权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

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

福利改革、阶级斗争与危机：对英国失业福利服务的宏观社会历史和微观街头调查

基本信息

批准号：
ES/W005859/1
负责人：
Jamie Redman
金额：
$ 10.82万
依托单位：
University of Sheffield
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2021
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2021 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FW005859%2F1
关键词：
Welfare Reform Class Struggle Crisis

项目摘要

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.

惩罚性福利改革是一个紧迫而紧迫的社会问题。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打击创纪录的索赔人数，这些改革可能会在不久的将来加剧。这些问题之所以持续存在，主要是因为福利改革的基础和合法性是建立在对穷人的性质/作用的错误假设之上的，而且对推动其发展的更广泛的历史进程缺乏了解。这个奖学金的核心目标将是提出一个原始的挑战，当代福利改革是如何理解和基本逻辑上，它是目前合理的。在这样做的过程中，我也将朝着我收购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，批评并提出一个替代“福利主体”的主导模式。福利改革是建立在关于城市贫困人口的人性和能动性（“福利主体”）的特定理论之上的。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，而这些倾向和行为是由慷慨/宽松的现金福利所助长的。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。本文提出了一个新的立场，即否定现有的理论，提供一个新的福利主体模型。这个模型将利用我在博士学位期间收集的大量证据以及二手数据集，来证明城市穷人如何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，首先倾向于避免伤害和自我保护。该模型还将借鉴一系列学科的知识，包括哲学，政治经济学，社会学和心理学。其次，我将通过另一篇文章来解决当代福利改革辩论的非历史性。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所驱动的。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。这篇文章将有助于一个原始的，历史上知情的理论，表明如何失业的福利服务，最终决定于阶级力量的平衡和劳动力市场的条件。这一理论的完整阐述将在未来的专著中完成。第三，我将挑战“反福利常识”通常发现在日常话语福利改革。反福利常识描述了政治家和主流媒体中的一种倾向，即制造对穷人的轻蔑叙述，以确保惩罚性改革的选举同意。在一篇与人合著的文章中，我们分析了480名索赔者的访谈，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的教育网络来挑战这些群体中的轻蔑叙述，这将鼓励对关键问题进行批判性的、替代性的思考。最后，我将向以政策为重点的受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。以前与多哈工作方案的合作表明，政策制定者往往不知道政策在实践中如何被扭曲。这就留下了一个问号，即政策制定者是否理解他们创造的结果。因此，讲习班将努力促进主要利益攸关方之间的知识交流;使从业人员更好地了解政策是如何制定的，并使政策制定者更好地了解政策是如何实施的。