Ruth Patrick considers the extent to which there is a (mis)match between government and media rhetoric and the lived experiences of those directly affected by welfare reform. Her research demonstrates the very hard ‘work’ which ‘getting by’ on benefits entails, ‘work’ which serves to counter characterisations of claimants as passive and inactive. She argues that attending to the lived experiences of welfare reform is critical in helping us to understand the day-to-day realities of ‘getting by’ in contemporary Britain.
2014 has been a year in which ‘welfare’, welfare reform, and critical analyses of the lives of those who rely on benefits for most or all of their income have consistently demanded media, political and public attention in the UK. Whether it’s the explosion of what some describe as ‘Poverty Porn’, debates over the merits of the latest proposals to finally ‘cure’ ‘welfare dependency’, or, most recently, discussions about explanations for the growing demand for food banks, ‘welfare’ has consistently been big news. In the popular media and political discussions which accompany these debates, there is often an emphasis on ideas of benefits as a ‘lifestyle choice’ and characterisations of benefits reliance as an inactive and inherently negative state.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has spoken of claimants ‘sleeping off a life on benefits’, while Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, repeatedly describes out-of-work claimants ‘languishing on welfare’. These characterisations draw heavily on binary distinctions between ‘hardworking families’ and those relying on benefits, with the ‘strivers’ and ‘shirkers’ dichotomy, one strand of a contemporary re-working of very old distinctions between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ populations.
What is often missing from these characterisations is the lived experiences of those who rely on benefits for all or most of their income. Admittedly, the explosion of ‘Poverty Porn’ does purport to provide such firsthand accounts. However, these are mediated by editing processes aimed at generating watchable, controversial content; processes which perhaps do not lend themselves to detailed pictures of the lived realities of ‘getting by’ on benefits during times of welfare reform.
Since 2010, I’ve been conducting small-scale research which has sought to explore these lived realities, with an explicit aim of considering the extent of (mis)match between Government and media rhetoric and lived experiences for those directly affected by welfare reform. By speaking to single parents and young jobseekers affected by the extended welfare conditionality and sanctions regime, as well as disabled people being moved off Incapacity Benefit and onto Employment and Support Allowance, I have been able to explore experiences of both welfare reform and the day-to-day realities of reliance on benefits in Britain today. Over a two year period, I interviewed participants three times, enabling me to explore both the absence and presence of change in people’s accounts as the welfare reforms took effect and individuals negotiated complex relationships with benefits and paid employment.
What this research has demonstrated is the very hard ‘work’ which ‘getting by’ on benefits entails, ‘work’ which is not represented in government and media characterisations of claimants as passive and inactive. This ‘work’ includes very tight budgeting practices, frequently having to make tough choices (such as to heat or eat), as well as creative ways of trying to eke out a little extra income, for example by scavenging for scrap in nearby streets. People repeatedly spoke of shopping daily so as to take advantage of the reduced shelves, and going to several shops in order to get the best deals. Parents often went without in order to ensure their children were well looked after. As single parent Chloe explained:
“I go without my meals sometimes. I have to save meals for me kids. So I’ll have a slice of toast and they’ll have a full meal.”
There was also substantial evidence of participants engaging in other forms of socially valuable contribution such as volunteering and caring. Adrian, a young Jobseeker, described why he valued the voluntary work he did at the homeless hostel where he used to live:
“I proper love it. You feel satisfaction as well if someone’s coming in really hungry. Give them some food, at least they’ve eaten for the night.”
With the Government’s endless emphasis on paid work as the primary responsibility of the dutiful citizen, these important forms of contribution often go unrecognised and under-valued. Importantly, too, the whole thrust of the Government’s welfare reform approach, like New Labour’s before it, places policy emphasis on moving people from ‘welfare dependency’ into paid employment, which can cause significant problems for those who want to prioritise these other forms of contribution.
