The Indignity of the Welfare Reform

feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act Social security in a global context At the 101st session of its conference in June this The International Labour Organization’s (ILO’s) Recommendation 202 determines that all coun- year, the International Labour Organization agreed tries should provide a nationally defined mini- Recommendation 202 on national social protection mum level of income security for its older citizens, for those of active age who are unable floors. Esoteric though it sounds, this sets a to earn sufficient and for children.1 In so doing, it arguably re-establishes the expectation that all standard that has the potential to require the radical countries should proactively engage in building upgrading of the British social security system. a coherent social policy as a fundamental com- ponent of national governance, this after decades Robert Walker, Elaine Chase and Ivar Lødemel provide an when the so-called Washington consensus promulgated the view that social policy was overview of the Recommendation’s context, and 2 peripheral, redundant or even counterproductive. argue why its rights-based approach and emphasis The Recommendation is the culmination of a on dignity matter to UK anti-poverty programmes. process begun in 1952 to secure minimum social security standards3 and re-invigorated in 2006, when new efforts were made to realise this aspiration.4 The work in the early 2000s was undertaken by civil servants in the ILO, and challenged the prevailing view that social security was too expensive an option for most countries in the global South by demonstrating that provision of a basic package of social protection was not beyond the reach of countries as poor and diverse as Nepal and Bangladesh.5 Jess Hurd/Reportdigital Perhaps a touch ironically, the process was given a fillip by the global crisis in 2008. In April Given that the ILO is a tripartite body compris- the following year, the United Nations (UN) ing employers’ organisations, trade unions and Chief Executive Board established the Social the governments of over 180 countries, with the Protection Floor Initiative as one of its joint right of participation (though not voting powers) responses to the crisis. Under the leadership of for select NGOs, it is hardly surprising that the the ILO and the World Health Organization, the final Recommendation does not include all the Initiative brought 19 UN bodies together with aspirations aired en route, but instead can be the World Bank, the International Monetary seen as a historic compromise. There is no glob- Fund, regional development banks, bilateral al fund to aid the poorest countries in realising donors, and a number of international NGOs. the aspirations of Recommendation 202 and no This network gave new legitimacy to the ILO common international standard, a global social aspirations and provided added momentum. floor. Instead, states are left to determine This carried the project through from the ILO national floors ‘in accordance with national cir- Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair cumstances’,9 albeit with the expectation that Globalization,6 which called for ‘social security the basic income security should allow ‘life in to all, including measures to provide basic dignity’. Essentially, Recommendation 202 income to all in need of such protection’, to the establishes a set of principles appertaining to Report of the Committee for the Recurrent the design of social security systems, based on Discussion on Social Protection,7 the Resolution the understanding that the right to social secu- and Conclusions Concerning the Recurrent rity is a human right. Social security provision, Discussion on Social Protection (Social Security) therefore, is not optional, something that in 2011,8 and then to the final vote and approval national governments can choose not to pro- of the Recommendation in June 2012. vide or to cut out. The preamble also reminds Poverty 143 9 feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act national governments that social security helps had been much discussion concerning the terms overcome poverty and reduces inequality and is used to describe beneficiaries of the social pro- ‘an investment in people that empowers them tection floors. ‘Beneficiaries’ seemed to some to adjust to changes in the economy and in the delegates to conjure up the idea of charity and labour market’.10 Furthermore, Recommendation recipients of gifts rather than exercisers of 202 notes that, in times of crisis, ‘social securi- rights. It is because of these concerns that the ty systems act as automatic social and eco- amendment uses the wordy phrase ‘people nomic stabilizers’, ‘help stimulate aggregate covered by the social security guarantees’. demand’ and ‘help support a transition to a more sustainable economy’.11 These principles Shame and stigma apply globally and are anticipated to withstand The research which informed this process drew the test of time. However, they are also a salient on Amartya Sen’s14 contention that the experi- reminder to the British government that reduc- ence of shame lies at the ‘irreducible absolutist tions in social security provision at this time core in the idea of poverty’, is always present, could be counterproductive in economic terms and arises from the inability to participate fully and might also contribute to a violation of citi- in society.15 Social psychologists suggest that zens’ basic human rights. shame is among the most pernicious of the social emotions, creating a sense of powerless- On the matter of dignity ness and lack of agency.16 Shame is felt by the Paragraph 3 of Recommendation 202 sets out individual but is also imposed by society and the fundamental principles that governments institutions. Made to feel ashamed, people in are now obliged to apply in the design and poverty can often lose faith in themselves, cut implementation of social protection floors. their social ties and lose access to social capital. Social security While the Recommendation was much debated Social security systems that promote personal and refined before the final vote, one amend- dignity stand to overcome the debilitating psy- systems that ment of note was the inclusion of the principle chological and social effects of poverty as well promote personal that governments should have ‘respect for the as tackling material deprivation. Those that do rights and dignity of people covered by the not, risk eroding individual agency, the ability of dignity stand social security guarantees’. people to help themselves. to overcome The core of the amendment can be traced to a The research was conducted in different settings the debilitating letter sent by Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, and supports Sen’s contention. Respondents psychological and the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty despised poverty, felt despised by others and and human rights, in April 2012.12 She had been frequently despised themselves for being poor. social effects moved to do so after attending a workshop in Moreover, they reported that public services of poverty Oxford in March, which reported on research in very frequently added to their sense of shame seven countries demonstrating the debilitating and failure. Sometimes this happened because effects of the shame associated with poverty they were required to admit to their poverty and and the stigma that can be imposed through the the personal failure that this instilled in order to receipt of benefits. The same research was simul- access the services or support they needed. taneously drawn upon by NGOs13 and the work- Sometimes it occurred vicariously simply ers’ group at the ILO session, the Worker because of how they felt they were treated. Vice-Chair introducing the amendment that was Sometimes, even, their own insecurities may ultimately to win through. The Employer Vice- have triggered the response that they feared or Chair accepted the sentiment of the workers’ merely reinforced their beliefs about the nega- group amendment but proposed a rephrasing on tive light in which other people saw them. the grounds of consistency which, in fact, had the Financially dependent on bureaucracies, they effect of expanding the relevance of the amend- believed that they had been turned into numbers ment from policy design to include delivery. under the presumption that they were guilty of being society’s failures. This sapped their Carmona specifically argued for the dignity remaining self-esteem, undermined their confi- principle on the basis of its consistency with a dence and, they felt, lowered their self-efficacy. human rights-based approach to social protection. Such an approach, she asserted, leads to The argument made on the basis of this poverty reduction that is ‘more effective and research, and which in turn informed delibera- sustainable, as participatory and accountability tions of Recommendation 202, was that treating mechanisms ensure that the voices of social recipients with respect and promoting their dig- protection beneficiaries are taken into account nity was not only an appropriate response to and programmes are designed to respond to the demands of social justice but was likely to their needs.’ Outside the formal meeting there have beneficial effects on the effectiveness of 10 Poverty 143 feature policy. Simultaneously according recipients job is a mug’s game. It is this factor which respect while meeting their material needs can stop someone’s journey back to work in through the provision of social security helps to its tracks. (Iain Duncan Smith, 201218) empower them with the confidence to strive towards self-sufficiency. The implication is that benefit receipt is a lifestyle choice which, in the degrading words of Welfare reform the ministerial forward to the welfare reform The British government voted in support of white paper, ‘breeds intergenerational poverty’.19 Recommendation 202. Recommendations are In ministerial speeches, benefit recipients are not legally binding on governments as ILO characterised as ‘slacking’, ‘been on benefit for Conventions are but, equally, countries cannot years’ and having ‘lost the work habit’.

Load more