Introduction
The objective of this study was to investigate the underlying factors that influence Universal Credit (UC) claimants’ experiences in moving closer to the paid labour market. It begins by discussing frontline stakeholders as street-level bureaucrats and connects the street-level bureaucracy theory with government paternalism theory through the concept of justifiable government intervention. The study highlights the driving factors that underlie participants’ interpretation of UC claimants’ behavioural changes. Specifically, this article addresses the following research question: What factors affect recipients’ decisions to transition from benefits to employment post-UC? The study presents evidence that intervention influences how UC claimants perceive their interactions with frontline stakeholders and their experiences in actively seeking jobs and moving closer to the paid labour market. Drawing on government paternalism as endorsed by Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) and street-level bureaucracy literature, the study contributes to Le Grand and New’s framework by emphasising the need for clear government interference intentions in defining paternalism and distinguishing between the motivations of frontline staff and the overarching government policy.
Street-level bureaucracy, interference intentions, and practices
Identifying an intervention as paternalistic requires understanding the intentions behind the policy or action. This section examines the differences between the intentions of the government that introduced the policy and those of the street-level bureaucrats who implement it. Street-level bureaucracy refers to the functions of frontline public service workers who interact directly with citizens and exercise considerable discretion in their roles (Reference LipskyLipsky, 2010 [1980]). These workers are not merely passive implementers of policy but active interpreters who must navigate and reconcile the broad objectives set by policymakers with the practical realities of their work environment (Brodkin, Reference Brodkin2011). Mashaw (Reference Mashaw1983) highlights that the ambiguity and generality of policy guidelines often require bureaucrats to develop their own interpretations and coping mechanisms. This potential for conflict between policymakers’ intentions and street-level bureaucrats’ actions can lead to bureaucratic drift, where the actual implementation of policy shifts away from its intended goals due to the discretionary actions of frontline workers.
Street-level bureaucrats often have to navigate a landscape of limited resources, bureaucratic constraints, performance metrics, and the need to exercise discretion in their daily interactions with clients (Mashaw, Reference Mashaw1983; Brodkin, Reference Brodkin2011; Soss et al., Reference Soss, Fording, Schram, Brodkin and Marston2013). These constraints can force them to prioritise certain tasks over others, sometimes leading to deviations from the original policy intentions. Welfare officers operate under significant pressure to meet targets and performance indicators set by the government, which can lead to a focus on quantitative outcomes rather than the qualitative aspects of service provision (Greer et al., Reference Greer, Breidahl, Knuth and Larsen2018).
Street-level bureaucrats may rely on their professional judgement and ethical considerations when implementing policies (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, Reference Maynard-Moody and Musheno2003). This can lead to variations in how policies are executed, as bureaucrats balance the formal requirements of their roles with their personal moral considerations and professional values (Zacka, Reference Zacka2017). Furthermore, to cope with the moral and emotional strain of their work, frontline workers may employ detachment, routinisation of tasks, or even bending the rules to better align with their moral compass (Zacka, Reference Zacka2017). Such actions, while aiming to mitigate personal stress or uphold personal ethics, can result in a departure from the policy’s original objectives.
Additionally, street-level bureaucrats often face the challenge of implementing one-size-fits-all policies in contexts where individual needs and circumstances vary widely. This can lead to a form of personalisation in policy implementation, where bureaucrats tailor their actions to fit the specific situations of their clients (Reference LipskyLipsky, 2010 [1980]). Deviating from standardised procedures can also result in inconsistencies and perceived unfairness in how policies are applied, depending on the capacity, working culture, and resources available within a given area (Carter and Whitworth, Reference Carter and Whitworth2015; Edmiston et al., Reference Edmiston, Robertshaw, Young, Ingold, Gibbons, Summers, Scullion, Geiger and de Vries2022; Redman and Fletcher, Reference Redman and Fletcher2021).
The effectiveness and equity of welfare policies are contingent upon the street-level bureaucrats who implement them (Watkins-Hayes, Reference Watkins-Hayes2009). Kaufman (Reference Kaufman2020) notes that the discretionary power of street-level bureaucrats can lead to varied outcomes for claimants, often dependent on the bureaucrat’s interpretation of policy and individual circumstances. Koch (Reference Koch2021) highlights that street-level bureaucrats often act as mediators who interpret and sometimes soften the harsh edges of policy directives. These frontline staff frequently work within ‘local ecosystems of support’ that include various formal and informal networks (Edmiston et al., Reference Edmiston, Robertshaw, Young, Ingold, Gibbons, Summers, Scullion, Geiger and de Vries2022). Street-level bureaucrats often rely on local resources to fill gaps in the formal support systems, which can result in a more humane and context-sensitive service (Koch, Reference Koch2021).
Kaufman (Reference Kaufman2020) and Redman and Fletcher (Reference Redman and Fletcher2021) illustrate how the street-level practice of welfare conditionality involves both calculation and coercion. Redman and Fletcher (Reference Redman and Fletcher2021) further argue that these practices can result in violent outcomes for the most vulnerable populations. The discretion of these bureaucrats often reinforces power dynamics and can perpetuate systemic inequalities (Redman and Fletcher, Reference Redman and Fletcher2021). Meers (Reference Meers2019) argues that discretion is employed as a mechanism for blame avoidance by the central government, passing the responsibility for difficult decisions onto local authorities. This transfer of discretion can lead to significant variations in how policies are applied on the ground.
Justifiable government intervention
Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) posit that government paternalistic intervention can be justified based on three premises: (A) addressing instances of reasoning or cognitive failures related to an individual’s self-regarding judgement or reasoning ability (rather than a failure of information); (B) aiding the individual in achieving their own ends. In addition to expositions (A) and (B), Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) argue that (C) compared with individuals, the government may possess better judgement regarding an individual’s welfare due to several reasons: (1) the government can provide citizens with ‘perfect’ information; (2) the state generally maintains a broader perspective that enables prudent decision-making by weighing costs and benefits; (3) the state is less likely to be influenced by unconscious and emotional impulses when making judgements; (4) the state’s demeanour tends to be more composed, thus avoiding subjective misjudgements stemming from individual fallibility. Le Grand and New contend that the government is an appropriate entity to understand an individual’s reasoning failure clearly.
Premise (A) assumes the existence of ‘reasoning failures’ that can be identified, recognised and comprehended. Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) categorised reasoning failures into autonomy-related reasoning failure, means-related failures and ends-related failures. They argue that interventions infringing upon an individual’s rights or coercing them into certain actions can diminish their sense of autonomy and impede their ability to achieve their objectives. They identify means-related reasoning failures, where individuals struggle due to limited experience in assessing and predicting future benefits, as a justification for paternalistic interventions. In contrast, ends-related failures, which involve an inability to foresee and attain one’s objectives, are less supported by evidence. Le Grand and New’s expositions assume that recipients can recognise reasoning failures, but when they cannot, a paternalist might assess evidence of reasoning failures derived from experimental inquiry or survey questioning, or from instances of logical fallacies demonstrated by the recipients. Since ends are inherently value-driven and subjective, it is challenging to identify concrete evidence for such failures (Acland, Reference Acland2018).
Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) argue that the presence of reasoning failures among individuals creates a justification for means-related paternalism. This type of paternalism involves interventions that enhance or substitute the methods by which individuals achieve their objectives. Conversely, there is no substantial evidence suggesting that individuals err in determining their ends, the elements contributing to their well-being. As these ends are inherently value-based, it is difficult to conceptualise what such evidence might entail. Therefore, Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) reject ends-related paternalism interventions aimed at altering or replacing individuals’ goals while supporting the well-being case for means-related paternalism. This latter form of paternalism is intended to assist individuals in achieving their goals more effectively when they lack the means to do so independently.
The government paternalist claim, however, fails to specify the role of emotions in the decision-making process of street-level bureaucrats during interactions with citizens. The capacity of frontline staff to reason while factoring in emotions significantly influences individual regulatory performance (Eshuis et al., Reference Eshuis, de Boer and Klijn2022). Street-level workers may establish emotional bonds with recipients. Those possessing empathic concern are better equipped to comprehend a recipient’s viewpoint and share in their emotional experiences (Levitats and Vigoda-Gadot, Reference Levitats and Vigoda-Gadot2020). Volckmar-Eeg and Vassenden (Reference Volckmar-Eeg and Vassenden2022) discovered that the authentic emotions of frontline stakeholders can bridge the gap and facilitate assistance for clients. Clients who evoke positive emotions from street-level bureaucrats and align with an institutional and discursive notion of a ‘star candidate’ are perceived as more receptive to aid (Volckmar-Eeg and Vassenden, Reference Volckmar-Eeg and Vassenden2022).
Government paternalism, which delves into the concept of ‘failures’ in ideal forms, provides valuable insights for discerning and analysing the scope of bureaucratised and institutionalised ‘failures’ as posited by Member of Parliament (MP) Iain Duncan Smith (Reference Duncan Smith2010), as well as those acknowledged by recipients themselves. While significant critiques of government paternalism exist, it calls for additional empirically grounded research to delve into citizen-state interactions, intersubjectivity, and the interdependence among stakeholders, policies, and clients.
