IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/24qtp_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Benefits conditionality in the UK: is it common, and is it perceived to be reasonable?

Author

Listed:
  • Geiger, Ben Baumberg
  • Scullion, Lisa
  • Edmiston, Daniel
  • de Vries, Robert
  • Summers, K
  • Ingold, Jo
  • Young, David

Abstract

Programme-level data suggests that increasing numbers of claimants are subject to work-related behavioural requirements in countries like the UK. Likewise, academic qualitative research has suggested that conditionality is pervasive within the benefits system, and 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 drawing on a purpose-collected survey of UK benefit claimants (n=3,801). We find 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 e.g. 26.2% believing that work coaches do not fully take health/care-related barriers into account. Yet alongside this, a substantial minority of claimants (22.4%) not currently subject to conditionality 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 alert to methodological assumptions, the role of time and implementation, and the need to go beyond explicit requirements to consider implicit forms of conditionality. Concluding, we recommend a deeper mixed-methods agenda for conditionality research.

Suggested Citation

  • Geiger, Ben Baumberg & Scullion, Lisa & Edmiston, Daniel & de Vries, Robert & Summers, K & Ingold, Jo & Young, David, 2024. "Benefits conditionality in the UK: is it common, and is it perceived to be reasonable?," SocArXiv 24qtp_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:24qtp_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/24qtp_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/675c07eb7f44bf1b2a936ca8/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/24qtp_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:24qtp_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.