This article studies how welfare conditionality affects democratic citizenship. Scholars make diverging predictions because reforms can both impair and stimulate political action. So far, evidence from the US and the UK lends support to the negative claim that conditionality leads to political withdrawal. Whereas prior studies mostly have relied on cross-sectional data, this study offers a more thorough assessment of causality by utilizing a longitudinal design. I exploit local variation for data on policy implementation. Moreover, the study contributes by addressing other issues, such as context sensitivity and policy scope. In contrast to prior work, I study democratic citizenship in a context where the stated requirements and benefits granted in return are described as enabling, and sanctions considered to be lenient. Moreover, I move beyond personal welfare experiences and include welfare recipients’ family members. The analysis indicates that programme effects on political interest and political trust depend on the extent of conditional requirements. Programme effects are mainly negative among claimants and their family members, but the negative effect diminishes and eventually turns positive when conditions extend.
BeckP.A.DaltonR.J.GreeneS.HuckfeldtR. (2002) ‘The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices’, American Political Science Review96: 57–73.
3.
BellA.JonesK. (2015) ‘Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modelling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data’, Political Science Research and Methods3: 133–53.
4.
BonoliG. (2013) The Origins of Active Social Policy: Labour Market and Childcare Policies in a Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BorghiV.Van BerkelR. (2007) ‘Individualised Service Provision in an Era of Activation and New Governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy27: 413–24.
6.
BothfeldS.BetzeltS. (2011) ‘Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship’, in BetzeltS.BothfeldS. (eds) Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe: Challenges to Social Citizenship, pp. 3–14. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BradyH.E.VerbaS.SchlozmanK.L. (1995) ‘Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation’, The American Political Science Review89: 271–94.
8.
BrandtzægB.FlermoenS.LunderT.E.LøylandK.MøllerG.SannesJ. (2005) Fastsetting av satser, utmåling av økonomisk sosialhjelp og vilkårsbruk i sosialtjenesten. Report no. 236. Bø i Telemark: Telemarksforskning-Bø.
9.
BrodkinE.Z. (2013) ‘Street-Level Organizations and the Welfare State’, in BrodkinE.Z.MarstonG. (eds) Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, pp. 17–34. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
10.
BrodkinE.Z.LarsenF. (2013) ‘Changing Boundaries: The Policies of Workfare in the US and Europe’, Poverty & Public Policy5: 37–47.
11.
BruchS.K.FerreeM.M.SossJ. (2010) ‘From Policy to Polity: Democracy, Paternalism, and the Incorporation of Disadvantaged Citizens’, American Sociological Review75: 205–26.
12.
CampbellA.L. (2002) ‘Self-Interest, Social Security, and the Distinctive Participation Patterns of Senior Citizens’, American Political Science Review96: 565–74.
13.
CormanH.DaveD.ReichmanN.E. (2017) ‘Effects of Welfare Reform on Women’s Voting Participation’, Economic Inquiry55: 1430–51.
14.
DaguerreA. (2007) Active Labour Market Policies and Welfare Reform: Europe and the US in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
DahlE.S.LimaI.A.Å. (2017) ‘Vilkår om aktivitet for sosialhjelp i 2015: Gjør kommunene det som virker?’, Arbeid og Velferd2: 105–21.
16.
De WildeM.MarchalS. (2018) ‘Weighing Up Work Willingness in Social Assistance: A Balancing Act on Multiple Levels’, European Sociological Review35: 718–37.
17.
DwyerP. (2010) Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
18.
EichhorstW.KaufmannO.Konle-SeidlR. (2008) Bringing the Jobless into Work? Experiences with Activation Schemes in Europe and the US. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
19.
EleveldA. (2016) Work-Related Sanctions in European Welfare States: An Incentive to Work or a Violation of Minimum Subsistence Rights? ACCESS EUROPE Research Paper. Report no. 2016/01, 15June, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2802656 (accessed 16 March 2018).
