The past 20 years have witnessed a shift to work-based welfare conditionality within the advanced welfare states, as access to social benefits are increasingly predicated on individuals agreeing to behavioral conditions related to participation in the labor market. Existing literature on the political consequences of this shift offers contradictory expectations. While new paternalists claim that it should increase political participation among benefit recipients, others argue that it has a depressive effect. The majority of existing studies rely on cross-sectional analyses, which leaves them open to charges of selection bias. Utilizing multiple longitudinal research designs, this article finds that conditionality has a depressive effect on patterns of democratic engagement. Welfare conditionality reduces political and civic participation, political interest and efficacy, and personal efficacy. In disaggregating conditionality’s effects across two client groups, the article finds largely positive effects among recipients of the contributory disability benefit but negative effects among means-tested recipients of the lone parent benefit.
AndersenJ. G.PedersenJ. J. (2007). Continuity and change in Danish Active Labour Market Policy: 1990-2007: The battlefield between activation and workfare (Working Paper). Technical report, Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies. Arlburg, Denmark: University of Aarlburg.
2.
BairdS.McIntoshC.OzlerB. (2011). Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1709-1753.
3.
BaldwinP. (1992). Beveridge in the longue duree. International Social Security Review, 45(1-2), 53-72.
4.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 249-275.
5.
BradyH. E.VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
6.
BruchS. K.FerreeM. M.SossJ. (2010). From policy to polity democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review, 75, 205-226.
7.
CampbellA. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
CampbellA. L. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333-351.
9.
CoxR. H. (1998). The consequences of welfare reform: How conceptions of social rights are changing. Journal of Social Policy, 27, 1-16.
10.
De La OA. L. (2013). Do conditional cash transfers affect electoral behavior? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 1-14.
DevetziS. (2011). Reforms of incapacity benefits systems in Europe. In DevetziS.StendahlS. (Eds.), Too sick to work? (pp. 175-184). Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
DwyerP. (2004). Creeping conditionality in the UK: from welfare rights to conditional entitlements?The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 265-287.
17.
FletcherD. R. (2011). Welfare reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: Towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?Social Policy and Society, 10, 445-458.
18.
GiugniM. (2009). The politics of unemployment in Europe. London, England: Ashgate.
19.
HochschildJ. L. (1996). Facing up to the American dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Jenkins StephenP. (2010). The British Household Panel Survey and its income data (ISER Working Paper No. 2010-33). Essex, England: University of Essex.
KingD. (1995). Actively seeking work?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
KingD. (1999). In the name of liberalism: Illiberal social policy in the United States and Britain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
KingD. (2005). Making people work: Democratic consequences of workfare. In MeadL. M.BeemC. (Eds.), Welfare reform and political theory (pp. 65-81). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
26.
KingD.Wickham-JonesM. (1999). From Clinton to Blair: The democratic (party) origins of welfare to work. The Political Quarterly, 70(1), 62-74.
27.
KluegelJ. R.SmithE. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Transaction.
28.
KumlinS. (2004). The personal and the political: How personal welfare state experiences affect political trust and ideology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
KumlinS.RothsteinB. (2005). Making and breaking social capital the impact of welfare-state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 339-365.
30.
LinkB. G.PhelanJ. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.
31.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
32.
ListerR. (2007). An agenda for children: Investing in the future or promoting well-being in the present? In LewisJ. (Ed.), Children, changing families and welfare states (pp. 51-68). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
33.
ManacordaM.MiguelE.VigoritoA. (2011). Government transfers and political support. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 1-28.
34.
MarshallT. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class (Vol. 11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MeadL. M. (1997). The new paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
36.
MeadL. M. (2001). Beyond entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.
37.
MeadL. M.BeemC. (2005). Welfare reform and political theory. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
38.
MettlerS. (2007). Bringing government back into civic engagement: Considering the role of public policy. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 643-650.
39.
MettlerS.SossJ. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 55-73.
40.
MettlerS.StonecashJ. M. (2008). Government program usage and political voice. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 273-293.
41.
MettlerS.WelchE. (2004). Civic generation: Policy feedback effects of the GI bill on political involvement over the life course. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 497-518.
42.
MorganK. J.CampbellA. L. (2011). The delegated welfare state: Medicare, markets, and the governance of social policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
PenningsF. (2011). The New Dutch Disability Pensions Act: The link between income provision and participation in work. In DevetziS.StendahlS. (Eds.), Too sick to work? (pp. 77-94). Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
44.
PetersM.JoyceL. (2006). Review of the JSA sanction regime: Summary research findings. London, England: Corporate Document Services.
45.
PiersonP. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595-628.
46.
QuadagnoJ. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
Rogers-DillonR. (1995). The dynamics of welfare stigma. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 439-456.
48.
RothsteinB. (2008). Is the universal welfare state a cause or an effect of social capital? (Quality of Government Working Paper Series No. 16). Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334-347.
51.
SimmelG. (1971). The poor. In LevineD. N. (Ed.), On individuality and social forms (pp. 150-178). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
SossJ. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93, 363-380.
54.
SossJ. (2002). Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the US welfare state. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
55.
SossJ.FordingR. C.SchramS. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
SossJ.SchramS. F. (2007). A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. American Political Science Review, 101, 111-127.
57.
SpickerP. (1984). Stigma and social welfare. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
58.
Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research. (2012). Bad news for disabled people: How the newspapers are reporting disability (Working Paper). Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow.
59.
StuberJ.SchlesingerM. (2006). Sources of stigma for means-tested government programs. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 933-945.
60.
SwartzT. T.BlackstoneA.UggenC.McLaughlinH. (2009). Welfare and citizenship: The effects of government assistance on young adults’ civic participation. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 633-665.
61.
Taylor-GoobyP. (2002). Welfare states under pressure. London, England: Sage.
62.
Van OorschotW. (2000). Who should get what and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28, 33-48.
63.
WeaverV. M.LermanA. E. (2010). Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review, 104, 817-833.
64.
WebsterD. (2014). The DWP’s JSA/ESA sanctions release (Technical Report). Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow.
65.
WhiteS. (2000). Review article: Social rights and the social contract. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 507-532.
66.
WrightS. (2003). The street-level implementation of unemployment policy. In MillarJ. (Ed.), Understanding social security: Issues for policy and practice (pp. 235-254). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
