Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T07:42:14.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Welfare-to-work, Agency and Personal Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2012

SHARON WRIGHT*
Affiliation:
School of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA email: sharon.wright@stir.ac.uk

Abstract

A strong international reform agenda has been established around the idea that benefit recipients must be ‘activated’ to find jobs. This approach, which has found support across the political spectrum in times of affluence and austerity, rests on previously contested assumptions about human motivation, choice, action and personal responsibility. This article considers the largely untested assumptions within UK welfare-to-work policies and marketised employment services, which are designed to control and modify behaviour through compulsion and incentives. It examines those assumptions in relation to conceptualisations of human agency drawn from social policy literature. A gap is identified between accounts of agency grounded in the lived experiences of social actors (policy-makers, front-line workers and service users) and hypothetical models of individual agency (e.g. ‘rational economic man’) which have been more influential in policy design. It is argued that scope exists for understandings of agency to encompass the motivations, intentions and actions of all social actors involved in the policy process. This highlights the power dynamics of context creation, the universal potential for malevolence and the weight of moral significance. Conceptual and empirical insights point towards understanding the enactment of agency as relational, dynamic, differentiated, interconnected, interdependent, intersubjective and interactive.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, M. (1995), Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, C., Oliver, M. and Barton, L. (2002), Disability Studies Today, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (1993), Postmodern Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Becker, H. (1967), ‘Whose side are we on?’, Social Problems, 14: 3, 239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, K. (2003), Social Policy: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bruttel, O. and Sol, E. (2006), ‘Work First as a European Model? Evidence from Germany and the Netherlands’, Policy and Politics, 34: 1, 6989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, N. (1996), Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, S. (2008), ‘Contracting out employment services to the third and private sectors: a critique’, Critical Social Policy, 28: 2, 136–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, A. (2004), ‘Review article: different interpretations of agency within welfare debates’, Social Policy and Society, 3: 4, 447–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, A. and Mann, K. (1999), ‘Agency, modernity and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 28: 3, 413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (2003a), ‘The third way and social welfare: the myth of post-emotionalism’, Social Policy and Administration, 37: 7, 695708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. (2003b), ‘Re-conceptualising welfare-to-work for people with multiple problems and needs’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 3, 441–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2006), A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, Cm 6730, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2007), In Work, Better Off: Next Steps to Full Employment, Cm 7130, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008), No One Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility, Cm 7363, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2010a), 21st Century Welfare, Cm 7913, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2010b), Universal Credit: Welfare that Works, Cm7957, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2011a), Households Below Average Income, Leeds: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2011b), Employment and Support Allowance: Work Capability Assessment by Health Condition and Functional Impairment − Official Statistics, January, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1997), ‘Lone mothers and paid work – rational economic man or gendered moral rationalities’, Feminist Economics, 3: 2, 2961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1999), Lone Parents, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2010), Understanding Social Citizenship: Issues for Policy and Practice, 2nd edn, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. and Duncan, S. (1997), ‘Supporting the family: lone mothers, paid work and the underclass debate’, Critical Social Policy, 17: 4, 2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, N. (2000 [1939]), The Civilising Process, Basingstoke: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fennell, G., Phillipson, C. and Evers, H. (1988), The Sociology of Old Age, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1993), Negotiating Family Responsibilities, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Finn, D. and Gloster, R. (2010), Lone Parent Obligations: A Review of Recent Evidence on the Work-Related Requirements within the Benefit Systems of Different Countries, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report 632, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Freud, D. (2007), Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare-to-Work: An Independent Report to the Department for Work and Pensions, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Frost, L. and Hoggett, P. (2008), ‘Human agency and social suffering’, Critical Social Policy, 28: 4, 438–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1989), ‘A reply to my critics’, in Held, D. and Thompson, J. (eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Greener, I. (2002), ‘Agency, social theory and social policy’, Critical Social Policy, 22: 4, 688705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, P. (2008), Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. and Durkin, S. (2007), Synthesising the Evidence on Employment Zones, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Groves, K. A. (2002), ‘Understanding benefit fraud: a qualitative analysis’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardian (2011), ‘Government admits jobcentres set targets to take away benefits’, 8 April, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets (accessed 18.10.11).Google Scholar
Handler, J. (2004), Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe: The Paradox of Inclusion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, M. and Davis, C. (2001), Housing, Social Policy and Difference: Disability, Ethnicity, Gender and Housing, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hasluck, C. and Green, A. E. (2007), What Works for Whom? A Review of Evidence and Meta-Analysis for the Department for Work and Pensions, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Hoggett, P. (2000), Emotional Life and the Politics of Welfare, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggett, P. (2001), ‘Agency, rationality and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 30: 1, 3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. (2010), ‘Beyond social structure’, in Martin, P. and Dennis, A. (eds.), Human Agents and Social Structures, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 133–51.Google Scholar
