Welfare conditionality is about linking welfare rights to ‘responsible’ behaviour. A principle of conditionality holds that that access to certain basic, publicly provided, welfare benefits and services should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet particular obligations or patterns of behaviour. Those in favour of welfare conditionality believe that individuals who refuse to behave in a responsible manner (e.g. engage in job search activities, ensure their children attend school), or who continue to behave irresponsibly (e.g. engage in anti-social behaviour, refuse to accept help in tackling the problems they may face) should have their rights to support reduced or removed.
Within and beyond the UK, the use of conditional welfare arrangements that combine elements of sanction and support which aim to ‘correct’ the ‘problematic’ behaviour of certain recipients of welfare is now well established. Conditionality is currently embedded in a broad range of policy arenas including: unemployment and disability benefit systems, family intervention projects, street homelessness projects and social housing.
The academic viewpoint:
Conclusions:
“The outcomes from sanctions are almost universally negative,” said the director of the study, Prof Peter Dwyer of the University of York.
The study found that, in many cases, the threat of sanctions had the unintended effect of encouraging a “culture of counterproductive compliance and futile behaviour” among some claimants, who learned “the rules of the game” rather than becoming genuinely engaged with work.
Claimants with chaotic lives – who were homeless or had addictions, for example – reacted to the “inherent hassle” of the conditionality system by dropping out of the social security system altogether. In some cases, they moved into survival crime, such as drug dealing.
(The Guardian 22/5/18)
Yet again the government are so obsessed with ideology, no matter how flawed, that they are failing to take into account the reality of so many people’s lives. Their programme of socially engineering the lives of the poor and vulnerable comes across like a 19th century authoritarian headmaster instead of a knowledgeable and realistic preceptor.
With Ruth Davidson appealing to her party this week to become more liberal and caring this might be a great place to start. Otherwise many more are going to suffer and die as a direct result of ideological dogma.