Policy background
Welfare-to-work
The origins of welfare-to-work policies can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century, driven by economic competition, changing labour markets, demographic shifts, and concerns about welfare dependency and social exclusion within a political climate of austerity. One explanation for these policies lies in the historical emphasis on paid work, rooted in bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe that abolished aristocratic privileges and enshrined the duty to work in constitutional settlements (van Berkel and Hornemann Moller, Reference van Berkel, Hornemann Moller, van Berkel and Hornemann Moller2002; van Berkel et al., Reference van Berkel, Caswell, Kupka and Larsen2017). This historical backdrop fostered labour movements advocating for the right to work, a notion that persisted through various economic transitions.
Karl Marx’s concept of the industrial reserve army offers another explanation. Marx posited that parts of the population serve as a reserve labour force, drawn in and out of the labour market according to economic cycles and labour demand, crucial for capital accumulation by keeping labour costs down (Marx, Reference Marx1971). Despite changes in labour market regulation, gender structure, and labour force segmentation, the employability of this reserve labour force remains vital for capital’s competitiveness (van Berkel and Hornemann Moller, Reference van Berkel, Hornemann Moller, van Berkel and Hornemann Moller2002).
The rise of the Schumpeterian workfare regime following the crisis of Fordism and the Keynesian welfare state in the late twentieth century provides a third explanation. This regime aimed to enhance structural competitiveness through labour market flexibility and socio-economic innovation, subordinating social policy to support capital accumulation (Jessop, Reference Jessop1993). Neoliberal discourses, emphasising market efficiency and individual responsibility over state dependency, have influenced this shift towards work incentives and measures to move people into employment (van Berkel and Hornemann Moller, Reference van Berkel, Hornemann Moller, van Berkel and Hornemann Moller2002).
Neoliberal critiques argue that the welfare state undermines market principles by discouraging competition and innovation, monopolising welfare services, and creating inequality in welfare distribution (Giddens, Reference Giddens2000). Neoliberalism posits minimal state intervention, with the state’s role limited to creating conditions conducive to individual practices in a free market (Hayek, Reference Hayek1960; Harvey, Reference Harvey2005). Critics like Hayek warn against excessive government control, which may stifle market activity and innovation (Hayek, Reference Hayek1960).
Miller (Reference Miller2010) argues that bureaucratic procedures at the frontline can influence individual behaviour, rendering welfare recipients dependent on service providers and bureaucrats. Soss et al. (Reference Soss, Fording, Schram, Brodkin and Marston2013) contend that neoliberalism reconfigures the state as a quasi-market operation, mobilising it on behalf of the market and employing welfare-to-work policy instruments to secure compliance and contributions from marginalised populations. This approach weakens benefit access, strengthens punitive policies, and deepens civic exclusion (Soss et al., Reference Soss, Fording and Schram2011).
European countries have adopted varied welfare-to-work pathways reflecting their unique contexts. For instance, Denmark’s welfare-to-work approach balances labour market flexibility with robust social security measures, promoting employability and reducing unemployment through continuous skill development and comprehensive support systems (Ginsburg and Rosenthal, Reference Ginsburg and Rosenthal2006). Sweden’s welfare-to-work approach provides generous social support with active labour market policies, emphasising comprehensive benefits, parental leave, and gender equality to promote labour market participation and equitable caregiving responsibilities (Ginsburg and Rosenthal, Reference Ginsburg and Rosenthal2006). In the UK, the involvement of governments in providing welfare services has gradually decreased, while the participation of non-governmental organisations and individuals has grown. This shift has been characterised by gradual cuts in benefit entitlements and heightened conditionality (Dwyer, Reference Dwyer2019).
Recent welfare-to-work policies focus on enhancing employability to transition benefit recipients from welfare dependency to paid employment. Strategies include training, work experience programmes, and tailored support services, exemplified by policies like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in the US and Universal Credit in the UK. Digital platforms for benefit management aim to improve service delivery but raise concerns about access and ethical issues, necessitating a combination of digital and face-to-face interactions (Ball et al., Reference Ball, McGann, Nguyen and Considine2023). Tailored assistance addressing individual barriers to employment and empathetic interactions between frontline staff and recipients are crucial for better outcomes (Dwyer, Reference Dwyer2019; Oude Geerdink et al., Reference Oude Geerdink, Sewdas, van Kempen, van Weeghel, Anema and Huysmans2023).
