Work Activation Regimes and Well‐being of Unemployed People: Rhetoric, Risk and Reality of Quasi‐Marketization in the UK Work Programme

Abstract

Well-being and employment activation have become central and intertwined policy priorities across advanced economies, with the mandation of unemployed claimants towards employability interventions (e.g. curriculum vitae preparation and interview skills). Compelled job search and job transitions are in part justified by the well-being gains that resulting employment is said to deliver. However, this dominant focus within the activation field on outcome well-being -the well-being improvement triggered by a transition to paid work -neglects how participation in activation schemes can itself affect well-being levels for unemployed people -what we term 'process wellbeing' effects. Combining theoretical literature with empirical work on the UK's large-scale quasi-marketized Work Programme activation scheme, we develop the limited existing academic discussion of process well-being effects, considering whether and how activation participation mediates the negative well-being effects of unemployment, irrespective of any employment outcomes. We further relate variation in such process well-being effects to the literature on activation typologies, in which 'thinner' work-first activation interventions are linked to weaker process well-being effects for participants compared to 'thicker' human capital development interventions. Confirming these expectations, our empirical work shows that Work Programme participants have, to date, experienced a largely 'thin' activation regime in which participants are both expected to, and empirically demonstrate, similar if not lower levels of process well-being than those who are openly unemployed. These concerning findings speak to all nations seeking to promote the well-being of unemployed people and particularly those perusing 'black box' activation schemes based around quasi-marketization, devolution and New Public Management.

From quasi‐markets to public–private networks: Employers' engagement in public employment services

“…Because employers have traditionally preferred not to fill their vacancies with the long‐term unemployed or chronically ill (Bonoli, ; Danson & Gilmore, ; Salognon, ), involving employers in the co‐creation of PES entails a radical shift in their attitudes and recruitment strategies. The introduction of co‐production with users in networks also involves challenges for (local) government: developing horizontal (rather than vertical) relationships with external stakeholders (Bovaird, ; Ingold & Stuart, ; Needham, ); extending its role from information provider to “matchmaker” (Ingold & Valizade, ); and considering the well‐being of all stakeholders including jobseekers in this process (Carter & Witworth, ).…”

Adult literacy practitioners and employability skills: resisting neo-liberalism?

“…Critics have argued that this approach means that the unemployed and inactive are encouraged to enter the labour market as quickly as possible, potentially by accepting low-paid or inappropriate jobs, and this, in turn, means that disadvantaged people are dealt with by using a standardised, short-term intervention model (Salisbury, 2004). In addition, the strong punitive elements of the sanctions were designed to increase the speed of return to the labour market and were not concerned about whether jobs were sustainable or led to improvements in participants' employability or health (Carter and Whitworth, 2017).…”

New mindsets to innovate activation

“…This literature stresses relational 4 features in the lived experiences of people. It also challenges the strong focus on the effects of activation policies on transition into regular employment and turns attention to the impact on recipients' current well-being (Carter & Whitworth, 2016;Sage, 2013Sage, , 2015aSage, , 2015bStrandh, 2001). Contrary to the trend of individualisation of responsibilities and "the individualisation of the social" (Ferge, 1997, p. 23), this thesis therefore aims not to lose sight of the societal structures in which policy recipients are embedded, their interactions with significant others, the role played by activation, and what this means for policy design.…”

“…Emphasis on this outcome has gone along with a relative neglect of the influence of activation policy instruments themselves on recipients' current well-being (Carter & Whitworth, 2016;Sage, 2013Sage, , 2015Strandh, 2001). In this respect, Sage 2018synthesised major theories of unemployment and conceptualised the current experience of unemployment as a process of loss.…”

“…Finally, being out of work is associated with loss of social status (Ezzy, 1993). Consequently, we can conceive links between participation in activation activities and current well-being, yet with variations along activation typologies such as 'work-first' or 'human capital development' (Carter & Whitworth, 2016). Carter and Whitworth (2016) called for advancing knowledge in this area across different contexts.…”