The welfare reform policy agenda, with its sustained emphasis on welfare conditions and sanctions also suggests that people need the threat of sanctions to encourage – even compel them – to make the transition from benefits reliance to paid employment. The emphasis is placed firmly on the supply-side of the labour market, on the steps individual claimants need to be compelled to take to become employable, and to move into paid work. Repeatedly, a contrast is drawn between ‘hard working families’ and ‘welfare dependents’, with the latter needing these tough interventions to be ‘responsibilized’ into hard working citizens.
But, this research, like so much of the literature in this field (see, for example, recent articles on this blog) questioned the salience of such static groupings, instead finding participants with strong aspirations to work, where this was a realistic goal. It also found individuals who typically had worked in the past, with several moving in and out of work, during the time of the research, characteristic of the low-pay, no-pay cycle. Those who were not currently in paid employment had often internalised negative characterisations of claimants, with inevitable consequences for their self-confidence, self-esteem, and ironically future job prospects. Sam, a young jobseeker and recent care leaver explained why she wanted a job:
“I need a job; because I’m sick of scrounging. That’s how I think of it anyway, I’m sick of scrounging.”
When asked about the idea of benefits as a lifestyle choice, participants in this study were angry, even disbelieving, of the notion that they would ‘choose’ to rely on out-of-work benefits, instead emphasising the various factors, often linked to impairments, caring responsibilities and demand-side barriers to paid employment, which had led to their current situation. As single parent, Sophie put it:
“People don’t choose to live on benefits – it’s not our choice. It’s just the way that things have happened. We don’t choose to live on benefits, we don’t want to live on benefits.”
Young jobseeker James described why, for him, being on benefits would never be a choice
“[benefits] is enough for you to live off o’, but you haven’t got one bit of luxury left in your life. You’re not living, you’re existing. And that’s how it feels.”
Attending to the lived experiences of welfare reform is critical in helping us to understand the day-to-day realities of ‘getting by’ in contemporary Britain. These realities are significantly different from the government and media characterisations, with inevitable consequences for the likely success of the ongoing programme of welfare reforms. In particular, these realities undermine the logic for a pervasive emphasis on welfare conditionality, while also hinting at the very real financial hardship, and emotional and relational damage caused by welfare reform. If we want to understand more about benefits, and how processes of welfare reform are impacting on people, it is essential that we place far more emphasis on listening to what those directly affected have to say.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting. Featured image credit: BurnAway CC BY 2.0
Ruth Patrick is a Doctoral Researcher in the School of Sociology & Social Policy at the University of Leeds.
Ruth – many thanks for this. I’m a trustee of West Cheshire Foodbank and have forwarded this to our development officer who was largely responsible for our #CheshireHunger report (Feb 2105) into why people visit foodbanks (available from our website).
Your finding that (some, many?) of those out of work have ‘internalised negative characterisations of claimants’ is very interested. That’s one of the psychological impacts of policy that I think merits more enquiry. Another would be the extent to which those on welfare live with a sense of insecurity and precariousness and the impact that has on their mental health and wellbeing. Does your research shed any light on that particular question?
Here are some reports from Scotland on Welfare Reform and people’s lived experiences (a multi-year project for the Scottish Government). Of course the bedroom tax, in effect, does not apply in Scotland as the Government compensates for it.
Graham, H., Lister, B., Egdell, V., McQuaid, R. and Raeside, R. (2015) The Impact of Welfare Reform in Scotland – Tracking Study -Sweep 3 report, Report to Scottish Government ISBN: 9781785443855 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1290.5127
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/06/7394 (report)
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/06/6817 (appendices)
Graham, H., Lister, B., Egdell, V., McQuaid, R. and Raeside, R. (2014) The Impact of Welfare Reform in Scotland – Tracking Study: Year 1 Findings, Report to Scottish Government ISBN: 9781784129217 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00463006.pdf and http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/11/4167 (report) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/11/2826 (research findings) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/11/9839 (appendices)
Lister, B., Graham, H., Egdell, V., McQuaid, R. and Raeside, R. (2014) The Impact of Welfare Reform in Scotland – Tracking Study, Interim Report to Scottish Government http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00449882.pdf
A report on the experiences of lone parents:
Graham, H. and McQuaid, R. (2014) Exploring the challenges and opportunities facing lone parents, with children over the age of five, in receipt of out-of-work benefits and moving into paid work as part of the UK government’s welfare reforms, Report for Glasgow Centre for Population Health http://www.gcph.co.uk/publications/497_impacts_of_welfare_reforms_on_lone_parents_moving_into_work_report and http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/20443/1/Lone_parents_Full_Report_FINAL%200514.pdf
The article is totally correct in it’s core principle, that only listening to the needs of claimants will we ever develop a fairs system. This however, is the very last thing the likes of IDS, George Osbourne and David Cameron are going to do. They are fully aware of peoples genuine need, they are not ignorant or uneducated, they simply don’t care. To them the destruction of the welfare state, an anathema to the New right, is the goal, not a fairer system. The language used by the govt and the media is not merely a means of justifying ever more draconian (and devious) policies, but also an effective way of ‘de-humanising’ benefit claimants, making them ever more isolated from ‘decent’ working people. It’s a method, going on the opinion poll’s, that works.
We can expect after the next election, with UKIP the Tories likely coalition partners, the process pf the welfare state being wound up to accelerate, in particular with Nigel Farage’s views on Benefits and the Disabled. What we have seen in the last two years in particular is an unprecedented action by a UK govt, where claimants are forced off Benefits for the flimsiest of excuses. The dreaded ‘sanction’ has seen thousands forced off benefits and into poverty. Nearly a million people are using foodbanks, the number of homeless people has grown exponentially since 2010, people with mental health issues have taken their own lives due to harassment from ATOS and the DWP, and what do we see in the House of shame? Ian Duncan-Smith laughing as these facts are discussed.
As someone who’s gone through the process with ATOS, I can vouch for how corrupt and useless that organization is. I felt like someone going through the 3rd Reichs system, due to the cold and detached manner of the ‘expert’, and worse, the fact that it was clear my case had been decided before I had even walked through the door. Like many people suffering from Depression I scored ‘0’. Devastated, I felt totally let down, humiliated, worthless, and it was only finding a Mental Health website where page after page of Depression sufferer, said they’d had exactly the same experience stopped me from dropping through the floor. As the previous posters have said, mental health issues are still frowned upon in this country, and this is no surprise given comments by leading Tory mp’s giving the view that people suffering from depression are all ‘putting it on’ and we just need to ‘pull ourselves together’. If it was that easy….
Sadly, we can look forward to more of the same, sorry, worse in the next five years. Bar a miracle, the Tories demonization of the poor, never mind those on Benefits, plus their gerrymandering of the economy is enough, along with immigrant bashing, to win them enough at least another coalition govt. If UKIP are their partners, well, that will be fun.
If you’re rich.
Absolutely agree with the general thrust of the piece that the reality of living on ‘welfare’ is misunderstood and, often wilfully, misrepresented. However the conflation of welfare with inevitable poverty also needs examining and, as the post above me points out, some periods of dependency are an inevitable part of life but this shouldn’t mean that the claimant is plunged into living below the poverty line. Benefits have lagged when taken against the average income (I’m not arguing that they should be exactly equivalent) despite what IDS tells us and we have one of the lowest levels of benefit in Europe.
Another stumbling block is that many people in work don’t grasp the reality of poverty. I tried to raise awareness of the impending bedroom tax about 6 months before it was introduced and it was very difficult for those in work, even when they were sympathetic to the arguments against the policy, to understand how the loss of £10 a week could be so catastrophic. When you add on to this the relentless misinformation from the media and politicians and the carefully selected scapegoats who appear on TV having paid for holidays in the sun on their disability benefits, or some other such nonsense, then it’s hardly surprising that the reality of poverty has become obscured. Nobody should have to expect that if they are too ill to work then all they deserve is abject poverty but claimants have been pushed into a corner now where if they complain about their levels of benefit it would mark them out as lazy, ungrateful scroungers.
As long as those who are lucky enough to never have to rely on benefits are fooled by images of endless take aways and Sky TV then the harsh reality of poverty will be the scenario that’s treated as if it’s false and an exaggeration.
“People don’t choose to live on benefits – it’s not our choice. It’s just the way that things have happened. We don’t choose to live on benefits, we don’t want to live on benefits.”
In fact, the health reform itself was a benefit that was forced upon us. Otherwise, before then we had the choice to either get health insurance or not, but that freedom was taken away from us.
Reality check: lifetimes, or periods, of dependency are facts of life. (Perhaps unintentionally) you propagate the notion that “living on welfare” is a Root Problem with answers found in individual lives. Whereas the root problem at play here is our politics/economics; its glorious bigotry has allowed a needs based Social Security system to transmute into a penal system designed to root out fraud.
Today’s welfare conditionality comes complete with a presumption of guilt. This ongoing route has dehumanising consequences which don’t need to be studied to be understood or imagined. Social Science has a history of does it not?
What’s required is a law against representing modern unemployment, or any non-waged person, as indicative of a lesser humanity. Then perhaps, expectations of any given DWP might be raised up beyond petty politics and towards the realms of economic possibilities.
I feel very strongly about Carers who give up their lives for a relative and at the same time put themselves last which causes them to have both physical and mental problems and yet if like the Eunice and her husband who do this for just £60.00( and that is for both of them ) very little help is offered to them. They are saving the state a small fortune and yet they feel very under valued ( which they are) Their social security will be taken of them if their son stays in hospital too long this is what need addressing the state should not be able to do this just because he is in hospital does not mean they don’t have bills for Three people etc. They want you the reader to try to understand there situation as they are not unique they know this.
This Government has never bothered with the poorer members of society it’s always the blame game, name calling etc, And yet the Members of parliament claim for every little extra, the house of so called Lords get £300.00 per day for turning up ,The Unemployed get around £73.00 per week to pay , Gas/ Electric/water/Internet/phone (for jobs) Food, clothes for interviews,etc…. living the high life on benefits my a** .This Government has to blame someone and it’s easy to blame people can’t get a job… Well in 4 months time there will be a few more unemployed but of course they won’t want for anything and until they do nothing will change.
Rosemarie,
I share your own understanding of the negative perception that both government and the news media has given to those on welfare, and also accept that this is an unfair and unjust – even cruel – in its entirety towards many who have been failed by a recession, small business failed, homes lost and becoming homeless… and not even the Labour party or Liberal Democrats willing or bold to stand-up for such people. It’s as if politicians don’t even want to utter the word ‘recession’ – let alone confront much of the political failings they are responsible for, and the financial and psychological impact this has had on real lives.
Let us not forget a Work Programme, and a Minister who has always been in denial of it problems. This attitude alone has become responsible for further failings.
Some or even many may say ‘isn’t it amazing that how so many ordinary folk have had to confront so much detriment over the years – not just trying to get back on their feet, but also deal with the mental health challenges that have become the result of such deliberate and unforgiveable political failings.
Yes, the reality is that while we continue to fund the £67,000.00 a year for MPs and £130,000.00 a year for Ministers, don’t we also have to ask ourselves whether they worth any of it? Also, we have been constantly told that ‘we have no money’ to spend on new project from central government. But, what about a ‘hand-up’ approach to turning some of these issues around – taking the best attitudes, best practices a will and determination to help and support GOALS, to enable the breakthrough that many challenged groups desperately need.
Yes, it’s tough and challenging. Though, mental health has failed to gain the acknowledgement or even a debate through the media given all of the above failings I have mentioned.
With the May election gathering pace, have we not heard ALL of this before from politicians?
Thus, how do we create CHANGE?
Is changing the basis upon which the political system stems a good start?
The same debate for 400+ years…
I find it incredibly frustrating that Anglo-American states are still so entrenched in the following myths: the poor are poor because they want to be poor, the poor relish taking from the rich, and helping the poor will only hurt them in the long run. If you look back, we’ve been having the same arguments about state support for the poor since at least the Elizabethan Poor Laws (circa 1601)! It’s the same debate over the deserving versus undeserving poor. The same rhetoric about workfare. The same underlying (incorrect) belief system – one that hardened/intensified after the Poor Law Commission report in the 1830s.The report purported to be ‘scientific,’ but the evidence is clear that much of it was written before the Commission’s survey results came back (with a response rate of <10%) and it is also clear that the survey itself was misleading. So, the attitudes that became even further entrenched in our societies were based on a lie…but I digress. Colonists brought these attitudes to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and all four states followed many of Britain's reforms – so, to varying degrees, our social welfare systems all reflect the same underlying assumptions. When you look at Continental and Scandinavian welfare regimes, you see two different models for tackling poverty. Each has its own underlying assumptions, but both of those welfare regimes do a better job of reducing poverty than does the Anglo-American welfare regime. There are many reforms we could implement–reforms that have been successful elsewhere–but by-and-large the Anglo-American states refuse to look at other models when those models contradict the prevalent societal attitudes about poverty.
My husband and I are full time carers for our severely disabled and ventilator dependent son. “Languishing on benefits” and “sleeping off a life on benefits”!!! Our day starts at 6.15 every morning and ends after midnight plus we can be up through the night. My son is currently in hospital and being kicked from ward to ward because nobody wants to cope with his care needs. My husband and I are doing 12 hour shifts at the hospital yet the pathetic £60 carers allowance (shared between the 2 of us) will stop if he is in hospital too much longer. I am also disabled and my husband has health issues to thanks to our level of caring responsibilities!
Yours is a very hard case; but from such particular instances, no general rules can be established.
Rhys,
Should we accept that your response was to the comments made by Eunice Watson?
I find your answer concerning as it does nothing to address the fact that similar cases exist, and almost always the examples for people using the welfare system remain complex and diverse. Thus, politicians name-calling by using terms as ‘skivers’ and ‘shirkers’ to describe Welfare user are ignorant and futile.
Rhys, may I suggest that the case of Eunice that you refer to in your comment – while brief and almost seemingly without reason – is one of many that should be addressed by policy makers – simply because by not addressing cases similar to that of Eunice and her Husband as a society we will make challenging situations worsen and provide no opportunity for improving ones circumstances and mental health challenges as a direct result of doing NOTHING.
If you accept that doing nothing is not an option, do you not agree that such a case and others like it should be harnessed by Voices in the media and policy makers be held to account on this and other matters? Or, do we just simply allow politicians to harness their own headlines?
Yes, my comment was in response to Eunice Watson.
I know, or let’s say I can guess that similar distressing cases exist. However, welfare policies are conceived on general principles of need. No matter how carefully designed and maintained, the safety net will fail to “catch” some people sometimes.
Your inference that I believe nothing can be said or done to address the situation in which Eunice and her husband find themselves, is hardly justified by my admittedly rather gnomic observation.
Dear Ruth,
In response to your comments, I initially felt that it was unfortunate that you included “living on Welfare” as a heading – as it shows a similarity towards the government and media attitude towards ALL that are on welfare – rather than acknowledging and understanding that there are a diversity of groups that, due to no fault of their own, have had to ask for such assistance from the state.
I agree with your comment. In my attitude “desperate times calls for desperate measures” when we’re faced in a situation where we’re not faced with much of a choice, but to depend on government aid otherwise. In this case scenario, I would rather consider the possibilities of looking for employment outside of the United States.