View
119
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Bettina Leibetseder: Constructing Inequality: Deserving and Undeserving Clients in the Means-Tested Minimum Income Scheme. Basic income – basic rights symposium 24.11.2014 Kela, Helsinki.
Citation preview
Johannes Kepler Universität Linz
Carina Altreiter, Bettina Leibetseder
bettina.leibetseder@jku.at
Department of Politics and Social Policy
Constructing Inequality:
Deserving and Undeserving Clients
in the Means-Tested Minimum Income Scheme
Basic income symposium
Kela Research
2
Outline
I Introduction
I Research Question
I Theory
I Methodology
I 4 Types of Deservingness
I Discussion and Conclusion
3
Context
I Austrian welfare state relies on social insurance scheme - national
I 9 Different Minimum Income Schemes in Austria - regional
I Principles: subsidiarity and individuality
I Low take-up rate: 2% of Austrian population (Vienna 6.2%, Upper Austria
0.5%, Styria 1.1%)
I Rising due to changes in family structure and employment patterns (part-time, short-term, freelance and self-employment = ‘Prekarisierung’), top-up payment in case of low unemployment payments
I ‘localized, discretionary relief, linked to social work and with wider kin obligations’ (Gough et al 1997)
I Need’s Oriented Guaranteed Minimum Income – introduction by end
of 2010
I aim: ‘combating and avoidance of poverty and social exclusion’ and ‘(re-
)integration of its recipients in the labour market’ in Austria (Art. 1 of the
treaty between state and provinces, own translation) and a more coherent
national system
4
Research Questions
I How street-level organisations construct
deservingness through formal and informal
practises?
I Eligibility processing
I Behavioural change
I Have legal changes converged the local
practices?
5
Theory – Social Construction of Un-/Deservingness
I Social construction of deservingness – power and status of target
group – ‘cultural characterisations’ (Schneider/Ingram)
I Allocation of benefits and burdens, policy tools etc.
I At the formal level (legislations) – divisions occur
strong power position
advantaged contenders
high status low status
dependents deviants
weak power position
6
Street-Level Matters
I ‘mediators of the politics and processes of welfare state
transformations’ and
I ‘policy-makers in the sense that they informally construct (and
reconstruct) policy in the course of everyday organizational life’
(Evelyn Brodkin)
I Acceptance of reform and delivery depends on frontline workers
I Intermediary between social policy and client
I street-level organisations reconstruct claimants and clients as more or
less deserving, and this can be explained by, among other things, the
rules, the policy tools they use, any rationale they give and the
implementation structure
I Specific local assumptions – ‘cultural characterisations’
7
Two Aspects: Eligibility and Behavioural Change
Behaviour – people-changing technology
low
eligibility check – technical procedure
high
Poor relief Minimum Income
8
Research Design and Legal Framework
I Comparative study of two provinces – Styria and Upper Austria
I Part of a larger study
I Case selection via cluster analysis of quantitative data
I 8 municipalities, 4 in each province
I Qualitative interviews with administrators, claimants and recipients
I Analysis – focusing on benefit and behaviour
I Interviews – transcribed and ascribed to categories
I Comparison of similar thematic aspects and enrichment of data
through theoretical concepts
I Legal Framework – vast power to regions and municipalities
I Principle of subsidiarity and work
9
Standardised Administration – ‘not those who cry loudest’ (M 7)
I One municipality, 5,500 recipients, 2% of population more than ten
caseworkers
I Eligibility check: highly standardised, uses of databases to increase
client friendly procedure, few face-to-face encounters
‘Well, a lot of has changed; you don’t have to take so much with you. The
forms aren’t so long anymore, they do a lot with the data systems.’ (Mr
Nickel, 20 years, m7)
I Behavioural change: low job search demands (jobcentre’s data base)
‘As a public authority for granting a benefit, it is not our concern. I think,
of course, there are cases with problems, like domestic violence,
where the caseworker is involved, obviously. ‘ (head of department,
m7)
I Lack of personal communication
10
Semi-Standardised Administration – ‘first and foremost people get their money’ (M 1,4,5,8)
