Welfare Reform, Class Struggle and Crisis: A macro socio-historical and micro street-level investigation of British out-of-work welfare services

惩罚性福利改革是一个迫在眉睫的社会问题。惩罚性改革不仅继续造成伤害，而且历史表明，随着政策制定者寻求应对创纪录的申领人数，惩罚性改革在不久的将来可能会加剧。这些问题之所以持续存在，主要是因为福利改革是建立在对穷人的性质/机构的错误假设以及对推动其发展的更广泛的历史进程缺乏了解的基础上并使之合法化的。该研究金的核心目标将是对如何理解当代福利改革以及目前证明其合理性的基本逻辑提出一个原始挑战。通过这样做，我还将朝着我收购Leverhulme ECF的长期目标取得重大进展。我将通过以下方式做到这一点：首先，我将写一篇文章，批评并提出一种替代主导模式的‘福利主体’。福利改革是建立在关于城市贫困人口(福利主体)人性和中介的特定理论基础上的。这一理论声称，他们主要倾向于反工作/反社会的倾向和行为，这些倾向和行为是由慷慨/允许的现金福利滋生的。倡导这一理论的政策制定者试图通过在当代福利改革中实施惩罚性转变来纠正这种行为。本文将开拓一种新的立场，摒弃现有的理论，为福利学科提供一种新的范式。这个模型将利用通过我的博士学位收集的大量证据以及次要数据集，来证明城市穷人在应对经常对个人需求和利益构成威胁的政治/经济/社会条件时，是如何倾向于避免伤害和自我保护的。该模型还将借鉴包括哲学、政治经济学、社会学和心理学在内的一系列学科的知识。第二，我将通过另一篇文章来阐述当代福利改革辩论的历史性。我将证明，福利改革中的惩罚性转变在历史上并不新鲜，也不是由纠正反工作行为的必要性推动的。相反，我将揭示它是如何与跨越多个世纪的更广泛的政治、经济和社会发展进程密切相关并由其决定的。这篇文章将有助于形成一种原创的、历史信息丰富的理论，该理论表明失业福利服务最终是如何由阶级力量的平衡和劳动力市场的状况决定的。这一理论的完整表述将在未来的一本专著中完成。第三，我将挑战围绕福利改革的日常讨论中通常存在的“反福利常识”。反福利常识描述了政客和主流媒体之间的一种趋势，即编造关于穷人的贬损叙事，以确保选举人同意惩罚性改革。在一篇合著的文章中，我们分析了480名索赔人的访谈，发现反福利常识在失业群体中占主导地位。我想通过建立一个参与式教育网络来挑战这些群体中的贬损叙事，该网络将鼓励人们对关键问题采取批判性的、不同的思考方式。最后，我将向专注于政策的听众挑战现有的关于改革如何在街头实践中发挥作用的理解。之前与DWP的工作表明，政策制定者往往没有意识到政策在实践中可能会被扭曲。这给政策制定者是否理解他们创造的结果留下了问号。因此，讲习班将寻求促进主要利益攸关方之间的知识交流；使从业者能够更好地了解政策是如何制定的，政策制定者将更好地了解政策是如何实施的。

Punitive welfare reform is an urgent and immediate social problem. Not only do punitive reforms continue to inflict harm, but history suggests that they are likely to intensify in the near future as policymakers look to combat a record high claimant count. These issues primarily persist because welfare reform is founded and legitimised upon erroneous assumptions about the nature/agency of poor people and a lack of understanding around the broader historical processes which drive its development. The core aim of this fellowship will be to present an original challenge to how contemporary welfare reform is understood and the foundational logic on which it is presently justified. In doing so, I will also make significant advances towards my long-term goal of acquiring a Leverhulme ECF. I will do this in the following ways:First, I will write an article which critiques and presents an alternative to the dominant model of the 'welfare subject'. Welfare reform is founded on a specific theory about the human nature and agency of urban poor populations (the 'welfare subject'). This theory claims that they are primarily predisposed towards anti-work/anti-social proclivities and behaviours, which have been nurtured by the availability of generous/permissive cash benefits. Advocating this theory, policymakers have sought to correct such behaviour by implementing a punitive shift in contemporary welfare reform. This article will develop a new position which rejects existing theories and provides a new model of the welfare subject. This model will draw on a plethora of evidence garnered through my PhD, as well as secondary data sets, to demonstratehow the urban poor are primarily predisposed to eschewing harm and self -preservation in response to political/economic/social conditions that routinely pose a threat to individual needs and interests. The model will also draw on knowledge from a range of disciplines, including philosophy, political economy, sociology and psychology.Second, I will address the ahistoricity of contemporary welfare reform debate via another article. I will demonstrate how the punitive shift in welfare reform is not historically new and has not been driven by a necessity to correct anti-work behaviour. Rather, I will reveal how it is instead intimately connected to, and determined by, wider processes of political, economic and social development spanning multiple centuries. This article will contribute towards an original, historically informed theory which shows how out-of-work welfare services are ultimately determined by both the balance of class forces and the condition of the labour market. A full articulation of this theory will be finalised in a future monograph.Third, I will challenge the 'anti-welfare common sense' typically found in everyday discourse around welfare reform. Anti-welfare common sense describes a tendency among politicians and mainstream media to manufacture pejorative narratives about poor people to secure electoral consent for punitive reforms. In a co-authored article, we analysed 480 claimant interviews, finding that anti-welfare common sense was dominant among out-of-work groups. I want to challenge pejorative narratives within these groups by setting up a participatory education network which will to encourage critical, alternative ways of thinking about key issues.Finally, I will challenge existing understandings of how reforms play out in street-level practice to policy-focused audiences. Previous work with the DWP revealed that policymakers are often unaware of how policies can become distorted in practice. This leaves question marks around whether policymakers understand the outcomes of their creations. Consequently, the workshop will seek to facilitate knowledge exchange among key stakeholders; enabling a greater understanding of how policy is made among practitioners, and a greater understanding of how policy is practiced among policy is practiced among policymakers.