feature the indignity of the welfare reform act · the international labour organization’s ......

4

Click here to load reader

Upload: vuhuong

Post on 01-Aug-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act · The International Labour Organization’s ... 2006, when new efforts ... The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act Social security

Poverty 143 9

feature

Jess

Hur

d/R

epor

tdig

ital

Given that the ILO is a tripartite body compris-ing employers’ organisations, trade unions andthe governments of over 180 countries, with theright of participation (though not voting powers)for select NGOs, it is hardly surprising that thefinal Recommendation does not include all theaspirations aired en route, but instead can beseen as a historic compromise. There is no glob-al fund to aid the poorest countries in realisingthe aspirations of Recommendation 202 and nocommon international standard, a global socialfloor. Instead, states are left to determinenational floors ‘in accordance with national cir-cumstances’,9 albeit with the expectation thatthe basic income security should allow ‘life indignity’. Essentially, Recommendation 202establishes a set of principles appertaining tothe design of social security systems, based onthe understanding that the right to social secu-rity is a human right. Social security provision,therefore, is not optional, something thatnational governments can choose not to pro-vide or to cut out. The preamble also reminds

Social security in a global contextThe International Labour Organization’s (ILO’s)Recommendation 202 determines that all coun-tries should provide a nationally defined mini-mum level of income security for its oldercitizens, for those of active age who are unableto earn sufficient and for children.1 In so doing, itarguably re-establishes the expectation that allcountries should proactively engage in buildinga coherent social policy as a fundamental com-ponent of national governance, this after decadeswhen the so-called Washington consensuspromulgated the view that social policy wasperipheral, redundant or even counterproductive.2

The Recommendation is the culmination of aprocess begun in 1952 to secure minimumsocial security standards3 and re-invigorated in2006, when new efforts were made to realisethis aspiration.4 The work in the early 2000s wasundertaken by civil servants in the ILO, andchallenged the prevailing view that social secu-rity was too expensive an option for most coun-tries in the global South by demonstrating thatprovision of a basic package of social protec-tion was not beyond the reach of countries aspoor and diverse as Nepal and Bangladesh.5

Perhaps a touch ironically, the process wasgiven a fillip by the global crisis in 2008. In Aprilthe following year, the United Nations (UN)Chief Executive Board established the SocialProtection Floor Initiative as one of its jointresponses to the crisis. Under the leadership ofthe ILO and the World Health Organization, theInitiative brought 19 UN bodies together withthe World Bank, the International MonetaryFund, regional development banks, bilateraldonors, and a number of international NGOs.This network gave new legitimacy to the ILOaspirations and provided added momentum.This carried the project through from the ILODeclaration on Social Justice for a FairGlobalization,6 which called for ‘social securityto all, including measures to provide basicincome to all in need of such protection’, to theReport of the Committee for the RecurrentDiscussion on Social Protection,7 the Resolutionand Conclusions Concerning the RecurrentDiscussion on Social Protection (Social Security)in 2011,8 and then to the final vote and approvalof the Recommendation in June 2012.

The indignity of theWelfare Reform Act

At the 101st session of its conference in June this

year, the International Labour Organization agreed

Recommendation 202 on national social protection

floors. Esoteric though it sounds, this sets a

standard that has the potential to require the radical

upgrading of the British social security system.

Robert Walker, Elaine Chase and Ivar Lødemel provide an

overview of the Recommendation’s context, and

argue why its rights-based approach and emphasis

on dignity matter to UK anti-poverty programmes.

Page 2: feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act · The International Labour Organization’s ... 2006, when new efforts ... The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act Social security

feature

10 Poverty 143

The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act

Social security

systems that

promote personal

dignity stand

to overcome

the debilitating

psychological and

social effects

of poverty

had been much discussion concerning the termsused to describe beneficiaries of the social pro-tection floors. ‘Beneficiaries’ seemed to somedelegates to conjure up the idea of charity andrecipients of gifts rather than exercisers ofrights. It is because of these concerns that theamendment uses the wordy phrase ‘peoplecovered by the social security guarantees’.