I Four municipalities, three rural, one urban, 0.5 to 2.4% of population, 2 –
4 caseworkers
I Eligibility check: professional and standardised, but less with data bases
check and more appointments, personalised aspect, three months check
‘If someone comes to us during the month, he gets the aliquot part of the
benefits he or she is entitled to.’ (caseworker1, m1)
I Behavioural change: specific groups are targeted
I Rural: difficult, long-term recipients
I Urban: social work approach
‘Well, I can come in and say [to the caseworker], “you, I can’t get any job,
because I don’t have this and that.’” But that doesn’t matter, I have to try
again and again.’ (Mr Feltner, 25 years, m1)
I Lack of administrative structures
I Not treating clients as undeserving
11
Disciplining Administration – ‘and it must hurt’ (M 2,6)
I Two cases, 1,400 to 2,400 recipients, urban area, 1% of population
I Eligibility check: thorough check, regular face-to-face contact, ambiguity
and factoidal statements detection scheme, claimants/recipients perceived
as potential ‚scroungers‘ – doing undeservingness in a vicious circle
I Behavioural change: strict job search, regular checks and further
demands, threat of sanctions in everyday encounter for all
‘“Then you have the duty to co-operate and the obligation to engage in
endeavours to overcome their situation of distress”, that is what the
scheme is all about and the social assistance. (…). When someone is
addicted, I cannot force him to search for a job, and then he has to attend
therapy. These requirements are applied.’ (casworker3, m6)
“Well, I find it a little bit strange that thing with the stamps. That’s dramatized
here. Because at some companies you simply don’t get any stamp and
then they [caseworker] get a little bit dramatic..’ (Ms Schneider, 30 years,
municipality 6)
12
Poor relief administration – ‘I cannot let someone starve’ (M 3)
I One case, rural area, 0.4% of population, 250 recipients, 1.5 case worker(s)
I Eligibility check: face-to-face, distinguishing between un/deserving clients,
cash benefit
‘If the case is a little bit tricky, where co-operation of the client is necessary, and
the claimant is not willing to cooperate, if he fails to hand in the documents. If
he has not accepted what the case-worker has said, if he says, “that I cannot
accept, I am entitled and I want to have money from you.” Then, we will say:
“Okay, please fill out the form and hand in proofs of income and assets, bank
statements for the last six months and so on.” And often, it is not
accomplished.’ (head 1, m 3).
I Behavioural change: extraordinary and paternalistic support for deserving
clients, discipline for the unworthy ones
‘But in that case, when I had a bad time, she was very understanding and she
gave exceptional support. That surprised me a lot.’ (Mr Seemann, 50 years,
municipality 4).
13
Comparing the Municipalities
Behaviour – people-changing technology
low
eligibility check – technical procedure
high
Poor relief Minimum Income
14
Social Construction of Deservingness
I Standardised: clients and claimants are perceived as deserving
I formal regulation respects a minimum income scheme
I Disciplining: c&c are perceived as undeserving
I formal regulation is interpreted in a way to let client experience
their ‘worth’ all the time – ‘re-producing’ never-deserving
I Semi-standardised: c&c are perceived as deserving in general
I certain perceptions of unworthiness (length of receipt,…) by the
caseworker can trigger intervention (one municipality with social
worker other criteria)
I Poor relief administration: c&c are separated in deserving and
undeserving by caseworker’s perception of client’s (un)deservingness
I formal regulation is interpreted according to social-moral values of
caseworker, not ‘moral values’ of legislation
15
Local Variations Despite Reform
I Street-level organisation – ‘practice ideologies’
I Two similar organisations - 2nd and 3rd largest city in Austria –
very distinct procedures – disciplining and professional
I Smaller organisations - trouble with client friendly check due to
lack of administrative support, higher stigma in rural areas
I Convergence of head of departments’, caseworkers’ and recipients’
statements about administrative practices
I Local practices matter to a great extend
I Change only possible by intervention on that level
I Implementation crucial aspect missed by reform
I Are clients not perceived as deserving by reform?
I Eligibility check – access to social citizenship
Recommended