Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:41:50.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Social Security Fails to Provide Emotional Security: Single Parent Households and the Contractual Welfare State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2013

Evelien Tonkens  and
Loes Verplanke
Evelien Tonkens
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam E-mail: e.h.tonkens@uva.nl
Loes Verplanke
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam E-mail: jansenverplanke@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The provision of services in the contractual welfare state is conditional. If one wants to receive a service, one has to comply with the demands of the provider. If one fails to do so, the organisation threatens to terminate its services, and indeed often does so. There are, however, people who breach their contracts time after time, falling back into the same dire situation that prompted them to ask for help in the first place. Social workers must then visit these people to help them re-enter the contract. This article draws on an in-depth analysis of such ‘behind the front door’ policies, focussing on single mothers on welfare. It argues that for many single mothers on welfare, social security fails to provide emotional and relational security, which undermines their ability to fulfil the terms of the contract. So long as the welfare state is based on the idea of (material) social security, ‘behind the front door’ workers remain urgently needed.

Keywords

Multi-problem familiessingle mothers on welfareconditional welfare statebehind-the-front-door programsemotional security
Type
Themed Section on Welfare State Reform, Recognition and Emotional Labour
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 451 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Andersen, N. A. (2004) ‘The contractualisation of the citizen: on the transformation of obligation into freedom’, Zeitschrift für Soziologische Theorie, 10, 2, 273–91.Google Scholar
Arcanjo, M. (2011) ‘Welfare state regimes and reforms: a classification of ten European countries between 1990 and 2006’, Social Policy and Society, 10, 2, 139–50.Google Scholar
Batty, E. and Flint, J. (2012) ‘Conceptualising the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of intensive family intervention projects’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 3, 345–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bifulco, L. and Vitale, T. (2006) ‘Contracting for welfare services in Italy’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 3, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevannes, M. (2002) ‘Social construction of the managerialism of needs assessment by health and social care professionals’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, 3, 168–78.Google Scholar
Cook, K. E. (2012) ‘Single parents’ subjective well-being over the welfare to work transition’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 2, 143–55.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, B. (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, T. (2001) Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, T. (2005) ‘The roads to serfdom’, City Journal, 21, 4, 3.Google Scholar
Darab, S. and Hartman, Y. (2011) ‘Psychic wounds and the social structure: an empirical investigation’, Current Sociology, 59, 6, 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, V. (2010) The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2004) ‘Creeping conditionality in the UK: from welfare rights to conditional entitlements’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 2, 265–87.Google Scholar
Flint, J., Batty, E., Parr, S., Platts-Fowler, D., Nixon, J. and Sanderson, D. (2011) Evaluation of Intensive Intervention Projects, London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. and Gordon, L. (1994) ‘A genealogy of dependency: tracing a keyword of the US welfare state’, Signs, 19, 2, 309–36.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gillies, V. (2008) ‘Perspectives on parenting responsibility: contextualizing values and practices’, Journal of Law and Society, 35, 1, 95–112.Google Scholar
Gilliom, J. (2001) Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2002) ‘Structures of mutual obligation’, Journal of Social Policy, 31, 4, 579–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. and Smitsman, A. (2000) ‘Placing welfare states: the Netherlands as a crucial test case’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2, 1, 39–64.Google Scholar
Gustafson, K. S. (2011) Cheating Welfare: Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Handler, J. L. (2003) ‘Social citizenship and workfare in the US and Western Europe: from status to contract’, Journal of European Social Policy, 13, 3, 229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haux, T. (2011) ‘Activating lone parents: an evidence-based policy appraisal of welfare-to-work reform in Britain’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1983) The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R., with Machung, A. (1989) The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home, New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (2003) The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from Home and Work, San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hofferth, S. (2002) ‘Did welfare reform work? Implications for 2002 and beyond’, Contexts, 1, 1, 45–51.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. (2004) ‘Challenges and risks of individualisation in the Netherlands’, Social Policy and Society, 3, 1, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. (1997) ‘Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 4, 3, 328–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (1997) ‘Gender and welfare regimes: further thoughts’, Social Politics, 4, 2, 160–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2006) ‘Perceptions of risk in intimate relationships: the implications for social provision’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 1, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (2006) ‘Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender’, Critical Social Policy, 26, 2, 315–35.Google Scholar
Mead, L. (1997) The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2007) ‘The “double dynamics” of activation institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 9/10, 364–75.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Pawson, H. and Sosenko, F. (2010) ‘Rolling out anti-social behaviour families projects in England and Scotland: analysing the rhetoric and practice of policy transfer’, Social Policy and Administration, 44, 3, 305–25.Google Scholar
Orloff, A. S. (1993) ‘Gender and the social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states’, American Sociological Review, 58, 3, 303–28.Google Scholar
Orloff, A. S. (2002) ‘Explaining US welfare reform: power, gender, race and the US policy legacy’, Critical Social Policy, 22, 1, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, D. (2012) ‘Fair conditions and fair consequences? Exploring New Labour, welfare contractualism and social attitudes’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 3, 359–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schramm, S. (2000) After Welfare: The Culture of Postindustrial Social Policy, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtz, D. and Goodin, R. (1998) Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. and Schram, S. (2011) ‘The organization of discipline: from performance management to perversity and punishment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 2 (suppl 2), 203–32.Google Scholar
Stanley, K. (2005) ‘Sanctions and sweeteners: rights, responsibilities and the welfare state’, Public Policy Research, 12, 1, 37–43.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, S. (2000) ‘Social rights and the social contract: political theory and the new welfare politics’, British Journal of Political Science, 30, 3, 507–32.Google Scholar
Whitfield, G. and Dearden, C. (2012) ‘Low income households: casualties of the boom, casualties of the bust?’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 1, 81–91.Google Scholar