20.
FinifterA.W. (1970) ‘Dimensions of Political Alienation’, American Political Science Review64: 389–410.
21.
FivaJ.H.HalseA.H.NatvikG.J. (2017) ‘Local Government Dataset’, available at: http://www.jon.fiva.no/data.htm (accessed 26 June 2019).
22.
FolkestadB. (2017) ‘Politisk tillit og bruk av offentlige velferdstjenester’, in ChristensenD.A.LindénT.S.Ytre-ArneB.AarsJ. (eds) Tjenestedemokratiet. Velferdsstaten som arena for deltakelse, pp. 146–63. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
23.
FordingR.C.SossJ.SchramS.F. (2007) ‘Devolution, Discretion, and the Effect of Local Political Values on TANF Sanctioning’, Social Service Review81: 285–316.
24.
FuertesV.LindsayC. (2016) ‘Personalization and Street-Level Practice in Activation: The Case of the UK’s Work Programme’, Public Administration94: 526–41.
25.
GilbertN. (2002) Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
GoodinR.E. (1986) ‘Welfare, Rights and Discretion’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies6: 389–410.
27.
GubriumE.LødemelI. (2014) ‘Not Good Enough’: Social Assistance and Shaming in Norway’, in GubriumE.PellisseryS.LødemelI. (eds) The Shame of It. Global Perspectives on Anti-Poverty Policies, pp. 85–110. Bristol: Policy Press.
28.
GubriumE.HarsløfI.LødemelI. (2014) ‘Norwegian Activation Reform on a Wave of Wider Welfare State Change: A Critical Assesement’, in LødemelI.MoreiraA. (eds) Activation or Workfare? Governance and the Neo-Liberal Convergence, pp. 19–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
HalvorsenR.JensenP.H. (2004) ‘Activation in Scandinavian Welfare Policy’, European Societies6: 461–83.
30.
HuckfeldtR.R.SpragueJ. (1995) Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
KahneJ.WestheimerJ. (2006) ‘The Limits of Political Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society’, Political Science & Politics39: 289–96.
32.
KingD. (2005) ‘Making People Work: Democratic Consequence of Workfare’, in MeadL.M.BeemC. (eds) Welfare Reform and Political Theory, pp. 65–81. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
33.
KnotzC.M. (2018) ‘A Rising Workfare State? Unemployment Benefit Conditionality in 21 OECD Countries, 1980–2012’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy34: 91–108.
34.
KumlinS. (2004) The Personal and the Political: How Personal Welfare State Experiences Affect Political Trust and Ideology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
KumlinS.RothsteinB. (2005) ‘Making and Breaking Social Capital the Impact of Welfare-State Institutions’, Comparative Political Studies38: 339–65.
36.
KumlinS.FladmoA.KarlsenR., et al (2018) Support for the Affluent Welfare State: A Norwegian Panel Study on Welfare State Orientations, Social Capital and Local Context (version 1.0). Oslo: Institute for Social Research.
37.
LangelandS.DokkenT.BarstadA. (2016) Fattigdom og levekår i norge. Tilstand og utvilklingstrekk 2015. Report no. 1-2016. Oslo: Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet.
38.
LensV. (2008) ‘Welfare and Work Sanctions: Examining Discretion on the Front Lines’, Social Service Review82: 197–222.
39.
LødemelI.MoreiraA. (2014) Activation or Workfare? Governance and the Neo-Liberal Convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
LødemelI.TrickeyH. (2001) An Offer You Can’t Refuse: Workfare in International Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.
41.
MeadL.M. (1986) Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press.
42.
MeadL.M. (2005) ‘Welfare Reform and Citizenship’, in MeadL.M.BeemC. (eds) Welfare Reform and Political Theory, pp. 172–99. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
43.
MettlerS. (2002) ‘Bringing the State Back in to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the Gi Bill for World War II Veterans’, American Political Science Review96: 351–65.
