Poverty -:I - , , Discussion Papers
University of Wisconsin-Madison -e-~'- ;1\' -Institute for Researchon Poverty -:i - , , Discussion Papers Joel F. Handler "PROPORTIONAL" VS. "CREATIVE" J, JUSTICE--DISCRETIONARY BEHEFIT~ 'IN INCOME-HAINTENANCE PROGRAMS: THE BRITISH SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS SCHEHE DP #603-80 ) ..' "Proportional" vs. "Creativeir Justice-- Discretionary Benefits in Income-Maintenance Programs: The British Supplementary Benefits Scheme Joel F. Handler May 1980 In 1977-78, I received a fellowship from the German Marshall Fund, plus a travel 'grant in 1979, to do the research for the British part of this paper. I gratefully acknowledge that support. In Great. Britain, many people gave generously of their time and read and commented on various drafts. I especially thank David Bull, David Donnison, Alan Palmer, Martin Partington, and Michael Partridge'- The American'research was supported by funds granted to the Institute for Research on Poverty by the Department of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare, pursuant to the provisions of th~ Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. I shared many of my ideas and research with my colleagues Michael Sosin, Martha Gordon, Susan McGovern, and Rosemary Gartner. ABSTRACT How does a large-scale income-maintenance program resolve the conflict between meeting the individual needs of recipients and the need to achieve horizontal equity, reduce error and fraud, and control administrative costs? The rapid trend in America is to concentrate on the latter set of goals through the use of the consolidated or flat grant, but inevitably pressures arise in the "bottom-line" welfare program to meet needs arising out of emergencies and special circumstances. This paper examines the concepts and policies that lie behind the goals of individualized treatment and of routinization and uses, as a case study, the British income-maintenance pro- gram (the Supplementary Benefits Scheme) which has struggled for three decades to meet these competing demands.
[Show full text]