Geiger, Ben Baumberg, Scullion, Lisa, Edmiston, Daniel, de Vries, Robert, Summers, Kate, Ingold, Jo, Young, David (2025) Benefits Conditionality in the United Kingdom: Is It Common, and Is It Perceived to Be Reasonable? Social Policy & Administration, 59 (7). pp. 1241-1252. ISSN 0144-5596. E-ISSN 1467-9515. (doi:10.1111/spol.13119) (KAR id:108690)
|
PDF
Publisher pdf
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
|
|
|
Download this file (PDF/410kB) |
Preview |
| Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
| Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13119 |
|
| Additional URLs: |
|
Abstract
Programme‐level data suggest that increasing numbers of claimants are subject to work‐related behavioural requirements in countries like the United Kingdom. Likewise, academic qualitative research has suggested that conditionality is pervasive within the benefits system, and is often felt to be unreasonable. However, there is little quantitative evidence on the extent or experience of conditionality from claimants' perspectives. We fill this gap by drawing on a purpose‐collected survey of UK benefit claimants (n = 3801). We find that the stated application of conditionality was evident for a surprisingly small proportion of survey participants—even lower than programme‐level data suggest. Unreasonable conditionality was perceived by many of those subject to conditionality, but not a majority, with, for example, 26.2% believing that work coaches do not fully take health/care‐related barriers into account. Yet, alongside this, a substantial minority of claimants not currently subject to conditionality (22.4%) report that conditionality has negatively affected their mental health. We argue that reconciling this complex set of evidence requires a more nuanced understanding of conditionality, which is sensitive to methodological assumptions, the role of time and implementation and the need to go beyond explicit requirements to consider implicit forms of conditionality. In conclusion, we recommend a deeper mixed‐methods agenda for conditionality research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| DOI/Identification number: | 10.1111/spol.13119 |
| Uncontrolled keywords: | conditionality, benefits, social protection, welfare, inequalities, sanctions |
| Subjects: | H Social Sciences |
| Institutional Unit: | Schools > School of Social Sciences |
| Former Institutional Unit: |
Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
|
| Funders: | Economic and Social Research Council (https://ror.org/03n0ht308) |
| SWORD Depositor: | JISC Publications Router |
| Depositing User: | JISC Publications Router |
| Date Deposited: | 07 Feb 2025 09:56 UTC |
| Last Modified: | 03 Nov 2025 10:18 UTC |
| Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/108690 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6776-836X
Altmetric
Altmetric