44.
MolanderA.TorsvikG. (2015) ‘Getting People into Work: What (If Anything) Can Justify Mandatory Activation of Welfare Recipients?’, Journal of Applied Philosophy32: 373–92.
45.
MoreiraA.LødemelI. (2014) ‘Governning Activation in the 21st Century: A (Hi)story of Change’, in LødemelI.MoreiraA. (eds) Activation or Workfare? Governance and the Neo-Liberal Convergence, pp. 289–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
MundlakY. (1978) ‘On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data’, Econometrica46: 69–85.
47.
NelsonK. (2013) ‘Social Assistance and EU Poverty Thresholds 1990–2008. Are European Welfare Systems Providing Just and Fair Protection against Low Income?’, European Sociological Review29: 386–401.
48.
NelsonM.StephensJ.D. (2012) ‘Do Social Investment Policies Produce More and Better Jobs?’, in MorelN.PalierB.PalmeJ. (eds) Towards a Social Invetsment Welfare State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, pp. 205–34. Bristol: Policy Press.
49.
PatemanC. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PatrickR. (2017) ‘Wither Social Citizenship? Lived Experiences of Citizenship in/Exclusion for Recipi-ents of Out-of-Work Benefits’, Social Policy and Society16: 293–304.
51.
PavettiL.DerrM.K.HeskethH. (2003) Review of Sanction Policies and Research Studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/72646/full-report.pdf (accessed 2 February 2020).
52.
Paz-FuchsA. (2008) Welfare to Work: Conditional Rights in Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ReevesA.LoopstraR. (2017) ‘Set Up to Fail’? How Welfare Conditionality Undermines Citizenship for Vulnerable Groups’, Social Policy and Society16: 327–38.
56.
RothsteinB. (1998) Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993) ‘Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy’, American Political Science Review87: 334–47.
58.
SchunckR. (2013) ‘Within and Between Estimates in Random-Effects Models: Advantages and Drawbacks of Correlated Random Effects and Hybrid Models’, The Stata Journal13: 65–76.
SolevidM. (2009) Voices from the Welfare State: Dissatisfaction and Political Action in Sweden. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
61.
SossJ. (1999) ‘Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action’, American Political Science Review93: 363–80.
62.
SossJ. (2002) Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the US Welfare System. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
63.
SossJ.SchramS.F. (2007) ‘A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback’, American Political Science Review101: 111–27.
64.
TabinJ.-P.PerriardA. (2016) ‘Active Social Policies Revisited by Social Workers’, European Journal of Social Work19: 441–54.
65.
TangneyJ.P.DearingR.L. (2003) Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford Press.
66.
TerumL.I.TorsvikG.ØverbyeE. (2017) ‘Når vilkår og aktivitetskrav brytes. Frontlinjearbeideres tilnærming til sanksjoner’, Søkelys på Arbeidslivet34: 147–66.
67.
VelvinG.LødemelI.JohannesenA. (2005) ‘Brukermedvirkning – slik prosjektlederne og deltakerne ser det’, in LødemelI.JohannesenA. (eds) Tiltaksforsøket: Mot en Inkluderende Arbeidslinje? pp. 103–28. Oslo: HiO-rapport.
68.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK.L.BradyH.E. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
VilhenaS. (2020) ‘Is It because You Can’t, or Don’t Want to? The Implementation of Frontline Sanctions in Norwegian Social Assistance’, European Journal of Social Work. Epub ahead of print 30January. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2020.1713052.
70.
WalkerR.KyomuhendoG.B.ChaseE.ChoudhryS. (2013) ‘Poverty in Global Perspective: Is Shame a Common Denominator?’, Journal of Social Policy42: 215–33.
WolffJ. (1998) ‘Fairness, Respect, and the Egaliterian Ethos’, Philosophy and Public Affairs27: 97–122.
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.
