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