The stigma of claiming benefits: a quantitative study

Abstract

Stigma has long been viewed by some as essential to discourage excessive claims, yet seen by others as a cause of non-take-up by people in need and as a form of symbolic violence. More recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the links between shame and poverty (including the role of benefits), and particular concerns about media/political rhetoric in the UK. Yet while our knowledge of benefits stigma has been enhanced by theoretical/qualitative contributions, few quantitative studies examine its extent or patterning. This paper therefore reports the results of a 2012 nationally-representative survey in the UK. It finds sub-types of stigma are reported by 10-19% per benefit, but 34% report either personal stigma (their own view) or stigmatisation (perceived stigma by others) for at least one benefit, and over one-quarter say a stigma-related reason would make them less likely to claim. One-third of claimants themselves report some degree of stigma around their claim. Against the predictions of 'dependency culture' claims, however, respondents in high-claim areas were more likely to stigmatise benefits, both before and after accounting for other factors. The paper concludes by considering lessons for future benefits stigma studies, and policy options to reduce benefits stigma.

Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK

“…Baumberg (2016) has observed a growing academic interest in the 'psychosocial' dimensions of poverty, including disrespect, embarrassment and shame (Jo, 2013;Pemberton et al, 2016). Chase and Walker (2013: 743) observe how the words 'awkward', 'embarrassed', 'guilty', 'rotten', 'degraded', 'crap', 'useless', 'worthless', 'a failure', 'uncomfortable' , 'funny', and 'dirty', were all used to convey how people in poverty felt about themselves or were made to feel in certain social interactions.…”

‘Got a degree…all of a sudden I'm in a Jobcentre’: The role of ‘stigma’ in ‘precarious’ graduate transitions

“…As such, different variants of 'stigma' hold considerable authority for out-of-work claimants (Baumberg et al, 2012;Baumberg, 2016). Research suggests that this is maintained through both defensive forms of citizenship via 'othering' and the internalisation of personal 'scrounger' based narratives (Patrick, 2016).…”

“…Baumberg et al (2012; identify several aspects of stigma in relation to claiming benefits -these include: the notion of 'personal' stigma -when there is an internal devaluation of identity whilst claiming benefits (Baumberg, 2016), 'social' stigma where there is an external devaluation of identity from others as a result of claiming benefits as this confers "lower social status" (Baumberg et al, 2012: 5), and lastly, 'claims stigma', arising through the processes that occurs when claimants apply for benefits (Baumberg, 2016). These are all important for graduate transitions to different degrees (this will be explored in-depth with the qualitative data of this article), however, it must be taken into account that there is difficulty in separating different aspects of benefit stigma due to the tendency of these factors to overlap as well as their internal and external dimensions (Patrick, 2016: 3).…”

“…Its acceptability as a viable job search strategy depended on subjective accounts of 'reciprocity' in the claiming of out-of-work benefits. This resulted in graduates engaging in a trade-off between their own 'needs' -specifically in how adverse labour market insecurity was avoided -and the social penalty associated with benefit stigma (Baumberg, 2016). Furthermore, those that claimed out-of-work benefits through Jobcentre Plus also framed such interactions through notions of 'fairness' and 'deservedness'.…”

Social Image Concerns and Welfare Take-Up

“…Previous studies investigate how behavioral deficiencies, such as low program awareness, misperception of program features, and inattention affect program participation, with the conclusion that these contribute to incomplete take-up but cannot fully explain it (see, e.g., Madrian and Shea, 2001;Bhargava and Manoli, 3 2015;Kleven and Kopczuk, 2011;Liebman and Luttmer, 2015;Finkelstein and Notowidigdo, 2018). We exclude these factors by design to focus on stigma, which earlier studies typically aimed to detect from surveys (see, e.g., Baumberg, 2016) in the form of an observed positive correlation between benefit size and the probability of welfare take-up (e.g., Blundell et al, 1988;Blank and Ruggles, 1996;Currie, 2000;Whelan, 2010), or from the observation that non take-up rates tend to be higher in means-tested (income-based) than in universal (non-income based) programs (see, e.g., Andrade, 2002). These approaches suffer from identification problems.…”