Johansson, H. (2007), ‘Placing the individual “at the forefront”: Beck and individual approaches to activation’, in van, R. Berkel and Valkenburg, B. (eds.), Making It Personal: Individualising Activation Services in the EU, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 6785.Google Scholar
Kenway, P. (2008), Addressing In-Work Poverty, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd edn, Norfolk: Verso.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. and Bartlett, W. (1993), Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1997), ‘Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 26: 2, 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights & Knaves, Pawns & Queens, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, P. (1997), Making Social Policy, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., McQuaid, R. W. and Dutton, M. (2007), ‘New approaches to employability in the UK: combining “human capital development” and “Work First” strategies’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 4, 539–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (2004), Poverty, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Mead, L. (1992), The New Politics of Poverty, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mead, L. (ed.) (1997), The New Paternalism, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1977 [1852]), ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louise Bonaparte’, in McLellan, D. (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–25.Google Scholar
Martin, P. (2010), ‘On the retreat from collective concepts in sociology’, in Martin, P. and Dennis, A. (eds.), Human Agents and Social Structures, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 3451.Google Scholar
Martin, P. and Dennis, A. (2010), ‘Introduction: the opposition of structure and agency’, in Martin, P. and Dennis, A. (eds.), Human Agents and Social Structures, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 216.Google Scholar
Mathiesen, T. (2004), Silently Silenced: Essays on the Creation of Acquienscence in Modern Society, Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
McKinlay, J. B. (1975), ‘A case for refocussing upstream – the political economy of illness’, Enelow, A. and Henderson, J. B. (eds.), Applying Behavioral Science to Cardiovascular Risk, Houston, TX: American Heart Association.Google Scholar
McRobbie, A. (1994), Postmodernism and Popular Culture, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolf, G. R. (2003), ‘Social structure, human agency and social policy’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23: 6/7, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. (1990), The Emerging British Underclass, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (1994), Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Newman, I. (2011), ‘Work as a route out of poverty: a critical evaluation of the UK welfare-to-work policy’, Policy Studies, 32: 2, 91108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Audit Office (NAO) (2007), Sustainable Employment: Supporting People to Stay in Work and Advance, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1999), ‘Unemployment in Britain’, in Gregg, P. and Wadsworth, J. (eds.), The State of Working Britain, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, M. (2010), ‘Editor's introduction: the structure/agency “problem”’, in O'Donnell, M. (eds.), Structure and Agency, London: Sage, pp. xxxlxvi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2007), The OECD Employment Outlook, OECD.Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (2011), ‘Deserving or undeserving? The coalition, welfare reform and disabled people’, presented at Social Policy Association Conference, University of Lincoln, 5 July.Google Scholar
Roulstone, A. (2011), ‘Coalition disability policy: a consolidation of neo-liberalisam or benign pragmatism?’, presented at Social Policy Association Conference, University of Lincoln, 5 July.Google Scholar
Sage, D. (2012), ‘Fair conditions and fair consequences? Exploring New Labour, welfare contractualism and social attitudes’, Social Policy and Society, 11: 4 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. (2005), ‘The paradoxes of the active subject in the discourse of the EU institutions’, Tijdschrift voor Arbeid en Participatie, 26: 2/3, 111–35.Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2011), ‘Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 40: 2, 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, H., Evans, M., Hancock, R., Hills, J. and Zantomio, F. (2008), The Impact of Benefit and Tax Uprating on Incomes and Poverty, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Svenhuijsen, S. (1998), Citizenship and the Ethics of Care, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Theodore, N. and Peck, J. (1999), ‘Welfare-to-work: national problems, local solutions?’, Critical Social Policy, 19: 4, 485510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titterton, M. (1992), ‘Managing threats to welfare: the search for a new paradigm of welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 21: 1, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, J. C. (1993), Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. (2010), ‘The provision of income protection and activation services for the unemployed in “active” welfare states: an international comparison’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Veen, R. and Trommel, W. (1999), ‘Managed liberalization of the Dutch welfare state: a review and analysis of the reform of the Dutch social security system, 1985–1998’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12: 3, 289310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. and Greenberg, D. (2005), ‘Determining what works and for how long’, in Cebulla, A., Ashworth, K., Greenberg, D. and Walker, R. (eds.), Welfare-to-Work: New Labour and the US Experience, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 85115.Google Scholar
Williams, F., Popay, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) (1999), Welfare Research: A Critical Review, London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (1999), ‘Good-enough principles for welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 28: 4, 667–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, F. (2001), ‘In and beyond New Labour: towards a new political ethic of care’, Critical Social Policy, 21: 4, 467–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2002), ‘Activating the unemployed: the street-level implementation of UK policy’, in Clasen, J. (ed.), What Future for Social Security? Debates and Reforms in National and Cross-National Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2011a), ‘Steering with sticks, rowing for rewards: the new governance of activation in the UK’, in van Berkel, R., de Graaf, W. and Sirovatka, T. (eds.), The Governance of Active Welfare States in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 85109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2011b), ‘Relinquishing the right to parent? The impact of activation on the citizenship on lone parents in the UK’, in Betzelt, S. and Bothfeld, S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 5978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeo, A. (2007), Experience of Work and Job Retention among Lone Parents: An Evidence Review, Working Paper No. 37, Leeds: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar