Benefits conditionality in the United Kingdom
Programme-level data suggest that increasing numbers of claimants are subject to work-related behavioural requirements in countries like the United Kingdom. Likewise, academic qualitative research has suggested that conditionality is pervasive within the benefits system, and is often felt to be unre...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:309953 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/309953 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1111/spol.13119 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Benefits Conditionality Inequalities Sanctions Social protection Welfare SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being |
| Resumo: | Programme-level data suggest that increasing numbers of claimants are subject to work-related behavioural requirements in countries like the United Kingdom. Likewise, academic qualitative research has suggested that conditionality is pervasive within the benefits system, and is often felt to be unreasonable. However, there is little quantitative evidence on the extent or experience of conditionality from claimants' perspectives. We fill this gap by drawing on a purpose-collected survey of UK benefit claimants (n = 3801). We find that the stated application of conditionality was evident for a surprisingly small proportion of survey participants-even lower than programme-level data suggest. Unreasonable conditionality was perceived by many of those subject to conditionality, but not a majority, with, for example, 26.2% believing that work coaches do not fully take health/care-related barriers into account. Yet, alongside this, a substantial minority of claimants not currently subject to conditionality (22.4%) report that conditionality has negatively affected their mental health. We argue that reconciling this complex set of evidence requires a more nuanced understanding of conditionality, which is sensitive to methodological assumptions, the role of time and implementation and the need to go beyond explicit requirements to consider implicit forms of conditionality. In conclusion, we recommend a deeper mixed-methods agenda for conditionality research. |
|---|