Access to universal credit
The discourse on social security during the Coalition government of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties (2010–2015) emphasised a behavioural explanation for social issues (Cameron, Reference Cameron2012). Unlike the Labour Party’s approach to social security (1997–2010), the Coalition government extended and intensified punitive conditionality. Structural dimensions of persistent unemployment and poverty were downplayed, transforming these issues into individual behavioural ‘pathologies’ of benefit dependency and unemployment. Narratives of ‘shirkers’ and ‘scroungers’ characterised those outside the realm of citizenship (Ellison, Reference Ellison, Bochel and Powell2016). Iain Duncan Smith (Reference Duncan Smith2010), a Conservative MP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2010–2016), described benefit claimants as ‘the unemployed who lack the work habit’ and as a ‘residual group who need recovery’ (Duncan Smith, Reference Duncan Smith2010).
The state’s responsibility for mitigating risk and poverty was redefined, linking it to ‘family breakdown, economic dependency and unemployment, educational failure, addiction and indebtedness’ (Cabinet Office, 2010: 3). This redefinition underscored poverty and unemployment as stemming from individual shortcomings, aiming to motivate out-of-work benefit recipients to transition into employment and enforcing penalties on those who did not seize the opportunity to work (Department for Work and Pensions [DWP], 2010). Unlike the Labour governments’ discourse, the Coalition government placed a stronger emphasis on individual causes and a reduced focus on the structural underpinnings of ‘failure’, such as the global economic crisis and limited labour market opportunities (Dwyer and Wright, Reference Dwyer and Wright2014).
UC represents a continuation of New Public Management reforms, focusing on integration strategies from the late 1990s (Fishenden and Thompson, Reference Fishenden and Thompson2012). One aspect of this ‘reintegration’ is the amalgamation of in-work and out-of-work payments within UC. According to the DWP (2017), UC aims to ‘strengthen incentives to enter paid work’, ‘increase hours or earnings amongst those who are already in work’, ‘remove barriers to temporary, flexible, and part-time work’, and promote ‘a wider range of employment-seeking behaviours to diversify the types of roles considered by claimants’. It assumes citizens possess a heightened responsibility and capacity to prepare for, discover, and progress in paid employment (DWP, 2016). UC consolidates six social security benefits into a single means-tested benefit (DWP, 2010, 2019), reflecting the ‘reintegration’ characteristic of digital-era governance (Margetts and Dunleavy, Reference Margetts and Dunleavy2013).
UC aims to streamline the benefits system and reduce administrative burdens, as emphasised by the Conservatives (2009). The digitisation of social policy has transformed citizen-government interactions, promoting default processes such as ‘social web’ behaviours, zero-touch digital accounts, and co-production (Dunleavy et al., Reference Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, Tinkler, Hood and Heald2005). However, this shift to a digital-by-default system presents significant challenges for claimants, many of whom lack the digital literacy or resources to manage their claims, necessitating additional support. This administrative simplicity does not necessarily translate to ease of access and understanding for claimants and frontline stakeholders (Summers and Young, Reference Summers and Young2020). During COVID-19, the absence of face-to-face services exacerbated difficulties for client groups such as non-English speakers, Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities (BAME), the homeless, asylum seekers, and those with low digital literacy (Edmiston et al., Reference Edmiston, Robertshaw, Young, Ingold, Gibbons, Summers, Scullion, Geiger and de Vries2022). Claimants typically receive their first UC payment after approximately five weeks, reduced from the initial six-week waiting period (DWP, 2019). Despite this reduction, the waiting period often leads to financial difficulties for claimants accustomed to more frequent payments under the legacy system (Summers and Young, Reference Summers and Young2020). The single monthly payment complicates budgeting for claimants previously receiving multiple benefits at different intervals (Millar and Bennett, Reference Millar and Bennett2017). Additionally, the inflexibility of the monthly assessment period can result in overpayments or underpayments for claimants with fluctuating incomes.
Conditionality
UC, administered by DWP, marks a significant shift from the legacy benefits system, previously managed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for tax credits and the DWP for most means-tested benefits. The implementation of UC embodies a holistic governance approach, drawing from Weberian principles and the post-New Public Management (NPM) ecosystem (Margetts and Dunleavy, Reference Margetts and Dunleavy2013). This governance framework involves a complex interaction between central government policies and local implementation practices.
The rollout of UC, referred to as ‘Universal Support’ or ‘Help to Claim’, depends on managerial and frontline stakeholders from local authorities and third-sector organisations to assist claimants in navigating UC’s complexities (Edmiston et al., Reference Edmiston, Robertshaw, Young, Ingold, Gibbons, Summers, Scullion, Geiger and de Vries2022). These services include Assisted Digital support (AD) and Personal Budgeting Support (PBS) (DWP, 2019), aimed at identifying local needs and offering assistance with online claims, money management, and job searches, thereby promoting claimant self-reliance (DWP, 2019). This decentralisation represents a shift of decision-making power to local entities such as local authorities, Citizens Advice, credit unions, social housing providers, and charities (DWP, 2019).
The DWP has allocated resources to create a support structure intended to enable individuals to secure a better future and regain control of their lives (DWP, 2017). A pivotal element of this strategy is UC, designed to transition claimants from dependency to independence (DWP, 2018). UC emphasises employability, aiming to smooth the transition from unemployment to paid work and ensure that work is financially more rewarding than benefits. The single taper rate feature ensures that benefits decrease as claimants’ work income rises, thus incentivising employment (DWP, 2018).
Central to UC’s personalised and intensified system of behavioural conditionality is the individual’s action plan and the claimant commitment (CC) (Dwyer and Wright, Reference Dwyer and Wright2014). Each CC specifies job-search and mandatory training requirements that claimants must meet to receive UC payments (Loopstra et al., Reference Loopstra, Reeves, McKee and Stuckler2015; DWP, 2016). Changes in conditionality and sanctions reflect Foucault’s (Reference Foucault2008) neoliberal governmentality, emphasising vigilance and institutionalised behaviour change (Reeves, Reference Reeves2017). However, critiques highlight the ethical and efficacy issues of these approaches (Dwyer and Bright, Reference Dwyer and Bright2016; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Fletcher and Stewart2020). The intensified conditionality of UC can unintentionally alienate claimants from social support and employment, exacerbating hardship and mental health issues (Wright and Dwyer, Reference Wright and Dwyer2022). Criticisms also address the unrealistic targets set in the CC, which often overlook claimants’ capabilities and vulnerabilities (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Fletcher and Stewart2020). Oakley’s (Reference Oakley2016) report identifies factors influencing employment outcomes, such as qualifications, mental health, and age. To improve outcomes, supportive and non-judgemental services are crucial (Dwyer, Reference Dwyer2019).
Easements are available for claimants facing challenges in engaging with the labour market (DWP, 2023b). However, the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) (2017) and other critiques highlight the inadequate promotion and awareness of these easements, which could prevent vulnerable claimants from fully disclosing their circumstances to work coaches (Reeves, Reference Reeves2017; PAC, 2017). Research suggests that UC recipients need autonomy-supportive interventions characterised by empathy and respect, particularly for vulnerable individuals (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Dwyer, Jones, McNeill, Scullion and Stewart2018). Effective employment support measures should include high-quality, personalised training and career counselling aligned with claimants’ needs (DWP, 2023a). Transparency about available options and administrative literacy are recommended to foster trust between work coaches and clients (DWP, 2023a).
Pressures of frontline workers
Personalised work coach assistance is a cornerstone of UC employability support. Claimants at Jobcentre Plus (JCP) are assigned a work coach to set job-search and training conditions essential for receiving UC payments (DWP, 2019). These work coaches employ techniques tailored to each claimant’s circumstances to facilitate health and work goals, such as in-work progression (DWP, 2019). UC support programmes empower individuals through personalised job coaching, training, and services addressing barriers to employment, aiming to increase female and BAME employment rates and close the lone parent employment gap.
The complexities of frontline work constrain discretionary practices due to varying resource levels across regions, political austerity, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased demand for support services (Meers, Reference Meers2019). Local actors must trade off competing considerations within organisational settings (Edmiston et al., Reference Edmiston, Robertshaw, Young, Ingold, Gibbons, Summers, Scullion, Geiger and de Vries2022). Variations in local support service capabilities result in differences in service quality and adequacy (Dwyer, Reference Dwyer2019).
Work coaches face pressures to prioritise disentitlement over genuine support, driven by organisational requirements to meet referral targets for employment programmes (DWP, 2023a). High turnover rates among work coaches exacerbate these pressures, as inexperienced staff struggle to make informed referral decisions (DWP, 2023a). The rapid introduction of new employment programmes, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, further complicates the support landscape, highlighting systemic issues within the welfare-to-work framework that impede the provision of personalised and informed claimant support (DWP, 2023a).
Research design
The case study approach is particularly suited for investigating behaviour change within contextualised and contingent circumstances. This research utilises a multi-faceted embedded case study design, encompassing various levels of analysis across two distinct geographical sites in South London. Empirical data were collected through face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with thirty-two claimants from South London. The case study approach is ideal for this qualitative study as it aligns with the investigation of behaviour change within specific contexts and circumstances. To enhance the generalisability of the case study approach, it is important to select cases with varied characteristics and to ensure that the understandings emerging from interactions between the researcher and participants are explicit, authentic, and plausible (Schofield, Reference Schofield, Gomm, Hammersley and Foster2011). Detailed descriptions from participants regarding their past and present experiences and behaviour changes provide valuable insights into new meanings, thoughts, emotions, values, and motivations that are deeply rooted in their contexts and socialisation processes (Stake, Reference Stake and Foster2011).
An embedded case study design allows for a comprehensive analysis by focusing on multiple sub-units within a single case, offering a granular understanding of the subject matter. This design is advantageous for exploring the complex interactions and dynamics that characterise welfare-to-work policies and their implementation at various levels of government and within different local ecosystems. It provides a thorough description and analysis of participants’ perspectives and lived experiences concerning policy outcomes (Yin, Reference Yin2018). By examining multiple sub-units, the study can identify how different individuals’ perspectives and actions contribute to the overall functioning of UC. This approach enhances the richness of the data collected and provides a nuanced understanding of the policy’s impact at various levels of implementation and across different contexts.
Despite its strengths, the embedded case study approach can contain biases or speculative elements that may not accurately describe events. This necessitates careful investigation and analysis to minimise the risk of misrepresentation (Starman, Reference Starman2013). As Yin (Reference Yin2018, p. 23) notes, ‘neither the case nor the case study represents samples’. While the embedded case study offers depth and detail, its findings may be context-specific, requiring careful consideration when interpreting the results and drawing broader conclusions. The goal is to generate analytic generalisations based on the concept of government paternalism.
Accessing UC claimants for research presented significant challenges, addressed through non-probability sampling techniques such as snowball and convenience sampling. Assistance was sought from managerial and front-line stakeholders in advice centres and community organisations, who helped distribute research invitations to their clients. Additionally, online platforms, including forums and a UC-related Facebook discussion group, were utilised to ensure participant confidentiality. These strategies facilitated the recruitment and interviewing of eligible participants with diverse experiences regarding UC and benefit-claiming processes.
Interview transcripts were analysed using NVivo 12. Initial descriptive nodes were developed from the first five interviews, forming the basis for an initial coding framework encompassing emerging themes such as autonomy and factors influencing behaviour change processes and outcomes. Subsequent review and open coding of the remaining transcripts led to modifications of these initial nodes and coding frames. Selective codes were established to expand dimensions within stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions, aiming to understand the underlying aspects of benefit claiming and employment-related behaviour change processes and outcomes.
An in-depth analysis involved identifying and reviewing relationships between emerging themes within the coding frame and the research question. Similar themes were grouped to establish key overarching themes and factors. The connections between the coding frame of themes and barrier concepts were also explored (Corbin and Strauss, Reference Corbin and Strauss2008). Axial coding linked subconcepts to themes related to autonomy, facilitating an examination of how stakeholders interpreted policy implementation as orchestrated by front-line stakeholders.
Both within-case and cross-case analyses were conducted. Within-case analysis used descriptive analysis to examine how front-line stakeholders interpret their experiences in assisting beneficiaries and claimants seeking employment (Yin, Reference Yin2018). A comprehensive description of the context, motivations, attitudes, means, and intentions was provided to assess the alignment of typical cases with those intended for generalisation (Hammersley, Reference Hammersley2008; Schofield, Reference Schofield, Gomm, Hammersley and Foster2011). Cross-case analysis interpreted the relationships between individual respondents and the sample as a whole (Bryman and Burgess, Reference Bryman and Burgess1994). Matrix coding explored the connections between respondents’ attribute values (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, family types, and locations) and themes (e.g., benefit- and employment-related behaviours) by shading corresponding cells. Findings from these queries identified commonalities and variations across cases, subsequently incorporated into the explanatory case study analysis and generalisation process (Stake, Reference Stake and Foster2011).
Empirical findings
Decision making under pressure
This research indicates that the majority of participating claimants wish to transition from benefits to paid work. However, some UC recipients compromise their actual autonomy to secure benefit allowances. This occurs when claimants find it impractical to fully comply with the personalised CC, yet agree to its terms to avoid financial hardship.
For example, Wendy, a case study participant, was previously receiving income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. Despite her persistent efforts to secure paid employment, she encountered setbacks due to illness. Upon switching to UC, Wendy was warned about potential sanctions for non-compliance:
I had to agree to the commitment of looking for a job, thirty-five hours a week, which is impossible for me, so I was agreeing to a commitment that I could not fulfil, because I was warned that if I didn’t agree to fulfil the CC, I would be sanctioned. It’s very unfair. Obviously, if I don’t agree with them [the CC made by the work coach], I don’t get paid [laughs], so I have to agree with what the work coach says, I should be there [to claim UC].
(Wendy, aged sixty-one, female, single, White British, site A)Wendy is keenly aware of ‘being locked fast in’ (agreeing to the CC with her work coach) and ‘having no freedom to escape’ (Reference LockeLocke, 2001[1690]: 188). She believes that she has no alternative solutions to her financial challenges aside from claiming UC. Consequently, Wendy finds herself in a situation where she lacks an appropriate choice context to genuinely exercise her decision-making.
Wendy faced significant pressure. She struggled to articulate and acknowledge her beliefs and, due to her illness, had difficulty envisioning herself adapting to the CC and progressing towards the paid labour market. In this context, the distinction between autonomy, means, and ends does not provide the clear justificatory boundary that Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) assert. In Wendy’s instance, she semi-voluntarily surrendered some of her autonomy in expressing her thoughts (Feinberg, Reference Feinberg1989) in exchange for increased autonomy in accessing welfare rights and resources – a crucial component of Wendy’s personal objectives. Here, autonomy, viewed as a social right, is essential for Wendy’s access to employment support services and financial benefits (autonomy as means), aligning with her overall goals (autonomy also as ends).
Wendy’s scenario challenges the traditional notion of paternalism as outlined by Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015). Wendy felt that the implementation of conditionality by the frontline stakeholder did not replace her judgement with the government’s to promote her wellbeing. Instead, it changes the circumstances under which Wendy makes the relevant choices, addressing the common criticism of the welfare state that there are people on benefits who are capable of work and who are simply living off other people’s work effort.
Job search and ends paternalism
Tim applied for UC to fulfill his CC, which required him to search for work for thirty-five hours each week. He actively sought job opportunities within the construction industry, submitting 100–200 online job applications weekly through Universal Jobmatch. However, after the first month, having exhausted the suitable vacancies, Tim encountered a scarcity of relevant positions. Despite dedicating two hours weekly to a job club, his options remained limited. Having worked as a self-employed professional in the construction sector for two decades, Tim decided to withdraw from UC. He recognised the challenge of securing two or more referees for recommendation letters, essential for applying to a different industry where he lacked relevant work experience.
Tim’s decision was also influenced by the pressure he felt to comply with the CC. He acknowledged that his ‘consent’ to the CC, indicated by ticking the ‘YES’ box, was not given entirely voluntarily. He did not identify any personal reasoning failures:
I said I could not commit to a thirty-five hour job search. It’s too much. I told him, ‘I cannot do it’. He [the work coach] looked me in the face and said, ‘Tick YES, tick YES, YES in the box’ on the computer screen in front of me, before moving on to the next claim. This showed me that they [the work coaches] know it’s unrealistic. That’s what they [the work coaches] expected, isn’t it? I signed up for UC, but I stopped after a month because I do not want to take money from the government. I don’t want to be seen as a slippery con artist. For me, having a clean conscience is better than taking their [the government’s] money and then claiming, ‘Okay, I am able to get a job’, while having a guilty conscience by default. It’s the wrong way around.
(Tim, aged fifty-five, male, White British, voluntarily disengaged with UC, site B)Although Tim’s relatively brief stint with UC did not substantially improve his financial situation and he remained in debt upon withdrawal, he acknowledged the challenges of committing to an unrealistic CC that contradicted his preferences:
I don’t like work, the work I do is quite hard, just basically working on the building site. It’s a young man’s job, it’s too hard … for me, to get a job, it’s something that is pretty boring. I really want to get a job because I need the money. It’s not something that I am passionate about, it’s not something that I am desiring with all my heart.
Tim’s work coach might have morally disapproved of his judgement in preferring no work and a low income to some work with a higher income, and therefore tried to change his preferences and the choices he made by offering a higher income plus extensive job search requirements. However, no direct evidence of such an intention by the work coach was obtained during the interview. Even if such an intention existed, the intervention would constitute ends paternalism, which, according to Le Grand and New, is not justified. This is because there is no objective means to demonstrate Tim’s (ultimate) ends or his ends failure, and such an ends failure would involve not acting in Tim’s best interests.
Identity-based harm
Identity-based harm emerges from actions that target a recipient’s citizenshipFootnote 1 and may undermine their sense of belonging and overall well-being. Amanda collaborates with her UC work coach to meet UC requirements, and she appreciates the respectful treatment she receives, which safeguards her self-esteem and self-worth. Her work coach provides her with information regarding job opportunities that align with her preferences and past work experience. Amanda’s efforts lead to a transformation in her perception of belonging to a socially marginalised group, contrasting with her previous disheartening encounters with job advisors prior to UC. Following her UC experience, Amanda perceives a shift in her judgement about her social identity and attaches emotional significance to this transformation:
This time [post-UC], I have a really, really good work coach. If she knows about the types of jobs I am interested in, she puts them into the computer. She takes the time to understand her clients and everyone’s job history, learning about the kinds of jobs they are seeking. When I visit, I show her my job search, and she provides advice based on the types of positions I am looking for. She’ll even say, ‘Oh, I found something for you. Could you give the HR or the employers a call?’ or ‘You have an interview scheduled for that date’. I am actually treated like a human being, which is a stark contrast. Prior to UC, they viewed us [the claimants] as if we had no intelligence or value. That’s how the job advisors treated us, as if we were worthless. There was a complete lack of respect. However, this time around, the situation is entirely different. There is much more help.
(Amanda, aged thirty-nine female, White British, moved into paid work, site B)Initially, Amanda felt intense fear and anxiety when visiting the Jobcentre, indicating a lack of trust and comfort with the service providers. Her fear underscores a critical barrier to effective engagement with welfare services, likely stemming from impersonal and possibly dismissive treatment. Amanda observed:
When I went to the Jobcentre I was really scared, I was really anxious to go to the Jobcentre, but now I have got this new coach, he is really fantastic. I can actually talk to her openly, she actually tries to find solutions for me, for my health, finances, and my employment, and not just ‘here is a job code’. You know, it’s a completely different approach.
Post-UC, fulfilling the conditionality represents a shared symbol through which she gains identification, being respected and recognised not just as ‘they’ and ‘them’ but as ‘we’ and ‘us’, forming the foundation of unity between a work coach and a client. Amanda describes her new work coach as ‘really fantastic’, emphasising the coach’s empathetic and solution-oriented approach. Amanda’s ability to talk openly with her work coach and the work coach’s proactive stance in finding tailored solutions signify a profound transformation in service delivery. The work coach’s assistance demonstrates the potential benefits of a more human-centred and responsive welfare system.
While it is possible that the work coach believed that, if Amanda had chosen to remain unemployed, she would be engaging in identity-based harm, the intervention primarily involved providing information to help Amanda make better choices. Most thinkers on paternalism, including Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015), do not classify the mere provision of information as an act of paternalism. However, without direct evidence of the work coach’s intention to correct Amanda’s reasoning failure (if there has been any) in order to promote her own good, it is challenging to classify this intervention as paternalistic in the traditional sense.
Discussion and conclusion
To define paternalism not merely by the intervention or its outcomes, but rather as a failure of individual judgement, Le Grand and New (Reference Le Grand and New2015) propose a distinctive definition. They assert that government intervention is paternalistic if it is intended at (a) addressing an individual’s failure of judgement and (b) furthering the individual’s own good without invoking coercion.
Our findings indicate that although claimants often aspire to transition from benefits to paid employment, welfare policies can sometimes pressure them into commitments misaligned with their actual circumstances. For example, Wendy’s experience illustrates the difficulties faced by UC recipients. Despite her sustained efforts to find employment, her illness made it unfeasible to meet the requirement of a thirty-five hour job search per week. Wendy’s acceptance of this commitment under threat of sanctions underscores a significant issue: she semi-voluntarily sacrificed part of her autonomy to secure financial stability. This scenario diverges from traditional paternalism as described by Le Grand and New, where paternalism involves substituting individuals’ judgements to enhance their well-being.
Similarly, Tim chose to withdraw from UC, noting that the pressure from his work coach to adhere to an unachievable CC appeared to be more politically driven than paternalistic. However, there is no evidence suggesting the work coach’s intention in this regard. Conversely, Amanda’s positive interaction with her work coach highlights a different narrative. The empathetic and personalised support she received facilitated her employment and bolstered her self-respect and civic identity. This example underscores the benefits of offering information and advice without undermining autonomy. While Amanda’s experience shows that a work coach can mitigate identity-based harm by assisting in making better choices, this intervention does not conform to the traditional definition of paternalism, as most scholars, including Le Grand and New, do not consider the mere provision of information to be paternalistic.
Ultimately, more evidence from the government’s and frontline staff’s stated intentions is required to discern the true nature of paternalistic actions. Moving beyond what is declared and delving into philosophical moral judgements diverts us from empirical analysis. Before evaluating whether the government can fulfill any paternalistic roles, either means- or ends-related, it is crucial to determine if the intervener has an intention to act in such a manner. This challenge is intrinsic to the concept of justifiable government intervention.
In line with Le Grand and New’s argument, the intention to promote an individual’s own good must remain central to the definition, as understood by the government, but not necessarily by frontline staff. Our argument is that the government should assess and consider the frontline staff’s perception of what ought to be promoted, intervening only when there is a failure in the frontline staff’s approach to achieving the well-being of the individual and where governmental judgement can achieve better outcomes for the individual. However, many proposed and actual paternalistic interventions are justified by substituting the government’s perception of the intention with that of frontline staff. Hence, our definition must encompass this possibility.
Research ethics approval
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University Research Committee and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval for this research was obtained from the Ethics Committee.
