No abstract

This paper presents findings from a qualitative longitudinal study into the lived experiences of welfare reform in the UK. The study set out to explore how individuals directly affected by changes to the benefits system experienced and responded to these reforms. A small group of out-of-work benefits claimants were interviewed three times between 2011 and 2013. The research found that 'getting by' on benefits often entailed substantial hard 'work', which was frequently time intensive, with many participants also engaged in other forms of socially valuable contribution such as caring and volunteering. A strong orientation towards paid employment was evident across most of the sample and fluid movements in and out of work, characteristic of the 'low-pay, no-pay' cycle, was quite common. Alongside a discussion of these findings, this paper considers the (mis)match between the government rhetoric of benefits as a 'lifestyle choice' and individual lived experiences.

Focusing on the British case, this paper provides an analysis of the ways in which the responsibility to work is today characterised as the primary duty of the 'good' citizen. Following an exploration of how paid work is conceptualised, and the citizenship framework on which this conceptualisation rests, a brief review of relevant policy measures in this domain highlights continuity and change between the approaches of New Labour and the Coalition. This paper then explores the rhetorical devices and binary distinctions employed to uphold and sustain distinctions between the behaviour of workers and those reliant on welfare for all, or most, of their income. The contemporary valorisation of work is critiqued, with emphasis placed on the exclusionary citizenship consequences for those who do not engage in the formal labour market. A work-centric approach adopts a narrow and overly-restrictive understanding of both work and dependency, omitting analyses of inequalities amongst the working population, as well as issues of the deservingness and responsibilities of the rich. Inevitably, simplistic and unsustainable binary distinctions between 'work' and 'dependency' only serve to further exclude and demoralise those already on the margins of social exclusion.

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.

This article considers the defensibility of the extension of conditionality to disabled people through a qualitative investigation of welfare service users’ opinions on the applicability of conditionality for disabled people. Three focus groups took place, with participants segmented according to whether or not they were disabled, to enable a comparison between the attitudes of those who would and would not be directly affected by the extension of conditionality analysed. The qualitative research undertaken demonstrates how much more the government must do before it can justifiably make disability benefit receipt conditional on participating in work-related activities.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper critically explores the Westminster coalition government's efforts to assist disabled people off benefits and into paid employment, focusing on the ongoing migration of Incapacity Benefit claimants onto Employment and Support Allowance. Drawing on the social model of disability, it is argued that the current reform agenda individualises the problem of disability; placing too much emphasis on disabled people's employability while neglecting broader societal barriers to their full and equal labour market participation. Given these shortcomings, it seems unlikely that the Coalition's approach will help disabled people to make the transition from welfare-to-work.