Shame and stigma The research which informed this process drewon Amartya Sen’s14 contention that the experi-ence of shame lies at the ‘irreducible absolutistcore in the idea of poverty’, is always present,and arises from the inability to participate fullyin society.15 Social psychologists suggest thatshame is among the most pernicious of thesocial emotions, creating a sense of powerless-ness and lack of agency.16 Shame is felt by theindividual but is also imposed by society andinstitutions. Made to feel ashamed, people inpoverty can often lose faith in themselves, cuttheir social ties and lose access to social capital.Social security systems that promote personaldignity stand to overcome the debilitating psy-chological and social effects of poverty as wellas tackling material deprivation. Those that donot, risk eroding individual agency, the ability ofpeople to help themselves.

The research was conducted in different settingsand supports Sen’s contention. Respondentsdespised poverty, felt despised by others andfrequently despised themselves for being poor.Moreover, they reported that public servicesvery frequently added to their sense of shameand failure. Sometimes this happened becausethey were required to admit to their poverty andthe personal failure that this instilled in order toaccess the services or support they needed.Sometimes it occurred vicariously simplybecause of how they felt they were treated.Sometimes, even, their own insecurities mayhave triggered the response that they feared ormerely reinforced their beliefs about the nega-tive light in which other people saw them.Financially dependent on bureaucracies, theybelieved that they had been turned into numbersunder the presumption that they were guilty ofbeing society’s failures. This sapped theirremaining self-esteem, undermined their confi-dence and, they felt, lowered their self-efficacy.

The argument made on the basis of thisresearch, and which in turn informed delibera-tions of Recommendation 202, was that treatingrecipients with respect and promoting their dig-nity was not only an appropriate response tothe demands of social justice but was likely tohave beneficial effects on the effectiveness of

national governments that social security helpsovercome poverty and reduces inequality and is‘an investment in people that empowers themto adjust to changes in the economy and in thelabour market’.10 Furthermore, Recommendation202 notes that, in times of crisis, ‘social securi-ty systems act as automatic social and eco-nomic stabilizers’, ‘help stimulate aggregatedemand’ and ‘help support a transition to amore sustainable economy’.11 These principlesapply globally and are anticipated to withstandthe test of time. However, they are also a salientreminder to the British government that reduc-tions in social security provision at this timecould be counterproductive in economic termsand might also contribute to a violation of citi-zens’ basic human rights.

On the matter of dignityParagraph 3 of Recommendation 202 sets outthe fundamental principles that governmentsare now obliged to apply in the design andimplementation of social protection floors.While the Recommendation was much debatedand refined before the final vote, one amend-ment of note was the inclusion of the principlethat governments should have ‘respect for therights and dignity of people covered by thesocial security guarantees’.

The core of the amendment can be traced to aletter sent by Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona,the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme povertyand human rights, in April 2012.12 She had beenmoved to do so after attending a workshop inOxford in March, which reported on research inseven countries demonstrating the debilitatingeffects of the shame associated with povertyand the stigma that can be imposed through thereceipt of benefits. The same research was simul-taneously drawn upon by NGOs13 and the work-ers’ group at the ILO session, the WorkerVice-Chair introducing the amendment that wasultimately to win through. The Employer Vice-Chair accepted the sentiment of the workers’group amendment but proposed a rephrasing onthe grounds of consistency which, in fact, had theeffect of expanding the relevance of the amend-ment from policy design to include delivery.

Carmona specifically argued for the dignityprinciple on the basis of its consistency with ahuman rights-based approach to social protec-tion. Such an approach, she asserted, leads topoverty reduction that is ‘more effective andsustainable, as participatory and accountabilitymechanisms ensure that the voices of socialprotection beneficiaries are taken into accountand programmes are designed to respond totheir needs.’ Outside the formal meeting there

Page 3: feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act · The International Labour Organization’s ... 2006, when new efforts ... The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act Social security

Poverty 143 11

featurejob is a mug’s game. It is this factor whichcan stop someone’s journey back to work inits tracks. (Iain Duncan Smith, 201218)

The implication is that benefit receipt is alifestyle choice which, in the degrading words ofthe ministerial forward to the welfare reformwhite paper, ‘breeds intergenerational poverty’.19

In ministerial speeches, benefit recipients arecharacterised as ‘slacking’, ‘been on benefit foryears’ and having ‘lost the work habit’. They are‘not playing their part’, instead they are ‘stuckon the dole’, ‘a burden on the taxpayer’ andconstitute ‘a national crisis’. Deliberately, or not,everyone on benefits, irrespective of the reason,be it the recession, chronic illness or a learningdifficulty, is tainted by the same negativity,slacking and being a burden.

This framing is echoed in the structure and theproposed mode of delivery with the emphasisgiven to conditionality. Conditionality and sanc-tions have always been present in British socialsecurity and are overwhelmingly accepted byclaimants. But, while the legislation includesappropriate checks and balances, such subtletyis lost in the summary to the white paper. There,the message is transparent to the point of beingthreatening:20

The clear financial incentive provided by uni-versal credit will be backed up by a strongsystem of conditionality; unemployed peoplewho can work will be required to take all rea-sonable steps to find and move into employ-ment… Strengthened conditionality will inturn be supported by a new system of finan-cial sanctions. The new sanctions will providegreater incentives for people to meet theirresponsibilities.

This presumption that benefit recipients aremostly not fulfilling their responsibilities andrequire sanctioning in order to do so providessome basis for the imposition of sizeable bene-fit cuts on the most vulnerable. Certainly there isno justification in terms of fairness or any of theprinciples of Recommendation 202 includingthat of ‘an optimal balance’ between beneficiar-ies and funders.

The benefit cap, which arbitrarily sets the max-imum award of universal credit equal to medianearnings after tax and national insurance forworking families, is discriminatory, dispropor-tionately affecting those with greatest needs,and breaking the nominal link between benefitlevels and need. To the extent that those affect-ed can reduce their expenditure, perhaps bymoving into cheaper and probably less suitable

policy. Simultaneously according recipientsrespect while meeting their material needsthrough the provision of social security helps toempower them with the confidence to strivetowards self-sufficiency.

Welfare reformThe British government voted in support ofRecommendation 202. Recommendations arenot legally binding on governments as ILOConventions are but, equally, countries cannotopt out of their responsibilities through non-rat-ification. Recommendation 202 establishes aset of principles against which British socialsecurity provision can be assessed. Furthermore,the government is obliged to monitor progressin implementing the protection floor and to ‘reg-ularly convene national consultations to assessprogress and discus policies for the further hor-izontal and vertical extension of social security’.17

It would be unwise for British governments topresume that Recommendation 202 only haspurchase on social security systems that areless developed than in Great Britain. In truth,British social security is arguably demonstrablydeficient in a number of respects.

Recommendation 202 includes 17 further prin-ciples besides that of dignity, including the uni-versality of protection based on social solidarity,the adequacy and predictability of benefits, effi-cient and accessible appeals procedures, high-quality public services that enhance the deliveryof social protection, and achieving the optimumbalance between the beneficiaries of social pro-tection and those that fund it.

This is not the place to subject the provisions ofthe Welfare Reform Act 2012 to comprehensivescrutiny with respect to each of the 18 ILO prin-ciples. Focusing then on dignity, there is muchin the Act that could potentially enhance thedelivery experience, including the reducednumber of benefits to be claimed and the prom-ised ‘continuous delivery of high-quality, joined-up, effective and consistent services’. However,this needs to be set against the framing of thepolicy that presumes abuse, intrusive condition-ality, the erosion of rights as well as the likelyconsequences of certain benefit cuts.

The political framing of the rationale for the intro-duction of universal credit and the associatedWork Programme is one of shaming, not dignity:

… after generations in key communities,worklessness has become ingrained intoeveryday life. The cultural pressure to con-form with this lifestyle is enormous, under-scored by the easy perception that taking a

[The Welfare Reform

Act] might even be

seen as a failure to

uphold the principle

of social security as

a human right

Page 4: feature The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act · The International Labour Organization’s ... 2006, when new efforts ... The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act Social security

feature

12 Poverty 143

The indignity of the Welfare Reform Act

accommodation (as ministers accept will be thecase for those affected by the cuts in housingbenefit and its incorporation into universal cred-it), it is likely to undermine dignity. Shameattached to being unable to house oneself andone’s family adequately or to fulfil social obliga-tions and expectations, we know, demonstrablyreduces agency, the ability of people to helpthemselves. Those who are unable to reducetheir needs face the added indignity of indebt-edness and an arbitrary financial cut in benefit –a punishment for the new public offence ofbeing exceptionally needy?

The abolition of council tax benefit, and itsreplacement with support provided throughlocal authorities subjected to a 10 per centreduction in budget, provides a further threat tothe dignity of benefit recipients. So, too, doesreturning the functions of the social fund, again,with arguably depleted funding, to local govern-ment. Both changes create the potential for dis-cretionary systems rather than the rights-basedprovision envisaged by Recommendation 202.Both systems will create territorial injustice –‘postcode lotteries’ as the media is prone to callit – the very reason why local rate rebates andrelief were previously brought under nationalcontrol. Both systems mean that people inpoverty will have to beg for assistance, not necessarily to people in the streets but to theirrepresentatives in local government, the rein-carnation of the Poor Law guardians so hated inhistory because of their notorious meannesswhen controlled by the interests of prosperousrate payers. Without adequate funding, localauthorities will be forced to make savings fromservices for those who may be only slightly bet-ter off to prevent the re-emergence of absolutepoverty in Britain. The ‘poorest of the poor’ willliterally be a burden on the community, going‘cap in hand’, shamed in their public confessionof failure, and offered public charity only if theycan prove themselves to be more deservingthan the next poorest person.

Recommendation 202: a key to ahealthy welfare systemIn many respects it is too early to know whetherthe quality of service and the appeals systemsproposed by the Welfare Reform Act will proveto be adequate. Likewise, it is difficult to deter-mine at this point whether the implied reductionin benefit entitlement could legitimately be jus-tified with respect to changed national circum-stances. It might be concluded that the Actconstitutes a failure to maintain the social pro-tection floor and so is at odds with the expec-tation in Recommendation 202 that provisionwill be progressively extended to ensure higher

levels of social protection for as many people aspossible. It might even be seen as a failure touphold the principle of social security as ahuman right, but that is a matter for lawyers.

As these reflections on the current bout ofBritish welfare reform indicate, Recommendation202 is not simply an important instrument toassist emerging economies to construct socialsecurity systems that serve the needs of theirpeople and address the scourge of globalpoverty. It is a lens through which we can betterunderstand the consequences of reform any-where in the world and a potential defenceagainst reforms that might be counterproduc-tive. The principle of dignity of treatment lies atthe heart of a healthy society and a fair andeffective social security system. ■

Robert Walker is Professor of Social Policy and ElaineChase is Research Officer at the Institute of Social Policy,both at the University of Oxford. Ivar Lødemel is Professorof Social Policy at Oslo and Akershus University College ofApplied Sciences.

The authors are most grateful to Richard Exell for sharinghis reflections on the process leading to the approval ofRecommendation 202, but accept sole responsibility for theconclusions drawn.

1 ILO, Recommendation Concerning National Floors of Social

Protection, adopted at the 101st session of the International

Labour Conference, 14 June 2012 (Recommendation 202)

2 R Walker, ‘Towards the Analysis of Social Policy in a Developing

World’, in R Surender and R Walker (eds), Social Policy in a

Developing World, Edward Elgar, 2013

3 ILO, The ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952

4 ILO, Social Security for All: investing in global social and economic

development, Issues in Social Protection Discussion Paper 16,

2006

5 See note 4

6 ILO, ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization,

adopted at the 97th session of the International Labour

Conference, 10 June 2008, p10

7 ILO, Report of the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on

Social Protection, 2011

8 ILO, Resolution and Conclusions Concerning the Recurrent

Discussion on Social Protection (Social Security), adopted at the

100th session of the International Labour Conference, 2011

9 See note 1, p6

10 See note 1, p2

11 See note 1, p2

12 M Carmona, Promotion of and Respect for Rights and Dignity: a

briefing note, letter and enclosure sent to the United Nations

Office in Geneva, 12 April, 2012, p1

13 Autonomous Recommendation on the Social Protection Floor,

joint statement by a group of NGOs, 2012

14 A Sen, ‘Poor, Relatively Speaking’, Oxford Economic Papers 35,

1983, p159

15 R Walker, Dignity and Respect: a briefing note, Mimeo, 16 March

2012

16 J P Tangney and K W Fischer (eds), Self-conscious Emotions: the

psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride, Guilford

Press, 1995; J Tracy, R Robins and J P Tangney (eds), The Self

Conscious Emotions: theory and research, Guilford Press, 2007

17 See note 1, p14

18 I Duncan Smith, Leonard Steinberg Memorial Lecture, Policy

Exchange, London, 9 May 2012

19 DWP, Universal Credit: welfare that works, Cm. 795.7, 2011, p1

20 See note 19, p4