Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-20T13:43:32.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Can Government Paternalist Interventions Be Justified? Welfare-to-Work and Interference Intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2025

Shuo Fei Open the ORCID record for Shuo Fei [Opens in a new window]  and
Chenggang Zhang
Shuo Fei*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Chenggang Zhang
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
*
Corresponding author: Shuo Fei; Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research investigates Universal Credit (UC) claimants’ interpretation of their experiences when interacting with frontline stakeholders. Government paternalist frameworks restrict justifiable paternalistic intervention to those measures intended to correct individuals’ judgement and means to achieve their own ends, while minimising the loss of autonomy. This study is situated at the intersection of government paternalism and street-level bureaucracy literature. We highlight the need for clear government interference intentions in defining paternalism and for distinguishing between the motivations of frontline staff and overarching government policy. Our argument is that the government should assess and consider the frontline staff’s perception of what ought to be promoted, intervening only when there is a failure in the frontline staff’s approach to achieving the wellbeing of the individual as determined by the individual themselves, and where governmental judgement can achieve better outcomes for the individual.

Keywords

Government paternalisminterference intentionssocial identitystreet-level bureaucracyuniversal credit
Type
Article
Information
Social Policy and Society , First View , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Acland, D. (2018) ‘The case for ends paternalism: extending Le Grand and new’s framework for justification of government paternalism’, Review of Behavioral Economics, 5, 1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S., McGann, M., Nguyen, P. and Considine, M. (2023) ‘Emerging modes of digitalisation in the delivery of welfare-to-work: implications for street-level discretion’, Social Policy & Administration, 57, 7, 1166–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011) ‘Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, suppl 2, i253–i277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A. and Burgess, B. (1994) Analysing Qualitative Data, London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2010) State of the Nation Report: Poverty, Worklessness and Welfare Dependency in the UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/universal-credit-welfare-that-works [accessed 17.12.2016].Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2012) David Cameron Hails Historic Moment of Welfare Reform, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-ministers-message-on-welfare-reform [accessed 17.12.2016].Google Scholar
Carter, E. and Whitworth, A. (2015) ‘Creaming and parking in Quasi-marketised welfare-to-work schemes: designed out of or designed into the UK work programme?’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 2, 277–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) (2017) Benefit Sanctions: Forty-Second Report of Session 2016–17, London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Conservatives (2009) Regulation in the Post-Bureaucratic Age: How to Get Rid of Red Tape and Reform Quangos, London: The Conservative Party.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) ‘Analysing data for concepts’ in J. Corbin and A. Strauss (eds.), Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2010) 21st Century Welfare, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2016) Universal Credit and Your Claimant Commitment, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment-quick-guide/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment [accessed 28.10.2016].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2017) Understanding How Universal Credit Influences Employment Behaviour, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-understanding-how-it-influences-employment-behaviour [accessed 28.10.2017].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2018) Universal Credit: In-Work Progression Randomised Controlled Trial, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/developing-in-work-support-for-people-claiming-universal-credit/universal-credit-in-work-progression-randomised-control-trial [accessed 15.11.2018].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2019) Universal Credit, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-youre-paid [accessed 2.5.2019].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2023a) Work Coach Provision of Employment Support, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-coach-provision-of-employment-support/work-coach-provision-of-employment-support [accessed 28.6.2023].Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2023b) Universal Credit and You, London: Department for Work and Pensions, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-you/universal-credit-and-you-a#conditionality-opening-up-work-and-taper [accessed 28.6.2023].Google Scholar
Duncan Smith, I. (2010) 2010 Speech on Universal Credit, http://www.ukpol.co.uk/iain-duncan-smith-2010-speech-on-universal-credit/ [accessed 2.10. 2014].Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2005) ‘The theory of modern bureaucracy and the neglected Role of IT’ in Hood, C. and Heald, D. (eds.), Digital Era Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 467–494.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. (2019) Dealing with Welfare Conditionality: Implementation and Effects, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Bright, J. (2016) First Wave Findings: Overview, http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WelCond-findings-Overview-May16.pdf [accessed 28.5.2018].Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Wright, S. (2014) ‘Universal credit, ubiquitous conditionality and its implications for social citizenship’, The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22, 1, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmiston, D., Robertshaw, D., Young, D., Ingold, J., Gibbons, A., Summers, K., Scullion, L., Geiger, B. B. and de Vries, R. (2022) ‘Mediating the claim? How “Local Ecosystems of Support” shape the operation and experience of UK social security’, Social Policy and Administration, 56, 5, 775–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N. (2016) ‘The coalition government, public spending and social policy’ in Bochel, H. and Powell, M. (eds.), The Coalition Government and Social Policy: Restructuring the Welfare State, Bristol: The Policy Press, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshuis, J., de Boer, N. and Klijn, E. H. (2022) ‘Street-level bureaucrats’ emotional intelligence and its relation with their performance’, Public Administration, 96, 3, 1–18.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1989) The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 3: Harm to Self, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishenden, J. and Thompson, M. (2012) ‘Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector it will never be the same again’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 4, 977–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and Its Critics, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, H. L. and Rosenthal, M. G. (2006) ‘The ups and downs of the Swedish welfare state: general trends, benefits, and caregiving’, New Politics, 11, 1, 70–78.Google Scholar
Greer, I., Breidahl, K. N., Knuth, M. and Larsen, F. (2018) The Marketization of Employment Services: Dilemmas of Europe’s Work-First Welfare States, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2008) Questioning Qualitative Inquiry, London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Heater, D. (1999) What Is Citizenship, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (1993) ‘Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist political economy’, Studies in Political Economy, 40, 1, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. (2020) ‘Intensity, moderation, and the pressures of expectation: calculation and coercion in the street-level practice of welfare conditionality’, Social Policy & Administration, 54, 2, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, I. (2021) ‘The Guardians of the welfare state: universal credit, welfare control and the moral economy of frontline work in Austerity Britain’, Sociology, 55, 2, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. and New, B. (2015) Government Paternalism: Nanny State or Helpful Friend?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levitats, Z. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2020) ‘Emotionally engaged civil servants: toward a multilevel theory and multisource analysis in public administration’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40, 3, 426–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010 [1980]) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (2001 [1690]) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Canada: Batoche Books Limited.Google Scholar
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., McKee, A. and Stuckler, D. (2015) Do Punitive Approaches to Unemployment Benefit Recipients Increase Welfare Exit and Employment? A Cross-Area Analysis of UK Sanctioning Reforms, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. (1983) Bureaucratic Justice, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Margetts, H. and Dunleavy, P. (2013) ‘The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the web’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371, 1987.Google ScholarPubMed
Marx, K. (1971) Kapitalen, Copenhagen: Rhodos.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meers, J. (2019) ‘Discretion as blame avoidance: passing the buck to local authorities in “Welfare Reform”’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 27, 1, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, J. and Bennett, F. (2017) ‘Universal credit: assumptions, contradictions and virtual reality’, Social Policy and Society, 16, 2, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. (2010) Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty, London: The Institution of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Oakley, M. (2016) Closing the Gap: Creating A Framework for Tackling the Disability Employment Gap in the UK, London: The Social Market Foundation.Google Scholar
Oude Geerdink, E., Sewdas, R., van Kempen, H., van Weeghel, J., Anema, J. R. and Huysmans, M. A. (2023) ‘Experiences and needs of welfare benefit recipients regarding their welfare-to-work services and case workers’, BMC Health Services Research, 23, Article 990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redman, J. and Fletcher, D. R. (2021) ‘Violent bureaucracy: a critical analysis of the British public employment service’, Critical Social Policy, 41, 2, 241–262.Google Scholar
Reeves, A. (2017) ‘Does sanctioning disabled claimants of unemployment insurance increase labour market inactivity? An analysis of 346 British local authorities between 2009 and 2014’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25, 2, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, J. W. (2011) ‘Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research’ in Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (eds.), Case Study Method, London: SAGE Publications, 69–97.Google Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. C. and Schram, S. (2011) Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R and Schram, S. F. (2013) ‘Performance management as a disciplinary regime: street-level organizations in a neoliberal era of poverty governance’ in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and The Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 125–139.Google Scholar
Stake, R. E. (2011) ‘The case study method in social inquiry’ in Foster, R. G. M. H. P. (ed.), Case Study Method, London: SAGE Publications, 18–26.Google Scholar
Starman, A. B. (2013) ‘The case study as a type of qualitative research’, Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 64, 1, 28–43.Google Scholar
Summers, K. and Young, D. (2020) ‘Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of universal credit from administrative and claimant perspectives’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 28, 2, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (2017), The Frontline Delivery of Welfare-To-Work Policies in Europe: Activating the Unemployed, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. and Hornemann Moller, I. (2002) ‘The concept of activation’ in van Berkel, R. and Hornemann Moller, I. (eds.), Active Social Policies in the EU. Inclusion Through Participation?, Bristol: The Policy Press, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G. and Vassenden, A. (2022) ‘Emotional creaming: street-level bureaucrats’ prioritisation of migrant clients ‘Likely to Succeed’ in labour market integration’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 31, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009) The New Welfare Bureaucrats: Entanglements of Race, Class, and Policy Reform, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. and Dwyer, P. (2022) ‘In-work universal credit: claimant experiences of conditionality mismatches and counterproductive benefit sanctions’, Journal of Social Policy, 51, 1, 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., Dwyer, P., Jones, K., McNeill, J., Scullion, L. and Stewart, A. B. R. (2018) Final Findings: Universal Credit, http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/40414-Universal-Credit-web.pdf [accessed 12.12.2018].Google Scholar
Wright, S., Fletcher, D. R. and Stewart, A. B. R. (2020) ‘Punitive benefit sanctions, welfare conditionality, and the social abuse of unemployed people in Britain: transforming claimants into offenders’, Social Policy & Administration, 54, 278–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Zacka, B. (2017) When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar