Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:06:03.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disabling or Enabling: The Extension of Work-Related Conditionality to Disabled People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

Ruth Patrick
Ruth Patrick*
Affiliation:
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the defensibility of the extension of conditionality to disabled people through a qualitative investigation of welfare service users’ opinions on the applicability of conditionality for disabled people. Three focus groups took place, with participants segmented according to whether or not they were disabled, to enable a comparison between the attitudes of those who would and would not be directly affected by the extension of conditionality analysed. The qualitative research undertaken demonstrates how much more the government must do before it can justifiably make disability benefit receipt conditional on participating in work-related activities.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 309 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Abberley, P. (1987), ‘The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability’, Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 1, 5–19.Google Scholar
Allirajah, D. (2005), ‘Incapacity – into the melting pot’, Welfare Rights Bulletin, 185, April, 4–5, London, Child Poverty Action Group.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. (2000), ‘A working social model? Disability, work and disability politics in the 21st century’, Critical Social Policy, 20, 3, 441–58.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (1997), ‘Breaking the Mould? An introduction to doing disability research’, in Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds.), Doing Disability Research, Leeds: Disability Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
BBC Scotland (2010), Who's Cheating Who? BBC Scotland Investigates, 25 May.Google Scholar
Beckett, A. E. (2006), Citizenship and Vulnerability: Disability and Issues of Social and Political Engagement, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
British Sociological Association (BSA) (2002), Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association, Durham, BSA, http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Practice.htm [accessed 07.10.2007].Google Scholar
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) (2007), ‘The Welfare Reform Act 2007’, Welfare Rights Bulletin 198, London, Child Poverty Action Group.Google Scholar
Coalition government (2010), The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk [accessed 08.06.2010) London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Crow, L. (1996), ‘Including all of our lives: renewing the social model of disability’, in Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds.), Exploring the Divide, Leeds: The Disability Press, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. (2002), Perspectives on Welfare: Ideas, Ideologies and Policy Debates, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. (2004a), ‘Can conditionality be justified?’ in Collins, P. and Rossiter, A. (eds.), On Condition, London: The Social Market Foundation, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. (2004b), ‘Justifying conditionality: the case of anti-social tenants’, Housing Studies, 19, 6, 911–26.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. (2005), ‘An ethic of mutual responsibility? Toward a fuller justification for conditionality in welfare’, in Beem, C. and Mead, L. (eds.), Welfare Reform and Political Theory, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 127–50.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2006), A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2007), The Freud Report, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008a), Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future, London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008b), Transformation of the Personal Capability Assessment, London: DWP, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/pca.asp (updated 12/07) [accessed 20.03.2008].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2009), New Figures Show Thousands Stopped from Getting Trapped on Sickness Benefit, London: DWP, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2009/october-2009/dwp043-09-131009.shtml) [accessed 13.10.2009].Google Scholar
Disability Alliance (DA) (2008), Employment and Support Allowance Overview, London: Disability Alliance, http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f31.htm [accessed 10.03.2008].Google Scholar
Driver, S. (2004), ‘North Atlantic drift: welfare reform and the ‘Third Way’ politics of New Labour and the New Democrats’, in Hale, S., Legget, W. and Martell, L. (eds.), The Third Way and Beyond: Criticisms, Futures, Alternatives, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar
Duncan Smith, I. (2010), ‘Welfare for the 21st century’, Speech by Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 27 May 2010, Department for Work and Pensions, London, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/ministers-speeches/2010/27-05-10.shtml [accessed 08.06.2010].Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2000), Welfare Rights and Responsibilities: Contesting Social Citizenship, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2004), ‘Creeping conditionality in the UK: from welfare rights to conditional entitlements’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 2, 265–87.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2008), ‘The conditional welfare state’, in Powell, M. (ed.), Modernising the Welfare State: The Blair Legacy, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 199–218.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2005), ‘The fourth attempt to construct a politics of welfare obligations’, Policy and Politics, 33, 1, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, C. and Piggott, L. (2010), ‘From incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance: social sorting, sickness and impairment, and social security’, Policy Studies, 31, 2, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, D. and Lindsay, C. (2010), ‘Introduction: fit for work? Health, employability and challenges for the UK welfare reform agena’, Policy Studies, 31, 2, 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B. (1999), ‘The Constitution of Impairment: modernity and the aesthetic of oppression’, Disability and Society, 14, 2, 155–72.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. (2005), ‘Fit for purpose – welfare to work and incapacity benefit’, speech by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Cardiff University, 7 February, Department of Work and Pensions, London.Google Scholar
Mead, L. M. (1992), The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mead, L. M. (1997), ‘Welfare employment’, in Mead, L. M. (ed.), The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, pp. 39–88.Google Scholar
Moore, M., Beazley, S. and Maelzer, J. (1998), Researching Disability Issues, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L. with Scannell, A. U. (1998), Planning Focus Groups, London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. (1996), Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Piggott, L. and Grover, C. (2009), ‘Retrenching incapacity benefit: employment support allowance and paid work’, Social Policy and Society, 8, 2, 159–70.Google Scholar
Priestley, M. (1997), ‘Who's research? A personal audit’, in Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds.), Doing Disability Research, Leeds: Disability Press, pp. 88–107.Google Scholar
Puttick, K. (2007), ‘Empowering the incapacitated worker? The Employment and Support Allowance and Pathways to Work’, Industrial Law Journal, 36, 3, 388–95.Google Scholar
Prime Minister's Strategy Unit (PMSU) (2005), Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, London: Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.Google Scholar
Roulstone, A. (2002), ‘Disabling pasts, enabling futures? How does the changing nature of capitalism impact on the disabled worker and jobseeker?’, Disability and Society, 17, 6, 627–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulstone, A. and Barnes, C. (2005), ‘The challenges of a work-first agenda for disabled people’, in Roulstone, A. and Barnes, C. (eds.), Working Futures? Disabled People, Policy and Social Inclusion, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, K. and Lohde, L. (2004), Sanctions and Sweeteners: Rights and Responsibilities in the Benefits System, London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1958), Essays on ‘The Welfare State’, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Twigg, J. (2002), ‘The body in social policy: mapping a territory’, Journal of Social Policy, 31, 3, 421–39.Google Scholar
Vernon, A. (1997), ‘Reflexivity: the dilemmas of researching from the inside’, in Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds.), Doing Disability Research, Leeds: Disability Press, pp. 158–76.Google Scholar
Welfare Reform Act (2007), Welfare Reform Act 2007, London: The Stationery Office, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/pdf/ukpga_20070005_en.pdf [accessed: 28.11.2007].Google Scholar
Welfare Reform Act (2009), Welfare Reform Act 2009, London: The Stationery Office, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090024_en_1 [accessed 28.06.2010].Google Scholar
Welfare Reform Bill (2011), Welfare Reform Bill 2011, London: The Stationery Office, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2011-11/welfarereform.html [accessed 14.03.2011].Google Scholar
Wintour, P., Elliott, L. and Sparrow, A. (2010), ‘Welfare crackdown begins with drive to reduce incapacity benefit claims’, The Guardian, 28 May.Google Scholar