Abstract:New mechanisms of conditionality enacted through current reforms of the UK welfare system are framed within contested narratives about the characteristics, rationalities and conduct of welfare users. In the problem figuration of welfare reform the orientations and conduct of welfare recipients have been conceptualised and depicted across a spectrum ranging from cynical manipulators gaming the system and subverting the original ethos of the welfare state to vulnerable individuals experiencing compounded disadva… Show more
“…It is difficult to make sense of the motivation of more powerful upstream policy and political actors (Wright, ), to know if they appreciate constraints that structure choices (Lewis et al, , p. 2), or to assess whether they may be cynically manipulating public perception. However, there is little doubt such discourses are important in framing shifts to more conditional welfare and social housing policy (Fletcher et al, ). Gaffney & Millar, , p. 6), examining parallel fraud discourse, demonstrate how welfare claimants are subjectified in formal policy documents as “rational skivers” or “calculative individuals who engage with the system cynically from the outset.” The lone parent organisation One Family () challenged media coverage of welfare fraud, requesting that “media and policy makers stop perpetuating notions of the deserving and undeserving poor” (cited in Gaffney & Millar, ).…”
This article focuses on multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing from the perspective of lone parents in Ireland. The Irish case echoes historical experiences elsewhere and is offered not as an exceptional or extreme case but as an in‐depth single case study and a lens for comparison. Although contemporary forms and combinations of conditionalities are new to Ireland, the experience of multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing is not new. Hence, a historical perspective is used to examine contemporary multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing. In the past, conditional regimes for lone parents were justified in terms of moral reformation for first time mothers and avoiding moral contagion of mothers with subsequent pregnancies. In contemporary times, in the case of employment, lone parents are problematised as working part‐time and “nesting” on in‐work‐benefits, and in the case of homelessness, lone parents who prioritise the security of tenure embedded in social housing are accused of “gaming” the system. While acknowledging ambiguities, the paper finds the overlap of welfare and housing discourses contribute, intentionally or unintentionally, to epistemological foundations or understandings of lone parents, shifting public perceptions, and framing them as “problems” to be solved. They simultaneously temper lone parents' expectations. Increased precarity and disempowerment is associated with dual conditionality, and ontological uncertainty is multiplied when experienced cumulatively across employment, social protection, and housing regimes in a context of generally poor public services and labour market precarity and in the historical context of stigmatisation. Nonetheless, lone parents demonstrate considerable agency.
“…It is difficult to make sense of the motivation of more powerful upstream policy and political actors (Wright, ), to know if they appreciate constraints that structure choices (Lewis et al, , p. 2), or to assess whether they may be cynically manipulating public perception. However, there is little doubt such discourses are important in framing shifts to more conditional welfare and social housing policy (Fletcher et al, ). Gaffney & Millar, , p. 6), examining parallel fraud discourse, demonstrate how welfare claimants are subjectified in formal policy documents as “rational skivers” or “calculative individuals who engage with the system cynically from the outset.” The lone parent organisation One Family () challenged media coverage of welfare fraud, requesting that “media and policy makers stop perpetuating notions of the deserving and undeserving poor” (cited in Gaffney & Millar, ).…”
This article focuses on multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing from the perspective of lone parents in Ireland. The Irish case echoes historical experiences elsewhere and is offered not as an exceptional or extreme case but as an in‐depth single case study and a lens for comparison. Although contemporary forms and combinations of conditionalities are new to Ireland, the experience of multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing is not new. Hence, a historical perspective is used to examine contemporary multiple conditionalities in benefits and housing. In the past, conditional regimes for lone parents were justified in terms of moral reformation for first time mothers and avoiding moral contagion of mothers with subsequent pregnancies. In contemporary times, in the case of employment, lone parents are problematised as working part‐time and “nesting” on in‐work‐benefits, and in the case of homelessness, lone parents who prioritise the security of tenure embedded in social housing are accused of “gaming” the system. While acknowledging ambiguities, the paper finds the overlap of welfare and housing discourses contribute, intentionally or unintentionally, to epistemological foundations or understandings of lone parents, shifting public perceptions, and framing them as “problems” to be solved. They simultaneously temper lone parents' expectations. Increased precarity and disempowerment is associated with dual conditionality, and ontological uncertainty is multiplied when experienced cumulatively across employment, social protection, and housing regimes in a context of generally poor public services and labour market precarity and in the historical context of stigmatisation. Nonetheless, lone parents demonstrate considerable agency.
“…; Fletcher et al. ). Indeed, Australian politicians from Abbott () onwards have often maligned the unemployed as “job snobs”.…”
Section: Conditional Welfarementioning
confidence: 97%
“…As Fletcher et al. (:173) explain, conditional welfare policies:enshrine the emphasis on individual conduct, the need to reverse the subversion of the emphasis on individual responsibility in the birth of the welfare state, and the need to realign individuals’ orientations and behaviour.…”
Section: Conditional Welfarementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those who fail to meet these conditions face “sanctions”—that is, their benefits are reduced, suspended or terminated (Fletcher et al. ).…”
Section: Conditional Welfarementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Barker and Lamble (:325; see also Fletcher et al. : 172; Watts & Fitzpatrick ) note, however, that the empirical evidence does not support this claim:[N]oncompliance often stems from circumstantial, rather than volitional, factors such as illness, confusion about obligations, transportation barriers, bullying, and inappropriate work or training requirements […] Other factors—such as child‐care demands, structural barriers to employment, addictions, disability, discrimination, physical and mental health—may be more relevant than ‘motivation’ or ‘willingness’ to seek work.…”
Compulsory Income Management (CIM) is a form of conditional welfare that involves the mandatory quarantining of a portion of welfare recipients’ social security payments. Quarantined funds are accessible via a government‐issued debit card, with restrictions surrounding where and on what funds can be spent. Official justifications of CIM have framed these policies as attempts to combat substance abuse and gambling problems, and to thus secure better outcomes for welfare recipients and their families. Central to this narrative has been the argument that welfare quarantining will ensure more money is spent on ‘essentials’, including accommodation. No existing studies, however, have specifically interrogated the impacts of CIM on housing security. This article responds to this gap in the literature by reviewing existing research concerning CIM's impacts and locating this research within broader debates regarding the causes of homelessness and the efficacy of individualised policy interventions. In doing so, it highlights CIM's potential to exacerbate housing insecurity not only through technical issues such as rental transfer failures, but also by contributing to underlying stressors such as economic disadvantage; relationship difficulties, poor health and addiction; and social stigma. The article concludes that – far from addressing the structural causes of homelessness – CIM has enflamed them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
