, 132–48.Google Scholar
Reeve, K. (2017) ‘Welfare conditionality, benefit sanctions and homelessness in the UK: ending the “something for nothing culture” or punishing the poor?’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25, 1, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, A. and Loopstra, R. (2017) ‘“Set up to fail”? How welfare conditionality undermines citizenship for vulnerable groups’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 2, 327–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston, S. (2017) Broken Benefits: What’s Gone Wrong with Welfare Reform, Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selbourne, D. (1994) The Principle Of Duty, London: Sinclair Stevenson.Google Scholar
Serrano-Pascual, A. and Lars, M. (2007) Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2003) ‘Cross-sectional profiling and longitudinal analysis: research notes on analysis in the longitudinal qualitative study, “Negotiating Transitions to Citizenship”‘, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 3, 273–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, C., Bevan, M. and Thomson, H. (2015) ‘Justice, fuel poverty and disabled people in England’, Energy Research and Social Science, 10, 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stack, C.B. (1997) ‘Beyond what are given as givens: ethnography and critical policy studies’, Ethos, 25, 5, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, A. B. R. and Wright, S. (2018) Final Findings: Jobseekers, York, University of York.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. E. (2008) ‘Meta-synthesis’, in Given, L. M. (ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, London: Sage.Google Scholar
van Berkel, R., de Graaf, W. and Sirovatka, T. (eds.), (2011) The Governance of Active Welfare States in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, B., Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G. and Watkins, D. (2014) Welfare Sanctions and Conditionality in the UK, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Watts, B. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2018) Welfare Conditionality, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, A. and Griggs, J. (2013) ‘Lone parents and welfare-to-work conditionality: necessary, just, effective?’, Ethics and Social Welfare, 7, 2, 124–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, A. (2016) ‘Neoliberal paternalism and paradoxical subjects: confusion and contradiction in UK activation policy’, Critical Social Policy, 36, 4, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. (2000) ‘Interpretivism and generalization’, Sociology, 34, 2, 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (1961) The Long Revolution, London: Chatto & Windus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. (2018) Rough Sleeping (England), House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, London: House of Commons Library.Google Scholar
Wiggan, J. (2015) ‘Reading active labour market politically: an autonomist analysis of Britain’s Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity’, Critical Social Policy, 35, 3, 369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Conditionality (2018) Final Findings Report: Welfare Conditionality Project, 2013– 2018, York: University of York.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2016) ‘Conceptualising the active welfare subject: welfare reform in discourse, policy and lived experience’, Policy and Politics, 44, 2, 235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., Dwyer, P., Jones, K., Mcneill, J., Scullion, L. and Stewart, A. B. R. (2018) Final Findings: Universal Credit, York, University of York.Google Scholar