Discretion as blame avoidance: passing the buck to local authorities in ‘welfare reform’

Abstract

This paper argues that central governments can avoid blame for cuts to social security by transferring discretionary powers to local authorities. When making reductions to entitlements, conferring discretion avoids delineating the boundary of who is affected, allowing: for conflicts at the heart of policy formation to be deliberately fudged; decisions to be shielded from the gaze of the public and the courts; and responsibility for the impact of budget reductions to be externalised. Using three 'welfare reforms' in the UK as examplesthe council tax reduction scheme, discretionary housing payments, and local welfare assistance schemes -four 'blame avoidance' functions of conferring discretion are proposed.

Mediating the claim? How ‘local ecosystems of support’ shape the operation and experience of UK social security

“…The responsibilities borne by these actors have displaced, but also opened up new possibilities for, discretion in the local administration of social security. Meers (2019, p. 47) demonstrates how discretion operates as a policy and political strategy in social security reforms that is ‘avoiding or blurring responsibilities for the negative externalities they generate’ with two key effects. First, welfare reforms have drawn an increasingly dispersed, and thus hard‐to‐track, set of actors into the administration of social security and the management of its impacts locally.…”

“…First, welfare reforms have drawn an increasingly dispersed, and thus hard‐to‐track, set of actors into the administration of social security and the management of its impacts locally. Second, local authority disinvestment alongside decentralisation means local actors are being ‘expected to fulfil functions otherwise provided by central government, without concomitant financial support to do so’ (Meers, 2019, p. 48). For example, 8 in 10 local welfare assistance schemes across English local authorities have experienced a 50% cut to their budget at the same time as demand for their services has increased (Hick, 2021, p. 10).…”

“…In many ways, this reflects the extent to which austere localisation has responsibilised local ecosystems of support, without giving them the resources necessary to meet demand (Dagdeviren et al, 2019; Meers, 2019). The result is that discretion is mobilised across individual interactions and organisational settings in a way that undermines the capacity of the most economically vulnerable to achieve subsistence.…”

‘What about the poor people's rights?’ The dismantling of social citizenship through access to justice and welfare reform policy

“…82 As Meers notes, where there is a high level of discretion, social rights become uncertain and weaker. 83 Participants reported inappropriate levels of discretion with medical assessments. They commonly perceived the denial of benefits as arbitrary and medical assessments as incorrect.…”

Cyber blame and social theory

“…Once there is potential for separation its possible to classify troubling things into good/evil, right/wrong, redresssive/regressive, helpful/destructive, noble/dishonorable etc. One author argues that this is at work when governments deflect blame for inadequacy of social assistance by giving discretionary powers to local authorities (Meers 2019 ). Even when the process stays internal to a single human there is the possibility for separating out one aspect of yourself.…”