Employers' perspectives on benefit conditionality in the UK and Denmark
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11196445 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jo Ingold (0000-0001-8088-8262, Leeds University Business School University of Leeds Leeds UK, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 236-249 |
| Publication date | 2020-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Policy and Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-5596 • E-ISSN: 1467-9515 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/spol.12552 |
| OpenAlex | W2997702314 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 11 |
| References cited | 30 |
This article examines the under‐explored demand‐side of active labour market policies (ALMPs). Based on interview data from a comparative study of the UK and Denmark, the paper analyses employers' perspectives and experiences of ALMPs. In both countries, employers were favourably disposed towards employing unemployed jobseekers but held negative views on conditionality. First, benefit conditionality led to employers receiving large numbers of unsuitable and unfiltered job applications, with associated negative resource impacts. Second, employers perceived this as a product of ‘box ticking' and compliance targets. Finally, employers criticised policy and media rhetoric for focusing solely on the supply‐side and for problematizing unemployed candidates. The paper argues that these crucial, but neglected, employer perspectives demonstrate that the current benefit conditionality regime in the UK risks irrevocably ‘tarnishing' candidates, which undermines, rather than enhances, their chances of securing employment through ALMPs. This unique dataset provides further evidence that the current direction of policy requires urgent and radical re‐thinking
Active labour market policies · Business · Conditionality · Economic growth · Economics · Labour economics · Market economy · Political science · Politics · Product (mathematics · Public economics · Public relations · Resource (disambiguation · Rhetoric · Supply side · Unemployment · Employment and Welfare Studies · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Social Policy and Reform Studies
‘What about me?’
Bridge-building Emotional Labour
How are employers represented in and affected by the policymaking of in-work benefits? Policy stakeholders’ views in Hong Kong
Employers’ Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivations to Employ People with Disabilities
Developing supported job matches in public employment services
A step too far
Varieties of digitalisation? A comparison of employment services digitalisation in the UK and Australia
The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions
Activating the ‘ideal jobseeker’
Swimming against the tide? Street-level bureaucrats and the limits to inclusive active labour market programmes in the UK
In-work Universal Credit
Commentary. 'Work first'
Social versus Corporate Welfare
Employers and the Implementation of Active Labor Market Policies
Corporate power and social policy in a global economy
Universal Credit, ubiquitous conditionality and its implications for social citizenship
Inter-agency Co-operation in Activation
Employers and Active Labour Market Policies
Employers' attitudes towards long‐term unemployed people and the role of activation in S witzerland
Interpreting the marketization of employment services in Great Britain and Denmark
The Dutch and Danish Miracles Revisited
Assessing the Evidence Base on Health, Employability and the Labour Market – Lessons for Activation in the UK
A typology of activation incentives
Individualised service provision in an era of activation and new governance
Why Public Employment Services Always Fail. Double‐sided Asymmetric Information and the Placement of Low‐skill Workers in Six European Countries
Employer engagement in active labour market programmes
Innovating job activation by involving employers
"The Market for "Lemons
Policy Disasters
The Political Economy of Active Labor-Market Policy
Temporary Arrangements
The Demand-Side of Active Labour Market Policies
Welfare-to-work, Agency and Personal Responsibility
| Citations per year | 2.2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |