Dissertation in Sociology with Education

Student Name: David Rhys Grinszpan

Student Number: 12020273

Supervisor: Dr Stephen Williams

Date of Submission: Friday 1st of May 2015

Word Count: 10,633

Dissertation Question: Do current welfare reforms help those who need it most?

Abstract

This report presents an analysis and critique of the current welfare system and the results of the

Coalition government’s welfare reforms, which began to take place in 2012. The initial argument is

based upon literature from Wilkinson and Pickett (2010), Jones (2012, 2014) and Mabbett (2014),

which argues that only a generous welfare state can lead people out of poverty and provide a

positive outcome for the economy. As opposed to the ideologically enforced austerity measures

being passed by the current government, which seeks to systematically blame those who require

welfare support in a way that is unfair and closely resembling a form of class warfare. This project

focuses on both previously conducted research, like those mentioned above and a group of

interviews with people from different areas who have all experienced the effects of the shrinking

welfare budget and the increasing restrictions on access to financial support. The results of this

research have shown a clear indication that a reduction welfare benefits and the implementation of

sanctions result in higher levels of poverty and a corresponding rise in the number of people needing

to rely on charitable foundations like the Trussell Trust, who run food banks across the country. The

interview data and accompanying literature all show that the most effective way to reduce poverty

and help people back into work is the implementation of a generous welfare system that reduces

the financial pressures on vulnerable groups such as lone parent families, the elderly and the

disabled. The conclusive result shows that the introduction of welfare sanctions such as the spare

room subsidy and the withholding of benefits have systematically targeted the poorest and most

vulnerable members of society and is causing increased financial pressure to culminate in a widening

of the disparity between the richest and the poorest in society and the destruction of vital public

services, which provide the necessary infrastructure for a more balanced society.

Contents:

Page 1 – Introduction

Page 2-5 – Methodology

Page 6-12 – Literature Review

Page 13-28 – Findings and analysis

Page 29-30 – Conclusion

Page 31-36 – Bibliography

Introduction

The question that this paper attempts to answer is “do current welfare reforms benefit those who

need it most?” The research attempts to analyse whether welfare reforms introduced in the welfare

reform act 2012 have had a positive or negative effect on the poorest members of society, which

would include families with a history of welfare dependency, the elderly, the disabled and families

with an income below that of the national average, who predominantly rely on at least one form of

in work benefit such as child tax credits and working tax credits. In the first section the paper will

discuss the best ways in which to find the answers to this question through methodology. The second

chapter of the paper will look at previous work conducted in the field and the corresponding

literature, which provides a basis for my research and examples of how to achieve a strong

conclusion to my argument. Chapter three will focus on my findings and analysis and will be where

the bulk of my argument is based by analysing my primary data, gathered from interviews with

benefit recipients and taking into account real life experiences of changes brought on by the

introduction of welfare reforms and the impact they have had on society on an individual level and as

a whole. The final chapter of this dissertation will draw together all the data I have gathered and

explain how the answer to my question was reached in a concluding argument that highlights the

importance of the welfare state and the necessity to protect it as part of a compassionate society,

and whether the benefits reforms introduced by the Coalition government are ideologically driven.

Additionally I will attempt to argue whether the existence of a generous welfare state breeds a

culture of welfare dependency or whether a generous welfare system provides a means of reducing

inequality in a society where the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in society has grown

consistently larger over the past decade.

Methodology

Considering the theoretical and ideological viewpoints that are clearly present when discussing

welfare and the overall economic and social impact that surrounds its policies, it is important to use

a variety of research methods in order to collect the most relevant and information rich data. It is

critical that the information gathered during my research is entirely relevant to the research

question “Do current Coalition welfare policy really help those who need it most?” The majority of

my research will be conducted using qualitative research methods that strictly conform to the

ethical guidelines set forth by the British Sociological Association and the University of South Wales

with regards to avoidance of harm, deception and the use of anonymity when discussing evidence

given by interview participants (BSA 2002). As most of the data I will be collecting through my

research is opinion and experience based it would be difficult to support my conclusions using

largely quantitative methods. I believe that using mostly qualitative research methods will provide

my data with a great deal of rich and profound information and therefore yield the most conclusive

evidence to base my research on.

However, deciding to base my research on mainly qualitative research does open the data to

criticism, as many believe qualitative data to be biased toward the opinion of the researcher and in

many cases highly unscientific as it relies on opinion rather quantifiable facts. These flaws with

qualitative research also allow the possibility that any information gathered may be unreliable as I

may be seen as creating meaning in data where there is none in order to suit my own hypothesis. It

is therefore necessary that I also use quantitative research techniques in order to corroborate my

hypothesis from all angles and add surety to my collected data in order to safeguard my research

and acquired data from the chance of being corrupted by researcher bias. However, It is still

essential that the majority of the data gathered is through qualitative methods such as semi-

structured on unstructured interviews so that I can guarantee my research is full of peoples’ real

world experiences of the welfare state and provide my participants with the opportunity to provide

greater detail to my questions than could be possible using quantitative methods. Qualitative

research also provides the best opportunity to allow information to gather organically through

conversation and guarantee participants the opportunity to make their thoughts and feelings heard.

Being as the majority of my primary research will be conducted in order to determine the

characteristics and definitions of welfare policy and gauge the public’s opinions, beliefs and

interpretations on the state of the current welfare system in the UK it would be unsuitable to base

my primary research singularly on quantifiable methods and statistics. However, there are statistics

from different organisations such as the UK governments’ Department for Work and Pensions, The

Joseph Rowntree Foundation and relevant theoretical literature used in my findings in order to

corroborate my findings from the qualitative research. The main advantages of qualitative research

is that it provides the researcher with an abundance of rich data, which can provide a more detailed

understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings and beliefs about a certain topic and encourages

people to feel at ease and open up about their own experiences. This kind of data is in essence what

sociology is all about, because of the rich social data and insight into society that is paramount to the

field and the movement towards positive social change Burns 2000; Punch 2006). Although

quantitative research and statistics were used in my research, they were treated with caution as

statistics can also be subject to bias and can often hide the true number, especially when covering

sensitive subjects such as vulnerable people and welfare. There is also the chance that the criteria

under which the figures were gathered may not suit the research criteria of your choice. For

example, government employment statistics would show that unemployment in the UK is at its

lowest rate in decades. However, what that figure does not show is that the fall in unemployment is

mainly down to the addition of zero-hour contracts to the labour market, which have distorted the

figures to suit the current government’s agenda and portray their policies in a more positive light. It

is for that reason that more faith will be given to the data collected through qualitative methods.

The main body of my primary data will be obtained using semi-structured interviews, which consist

of mainly open ended questions with people from a variety of different situations, who have varied

experiences of the welfare system. The use of open ended questions will allow the interview to take

on a more natural and relaxed feeling, hopefully putting the interviewee at ease and allowing me to

listen to what people have to say on the subject rather than simply asking regimented questions

with no room for elaboration, which will provide me with insights into the way people feel about the

state of the current welfare system, and hopefully provide me thoughts and ideas that would not

have occurred to me under different circumstances. I have decided to conduct ten interviews for my

research as I believe that the effects of the welfare system are broad and have a wide range of

outcomes and experiences for people in different situations (Oakley 1999). Therefore I have been

able to obtain interviews with three people who rely on a variation of different benefit bayments. I

have also been in the process of acquiring an interview with a member of the local job centre, as I

believe it is important for the sake of balance to have the opinions of someone who rather than

relying on the support of welfare, is responsible for deciding whether those who request aid are

eligible to receive it. This way I can also learn the routines and strict guidelines that government

officials must follow when processing claims for welfare, and whether they have been trained

adequately for the position, which entails a great deal of responsibility. However in order to

consolidate my findings from the interviews I will also be using an online questionnaire containing

both open and closed questions. This will allow me to corroborate the data collected from the

interviews and provide me with quantifiable data necessary to ensure my researches reliability

(Strauss 1987; Anderson 2009).

As some of my interviews will be conducted with members of society that could be considered

vulnerable, i.e. the elderly, I have taken steps to ensure that none of the questions I ask and none of

the information I will publish can cause harm to any of the people taking part in my research project.

Therefore, I have clearly communicated to all participants prior to their respective interviews that

any information given will be published under pseudonyms in order to protect the participant’s

identities and thus prevent others from linking any sensitive information to them (Mann And

Stewart 2000; Reed 2007). All interviewees have also been informed of who will see the information

they have provided, and were then asked if they were willing for any information I gathered to be

used as part of my research, and all readily consented. It is also crucial that during my research as a

member of the University of South Wales I ensure that nothing I do will in any way negatively impact

on the university. Therefore, I have ensured that I have not mentioned the university during

interviews or on my online questionnaires. This step has ensured that no damage can come to the

universities reputation and that no reputational damage can be done to my interview subjects

thanks to their anonymity.

Literature Review

When researching welfare and poverty as I have chosen to do for my dissertation there is a wealth of

information available to uphold any argument. As the welfare system in the UK is a widely debated

topic throughout the country as many people depend upon the welfare system in order to survive,

many authors and social commentators have given in depth views on the subject using a variety of

media sources, from books and newspaper articles to online journals and television interviews. The

main issue that arises with such a vast amount of information is deciding which sources provide the

most stable bases for your argument. My research will focus on the theory that the current welfare

system in the UK since the Coalition’s welfare reform act of 2012 not only fails to help those in need

of welfare support in any form, but instead seeks to penalise and sanction the poor for a global

economic struggle that was no fault of the working class and further entrenches the victim blaming

culture of right wing politics that argues that the poor are poor because it is the natural order of

society.

The literature I have used for my research will show that the UK government has developed its new

welfare policies have been developed in a post-recession global economy, which has included

spending cuts in public services, which have systematically attacked the poor in the name of

ideological austerity that reduces the amount of money available for use on welfare and other vital

public services that allow even the poorest members of society in a world leading economy to

maintain a basic standard of living (Giddens 2013).

In order to demonstrate the ideological background used in the creation of the welfare reforms such

as the spare room subsidy tax (bedroom tax), personal independence payment, universal credit and

the development of benefits sanctions I have used the work of Owen Jones’ “Chavs: Demonization of

the working class” (2012), and Jones’ other book “The Establishment: And How They Get Away With

It” (2014), that emphasises the ways in which corporate culture and greed exploits the work force in

order to maximise profits without any thought of the consequences that befall the economy, society

and the working people . This research clearly highlights that although the conservatives portray the

image of wanting to help the vulnerable be more independent and return to work, their ultimate

goal is a shrinking of the welfare state to its absolute minimum and thus putting the onus on the

individual to look after themselves. This ideology attempts to essentially lead Britain into a state of

individualism that leaves a diminished responsibility for the state, and therefore blaming those rely

on welfare for being “feckless, work-shy, amoral, dirty, sexually debauched and even animal-like”

(Jones 2012, p24). Also, it has been shown that despite the governments’ attempts to stereotype the

poor and working class who receive benefits, sixty per cent of those who in fact receive any form of

benefit also work (Plunkett 2013). This viewpoint is supported by research undertaken by the

National Equality panel who work alongside the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that the

amount of people in the UK who suffer from ‘deep poverty’, which equates to less than forty per

cent of median household incomes is six million, which also equates to forty five per cent of all those

believed to be suffering from poverty of one form or another. This proportion of people is at highest

since 1979 and has occurred as a result of welfare reforms that target working families and families

with only one incoming wage (NPI 2014).

In order to maintain my hypothesis that current government welfare reforms are an ideological

attack on the poor, it is of utter importance that the idea of poverty itself is discussed in order to

decide on an absolute definition of poverty. The World Bank gives a broad interpretation by defining

poverty as pronounced deprivation in well-being (World Bank 2010). However, there are two

different definitions of poverty used depending on whether you conform to a conservative or liberal

ideology. According to conservative ideologists, those in poverty are those who suffer from absolute

poverty. In order to be suffering from absolute poverty you must not have enough physical

requirements in order to maintain life. Using this definition, conservatives would argue that nobody

in the UK suffers from absolute poverty. However, this statement has been discredited by numerous

organizations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, who show that there are currently three and a

half million children living in poverty (CPAG 2014), the Trussell Trust, whose statistics indicate that in

2013/14 over nine hundred thousand people required emergency food and support because they

could not afford to feed their families (Trussell Trust 2015); and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,

who argue that since the implementation of the 2012 welfare reforms the number of people

sleeping rough in the UK has risen exponentially (JRF 2014). There is also a recent survey conducted,

which shows that over 100,000 children have gone hungry as a result of their parents being

sanctioned under the 2012 reform act (Johnston 2015). These statistics are more in line with the

more liberal ideological definition of poverty, which is to describe poverty as relative. This has been

defined by the European Commission as living below 60 per cent of the median income of the

country. Put simply, relative deprivation relates to how much the poorest in society have compared

to the richest in society (European Commission 2011).

Using Titmuss’ three models we can deduce that the coalition is attempting to revert the UK welfare

system to a residual welfare model, where services should be profitable, and therefore provided by

private companies to reduce the responsibilities of the state. However, this model is believed to

produce greater disparity between top and bottom earners, and unjustly sanction the working class

whilst reducing the responsibility of those at the top to those at the bottom (Titmuss 1965; Jones

2012). Others believe that this model compounds the difficulty for the most vulnerable such as

migrants and children. Research shows that Migrants from both inside and outside of the EU are

more likely to be living in poverty than the average indigenous person, but they are also more likely

to be paid lower wages for the same jobs and thereby exploited by employers. Working class

children are also more likely to continue living in poverty as they enter adult life, and are also more

likely to leave school with fewer qualifications, suffer from malnutrition and other health complaints

(Lelkes 2010; Lister 2004, 2011).

According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) the universal credit system being

introduced gradually in 2013 and nationwide in 2016 was devised to prevent people falling into

poverty traps, where people were often given the choice of working longer hours and lose benefits,

reducing the amount of money they brought in or to work less and earn more through the benefits

system (DWP 2010). The DWP say that because universal credit is income related that it will help

reduced the poverty levels of working families. However, receipt of universal credit which replaces

six different benefits will also hand down sanctions for those who refuse work. Those who refuse any

job offer within one year will lose three months’ worth of their benefits. These sanctions are seen as

incentive to work by the DWP (DWP 2012), but are seen as ways of punishing the poor and leaving

them trapped in a vacuum of debt from which it is almost impossible to climb out because often

their sole source of income is the benefits which they rely on in order to pay their bills (Dwyer 2012).

A report into the piloting of universal credit in Warrington by Channel 4 has highlighted many of the

disastrous effects the universal credit system has had on the one thousand people piloting the

system, and on the amount this new benefit scheme has cost the British tax payer before it has even

been rolled out to the rest of the country. The development of computer software designed to run

the universal credit system, which will supposedly be handled entirely online has already cost over

one hundred and seventy million pounds to develop and rectify initial errors. In addition, it has been

noted that because of the universal credit system running entirely online, it is especially difficult for

those who cannot afford a computer and those who are unable to use a computer to access the

benefits to which they are entitled. The report found that of those that received the universal

credit, of which housing benefit is a part; they were not informed by government staff that the

money that was usually paid to their landlords directly was now being sent to their own accounts

and that they were then responsible for paying their landlords themselves. Due to this lack of

information nine out of ten people who received the housing benefit were found to be in arrears,

compared with only four out of ten under the original housing benefit scheme. This change to the

previously used system led to some resorting to the illegal use of loan sharks in order to ensure that

they were able to pay their rent (Channel 4 2014; Chartered Institute of Housing 2014). The universal

credit system has also received widespread criticism for not being able to take into account the

complex situations of individual claimants and being overly narrow in its criteria for awarding

benefits. The policy has also been criticised for its slow speed of development and its lack of ability

to inform those it affected of the necessary information they would need in order to claim (BBC

2013).

The spare room subsidy introduced by the government essentially targets five million people in the

UK who claim housing benefits. If those who claim housing benefit are found to be living in a home

with a spare bedroom, they are likely to be losing fourteen per cent of their housing benefit

(Chartered Institute of Housing 2014). Research by Mabbett indicates that the current welfare

reforms, with particular emphasis on the spare room subsidy are driving down the standard of life of

the poorest members of society at largely the same rate as the Thatcher government was able to do

with the selling of British manufacturing to overseas companies (Mabbott 2014). The circumstances

created via the spare room sanctions are especially cruel for the disabled. For example, those with

physical disabilities who require additional support from carers and social workers may also need

their homes to be modified in order to meet their specific needs. Social housing like this is especially

rare and as a result is forcing disabled tenants to move further from their original home or face

losing some of their housing support as there is nowhere for them to go (Jenkins 2014). Further

research by the Chartered Institute of Housing shows that only fifteen per cent of those who are

registered to downsize to a smaller social housing property have been able to do so, because there

are not enough social housing units with only one or two bedrooms (Chartered Institute of Hosing

2014).

The personal independence payment has been one of the most widely criticised policies introduced

by the government for its callous attack on the vulnerable and for the lives it has reportedly ruined.

This welfare reform has mostly been criticised because of the introduction of new disability

assessments run by Atos, a French IT company used to determine people’s capabilities to work. It is

reported that these assessments have been the cause of a great deal of suffering for the disabled

who have been found fit to work despite continuing and often severe disabilities (Siddique 2014). In

a report by the Guardian it was found that ten thousand six hundred people who were declared fit

to work by the Atos work capability assessments died within six weeks of being declared fit to work,

demonstrating that the assessments did not work, but were also directly targeting the vulnerable in

order to reduce the amount of people claiming incapacity benefits and thus conforming to

conservative ideology (Gentleman 2013; Channel 4 2014; DWP 2012). Many disabled people who

lost their entitlement to disability benefit as a result of this new policy have been forced to rely on

charities for support and some who suffer from mental health disorders have even died as from

starvation and other avoidable health problems as a direct result of having their benefit entitlement

withdrawn (Johnston 2014). These results are proof that the government’s attempts to reduce the

amount of benefit being provided to the poor and vulnerable is causing unending hardship and

misery for the most vulnerable members of our society and have even been described as killing the

most vulnerable through a form of passive euthanasia (Williams 2014). These findings also coincide

with numerous works by Taylor-Gooby (2013, 2014, 2015), who uses numerous reports and research

criteria to argue that the undermining of the welfare state through budget cuts and restriction of

access is further increasing destitution and other hardships on the poor and vulnerable. He also

shows evidence of how a well-funded and more generous welfare system, in contrast to the

ideologically driven welfare system under the coalition government can help people out of poverty,

into employment that is sustainable and benefit the economy.

In conclusion, my research has led me to research conducted by Wilkinson and Pickett released in

2010 for proposed changes to the way in which the government sees those less fortunate. This

research displays how countries with a smaller disparity between the finances of those at the top of

the economic spectrum and those at the bottom suffer less crime in all forms, a greater level of

social cohesion and fewer health problems than countries where there is a larger gap between those

at the top and those at the bottom (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010). They have also drawn a link

between mental health and inequality. The research concludes that in countries where the gap

between rich and poor is greater, there are a higher percentage of people who suffer from mental

health problems. Therefore, it would be a great improvement to the country as a whole to lower the

gap between rich and poor and build a more equal society within Britain (Wilkinson and Pickett

2010).

In addition to this the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published an

economic review in 2014, which showed categorically that a more generous welfare system that

helps bring people out of poverty instead of blaming people for their economic poverty and a higher

rate of taxation for those in middle and higher income brackets helps to fuel the economy, bring

down social exclusion and improve the wealth of the entire country, not just those at the top. In

conclusion this report shows that higher taxes and a more generous welfare system make us all

richer (OECD 2014). The OECD have also suggested that raising the national minimum wage would

also help to stimulate the economy in the long term and help those on minimum wage incomes

alleviate financial constraints and stimulate growth in the economy. This research demonstrates how

the political ideology of the conservative led coalition, who created welfare sanctions to victimize,

stereotype and blame the poor for their own economic situation, was designed in order to keep the

majority of the wealth in Britain in the hands of only a few wealthy elites, whist creating a victim

blaming culture in the UK that ensures the poor and working class aren’t able to see the real cause

of their suffering.

Findings and analysis

The findings of this study have been consistent with evidence uncovered in the literature review and

previous studies of a similar nature, which have attempted to understand and analyse the

consequences of a reduction in the welfare state in the United Kingdom and the underlying effect

this has on the sections of the population that rely on state funded welfare in order to survive.

In order to ensure that my research has stayed within ethical guidelines it was made clear at the

beginning of each interview that participants details and names would remain anonymous and that

no direct details that could incriminate them would ever be linked to them in any way in order to

protect their privacy and ensure that there was no form of deception and an avoidance of harm. This

allowed all of my participants to feel relaxed and more willing to share information that might be

considered embarrassing or even harmful to their reputation or wellbeing. It was also made clear at

the beginning of my published online survey that participants would remain anonymous in order to

protect their anonymity and to avoid deception. It was also necessary to inform interview

participants of what my research was based on. However, it was important not to tell them my

opinion on the subject so as to avoid introducing interviewer bias into the interviews and to avoid a

situation where participants only communicated what they thought would help me arrive at my own

conclusion. This type of bias would be misrepresentative of true public thoughts and feelings about

the Coalition’s welfare reform act introduced in 2012. It must be stated that any information

gathered from my online questionnaire have been omitted from my findings due to a poor response

rate, which does not provide a true representation of the populations feelings and does not provide

an accurate result of the thoughts and feelings of any of my chosen demographics.

Ideology:-

To begin my results it is prudent to discover whether I have answered the question being asked in

this paper, and I believe I have through the information I have gathered through my interviews,

which have been rich in first-hand knowledge of the experiences of the general population and their

feelings on how the government welfare reforms have impacted both them and the wider society.

I also believe that my primary data has emphasised and corroborated the conclusions that were

drawn during my literature research, which is that current welfare reforms have negatively impacted

the poorest member of society and those in low paying work whilst providing a further platform for

the rich ruling class to exploit labour, demonise those who rely on welfare payments from the state

and stigmatise the most vulnerable members of society.

These findings will aim to show that the government and media stereotyping of the poor and those

on welfare is entirely ideological and exempt from the reality of poverty, and that austerity, which

has a direct impact on welfare expenditure is an unnecessary exploitation of the poor by the ruling

class in order to maximise profits and punish the poor for a global financial crisis for which, the poor

and working class were not responsible for.

For the first section of my findings I will be focussing on the ideology of the Coalition’s welfare

reforms and how participants perceive politicians and how they create policies. During the interview

with Sam, a part-time college lecturer who found his way into work through education after many

years of welfare dependency argues that it is impossible for a coalition government made up of

mostly wealthy, privately educated politicians that have never had to work on low wages or rely on

welfare support of any kind to understand the hardship that welfare reforms cause for the most

vulnerable in society, and that these reductions in public expenditure are fuelled purely on an

ideological theory that the rich are simply more deserving and the poor are poor because they are

less capable. Sam’s feelings of dissatisfaction and anger with the way the current politically elite

system and its lack of empathy for the poor, struggling and vulnerable people of the UK when he

suggested that:

“In a very real sense they have no understanding or experience of conditions of life of the

poor. They’ve come from backgrounds of privilege, so that’s easy for them to have attitudes

about the poor that are detached from any real experience. Like eugenics, the poor are poor

because they’re biologically inferior. This thinking is still in the background of all political

rhetoric.”

This attitude and belief that politicians are now ideologically driven to punishing the poor through

welfare sanctions is legitimised through work by Craine (1997) and Jones (2012, 2014) who argues

that the shrinking of the welfare state is leading the UK into a state of individualisation and

selfishness that destroys community cohesion and turns working class people against each other

through the use of media propaganda and political rhetoric, which seeks to punish the poor for

being poor using victim blaming to avert public attention from the realities of suffering of the poor

and vulnerable members of society. This argument towards dangerous ideological reform can be

demonstrated through the effects of the spare room subsidy, which has been heavily criticised for

heavily sanctioning the poor and creating further economic hardship for those who can least afford it

profit at the expense of the working class (Mabbett 2012, Jones 2015).

The rhetoric of the working class feckless attitudes and dependency culture are addressed by Kelly, a

who has seen a rise in welfare claimants since the 2008 global economic crisis and argues that

people are willing to work, but that punishing and victimising people for not being able to find work

when there are so few jobs available is a ludicrous notion. This demonization of the poor only

increases the strain on public services in a time where public service budgets are being drastically

reduced, which as a result means that many vulnerable people with little understanding of how to

claim the benefits they are entitled to are not being given sufficient support and are being

marginalised and are suffering simply due to the fact that the current government has built its

welfare reforms from an ideological standpoint that has no credible basis and has been criticised on

numerous occasions for its lack of empathy and understanding of the suffering that a reduction in

welfare payments causes those with little or no other means of income.

“These ideas about changing welfare are definitely sensationalised by people who have never had

to budget and have no real world experience.” Her suggestion is that a reduction in the welfare

budget further increases poverty and feckless attitudes towards work rather than encouraging

people to find work. It is argued that the further strain on public resources is also leading to a

fatalistic approach from poor families who have relied upon the welfare state for multiple

generations and see no positive reasons for finding work in unstable employment areas that pay

only the minimum wage, which is not enough to be able to afford to support a family with children.

It is therefore necessary for these families to rely on welfare payments in order to provide for their

children. This theme of poor employment opportunities is present throughout each interview and

can be summed by Sam who argues, “You can’t build a life around the type of work that’s available,

and even for the relatively well qualified it’s still zero hours and part time work”. The argument that

it is in fact a lack of opportunities for work rather than working class apathy has been corroborated

by the OECD who argue that a more generous welfare system provides a way out of poverty and

back into employment by reducing the financial hardships of the poorest sections of society who are

then free to find work and contribute to public funding through taxation, which as a result would

improve the economic wealth of the country (OECD 2014).

Further evidence suggests that a great deal of welfare expenditure is given to people in employment

but are unable to support them and their families on short-term or minimum wage employment,

such as Sara, a working single mother who relies on working tax credits and housing benefits to top

up her wages, which are insufficient to be able to afford to live independently and care for her

family. This statement is supported by statistics which show that in the UK the majority of

households living in poverty are in fact in work, which suggests that the majority of available work

does not provide a high enough source of income and that the only way to survive is to rely on

benefits of one form or another. The main strategy put forward in this analysis is to raise the

minimum wage to a living wage, which rises to cope with the increased cost of living, and thus

alleviate the need to rely on the state to subsidise poor wages and freeing up extra money to be

spent on other public services (Taylor-Gooby 2013).

Sara argues that she would be happy to live on her full time wage alone if it were possible to be able

to pay her bills without the help of welfare adding to her low wages. However, she argues that, “I

couldn’t live how I live without working tax credits and child tax credits, because my wages do not

cover the cost of my rent and my bills.” Sara also believes that your social situation and chances of

steady well-paying employment rely greatly on social position and the economic position of a

person’s family and that the social and education systems are geared towards maintaining the

disparity between the rich and poor rather than creating a more equal and meritocratic society. Sara

also makes reference to the effects of socialisation by suggesting that it’s not the fault of wealthy

politicians that they are unable to see circumstances from the perspective of the poor and working

class because they were raised under entirely different circumstances, which suggests that current

welfare sanctions and victim blaming ideology can be seen as a strongly structured form of class

warfare that seeks to further isolate the working class from all forms of wealth and ensure the

maximisation of profit through a reduced welfare state and low wages (Jones 2014).

Spare Room Subsidy:-

As Kelly has argued, welfare sanctions such as the spare room subsidy have been poorly thought out

and are having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of the disabled and elderly couples whose

children have left home, or require the use of a spare room for part-time care workers and medical

equipment. “If this idea had even the slightest chance of working, they needed to build more social

housing for people to downsize to before they thought of implementing it.” However, it seems that

the government’s current welfare reform that sanctions people for under occupying homes is

fracturing communities and further marginalising vulnerable people by forcing them to relocate to

areas where they have no ties to the community, but this was a result of the right to buy scheme

that did not work back then and won’t work now because there simply are not enough houses

available for people who do not have sufficient funds to buy their homes. This move to reduce

welfare expenditure by attacking the living situations of the poor and arguing that those who rely on

housing benefits should either sub-let spare rooms or downsize to smaller properties is a clear

indication of idealistic exploitation and stigmatisation of welfare claimants similar to the actions of

the Thatcher governments attempt to privatise the housing market in order to create corporate an

ideological culture of individualism where a person’s only responsibility is to themselves and their

own success (Mabbett 2012; Taylor-Gooby 2013).

The concept that those living in state funded accommodation are living beyond their means at the

expense of working people is a key concept of the government’s argument that those on benefits

should not have a larger income than those who work. Although the concept is true and many agree,

including Sara who says “To get anywhere or achieve anything you should have to work. Nobody

should get anything for free.” However, it fails to accommodate those who are unable to work due

to longstanding health issues and other problems. Additionally, Sara clarified her comments by

suggesting that the minimum wage should be raised to ensure that people who work do not require

additional financial support from the government, and that those with long term welfare

dependency who are unable to find work should be incentivised to search for work rather than

punished. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that sanctions as opposed to a

more generous welfare system is increasing the likelihood of people being forced into poverty rather

than incentivising people to find work, which in large parts of the country in unavailable (JRF 2014).

Universal Credit:-

The Universal Credit system is designed to make the welfare system easier to understand to a

perceived over complexity that supposedly stops those entitled to certain benefits from receiving

them. However, it has been argued that universal credit, which has not yet been set out across the

country is completely incapable of ensuring those who require certain benefits will receive them,

due to its complete reliance on IT and the lack of information being passed on to benefits recipients.

The universal credit system essentially places six forms of benefit payments together, consisting of

jobseekers allowance, housing benefit, working tax credit, child tax credit, employment and support

allowance and income support (GOV 2015). Although this seems to be a logical solution to the

interpretation of a difficult welfare system that has been described as complicated to navigate, the

universal credit system has failed in its attempt to simplify the welfare system. Many argue that the

idea of simplifying the welfare system narrows criteria for claimants who have a broad range of

issues and circumstances, which under the proposed changed could be missed or result in a loss of

benefits or a misinterpretation of certain criteria Taylor-Gooby 2014, 2015).

“It’s supposed to help people live more independent lives, but until you explain to people how

these changes affect them then it will only cause problems because people will be wondering

where the extra money in their account is coming from and won’t know what it’s supposed to

be used for.”

The above statement from Kelly is testament to one of the main criticisms of the universal credit

system and it’s failing to help those who require welfare support from the state. The main criticism

of the universal credit system is the lack of information available to the public about which benefits

will be affected and how people will need to manage their finances differently and with more

personal responsibility. During the trial in Warrington, which had one thousand participants in order

to test the readiness for the universal credit scheme to be rolled out to the public, many of those

using the system were unsure of exactly what the additional money in their accounts was for as their

new financial obligations such as paying their own rent were not clearly explained to them at the job

centre. As a result of this lack of support, nine out of every ten participants fell into arrears due to

unpaid rent, which before the universal credit system was introduced, was paid directly to landlords

(TUC 2014). This led to increased financial constraints on households with very minimal income and

in some cases led to undue sanctioning or deferral of welfare payments, which further entrenched

people in poverty without a helpful means of escape. As a result, causing additional alienation from

mainstream society and further widening of the gap between those on the base and peak of the

economic spectrum (Chartered Institute of Housing 2014).

In addition, a large criticism of the universal credit system is its lack of accessibility for those without

the required levels of computer literacy necessary to access necessary paperwork, which

disproportionately affects the elderly. All interview participants have stated that they worry for the

elderly within their family who rely on any of the aforementioned benefits grouped within the

universal credit system as they do not have the computer skills necessary to access vital funds. “My

mum can barely get to grips with her mobile phone, let alone a computer.” This statement

highlights the lack of awareness that those currently in government have of the difficulties that

vulnerable people face in their daily lives, and the adverse effects of ideological welfare reform

(Gentleman 2015). This problem will not only adversely affect the elderly but also the very poor that

lack access to such items as a home computer. As has been stated by both Kelly and Sara, those in

rural areas who can’t afford to take public transport whenever the need to access a computer arises

will find themselves further marginalised and unable to access the vital support they need.

In response it was suggested that shared problems such as a lack of accessibility could be helped by

using community centres to help vocalise common problems within the community. However, due

to the decrease in public expenditure a large number of community groups and even social service

departments who are able to help with financial difficulties are finding it difficult to reach all the

people who are adversely affected by these changes to the welfare system. As a result, greater

amounts of people who find themselves without benefits are relying on charities in order to keep

themselves and their families from starving, as is highlighted in the report that show food bank

consumption having risen by over 1000% since the Coalition government entered power in 2010

(Beattie 2015). These figures further demonstrate the levels of inequality in equality in the UK, as the

top ten per cent of earners have become wealthier since the 2008 financial crisis, the bottom twenty

per cent of the population with regards to income have been adversely affected by the introduction

of an ideological austerity process and the reduction in welfare spending, which has seen an

unprecedented rise in the number of people living in food poverty who have to decide whether to

buy food or heat their homes (Bull and Harries 2013).

Personal Independence Payments and Work Capability Assessments:-

A great deal has been said about the introduction of the personal independence payments and the

concept of continual reassessment of the disabled in order to claim their benefits payments.

Research has underlined the unnecessary harm this causes form of welfare reform has caused the

disabled through continual reassessment and the use of Atos assessments, which have since been

halted due to their poor performance and failure to ascertain correctly whether a person truly is fit

to work. As a social worker, Kelly provides a first-hand account of how unfair these work capability

assessments have been and the damaging effect that they have had on the lives of many vulnerable

people.

“What they were really doing wasn’t assessing whether or not you were capable of living

independently or whether you had the capacity to work, but how much pain they could put

you through before you gave in and they could take your money away from you. People

have cried to me saying they have no money, and it’s not just the financial effect of these

assessments but the psychological damage and stress it does. It’s not fair, it’s dehumanising

and it ruins people’s lives.”

Kelly’s knowledge of work capability assessments further highlights the damage caused to the lives

of the disabled by ideologically targeting the poor and the vulnerable in order to reduce the state’s

welfare expenditure. This concept is further corroborated by research that shows how the mentally

ill have been unduly targeted and exploited by these assessments and how the redefining of

disability benefits is responsible for a great deal of damage to the lives of many vulnerable people

(Beresford 2013). This damning report undertaken by the People’s Review of the Work Capability

Assessments highlights the lack of awareness by the DWP and the total lack of responsibility of the

consequences of these assessments by the DWP or the doctors at Atos who perform the

assessments. The system of reassessment for people with long term and often incurable conditions

has been criticised on numerous occasions for being not fit for purpose. As Sara states, “Who’s

going to regrow a missing limb? They’re just a waste of time and money that could be better spent

somewhere else, and then they say there isn’t enough to go around.” The fact that the Atos run

work capability assessments have been scrapped due to widespread public condemnation is further

evidence that the current government places little thought as to the real consequences of their

welfare reforms, which are directly affecting the lives of millions of people around the UK. Figures

published before the work capability assessments run by Atos were paramount in pointing out the

harmful effects of the assessments by showing that many thousands of people died from illnesses

within six weeks of being judged as fit to work and not needing any form of personal independence

payments, although the direct figure is under constant revision. (Chivers 2014). This statistic

highlights the lack of forethought and empathy the government shows towards the sick and the

vulnerable in society, whether they be disabled or merely unable to find stable employment.

“It all reeks of social Darwinism really, the fact that disabled people are being made to jump

through hoops just shows how little they care as long as they can save money. We’re all

expendable if someone can make a profit. It’s going to affect the elderly as well, they won’t

want to be poked and prodded like cattle. It’s totally inhumane and something our country

should be ashamed of.”

The above quotation from Sam simply highlights the negative opinion the public has of how the

government treats the disabled in our society with assessments that are entirely incapable of judging

a person’s physical and mental capabilities, which are putting vulnerable people at risk of very

avoidable harm. These evidence further points towards the fact that the welfare reforms introduced

in 2012 are the result of an ideological concept that profit and free market economics is the most

important part of society and that human suffering is merely an unavoidable by-product. Professor

Beresford’s report continually lists instances where those with deteriorating conditions were

adjudged to be capable of working and therefore had their disability benefit entitlements revoked,

which left the vulnerable to situations that should be non-existent in a modern country with one of

the largest economies in the world. The work capability assessments have also had lasting effects on

the confidence of people, which has further isolated vulnerable people from mainstream society, as

though they had less worth than the able bodied who were able to contribute to society on an

economic basis (Jones 2012; Beresford 2013).

Attitudes To Welfare:-

All the aforementioned evidence shows conclusive proof that welfare reforms introduced by the

Coalition government in 2012 have disproportionately affected the lives of the poorest and most

vulnerable members of society, whilst at the same time many of the wealthiest people in society

have become even richer. Despite this clear ideological agenda to reduce the welfare state and leave

a great deal of state responsibility in the hands of individuals and charitable organisations, many

people in working class communities who suffer from the same social issues as one another have

negative attitudes toward others who receive any kind of welfare support.

However, research shows that the widely held view among the political elite that those dependent

on benefits are so because they either don’t want to work or refuse to work hard enough is entirely

untrue. One statistic that would refute this claim is that the majority of households that claim

benefits have at least one family member in work (Taylor-Gooby 2013). There has been resentment

towards benefit claimants that has built up during the UK’s period of austerity, which has culminated

in the general population having less sympathy for those who need financial support. All three

interview participants however, disagree with stereotype that those on benefits are merely workshy

or feckless as they argue that the vast majority of people claiming welfare would rather have steady

employment to improve their financial situations and give themselves a feeling of self-worth. Sera

argues that television programmes such as Benefits Street only serve to perpetuate stereotypes

about the poor and are causing increased tension and resentment in working class communities, “I

don’t even watch programmes like Benefits Street because I’ll end up throwing something at the

telly.” This argument suggests that many of the negative thoughts about benefit claimants have

risen due to the use of the mass media by governments to perpetuate the idea that an overly

generous welfare state is one of the main causes for the current period of austerity in the UK, and

that a generous welfare system breeds a culture of welfare dependency.

Further evidence also shows the concept of apathy among the poor to be an ideologically motivated

attack on the poorest in society by showing that the government’s welfare to work scheme designed

to incentivise people into work no matter how poor the pay is fundamentally designed to improve

the living standards for those in the higher levels of the economic spectrum. It is therefore simple to

argue that the use of media indoctrination, which classifies benefits as the big problem in today’s

growingly unequal society by the political elite is a way of separating communities and manipulating

people into believing that what the government suggests in the form of welfare reforms and a cut to

public services as the logical step forward for the UK (Chomsky 2012; Atkinson 2013). These

thoughts also align with the argument put forward by Craine (1997), that the politically elite have

adopted a victim blaming culture in order to divert blame for their own failings and the failings of

capital onto the shoulders of the poor and working class.

“The underlying strategy is derived from free market economics, neo-liberal agenda, which is

about entrenching free market or market like principles in all areas of life including health,

education and welfare. What it’s really doing is separating communities, breeding

resentment and ensuring that the more well off people in society will always benefit. The

mythology is that there’s work there, but there isn’t actually enough work for people who

need it, and hasn’t been since we sold off our manufacturing services.”

Sam brings up the argument that the negative issues surrounding those on benefits is a symptom of

a lack of opportunity for people to find steady employment, which could serve as a way of improving

people’s living standards. He is also an advocate for raising the minimum wage, which would free up

a great deal of welfare expenditure so that people like himself, Sara and Kelly would not have to rely

on in work benefits to top up their wages that have been continuously stagnating and have not risen

along with the rising costs of living. This concept of a living wage is also supported by economists

who argue that a living wage would improve the life standards of many and free up additional funds,

which could be collected through taxes and thereby returned to the public services fund and making

a positive contribution to the economy (Piketty 2014).

Conclusion

Due to the conclusive evidence gathered, I have come to the conclusion the current welfare reforms

such as universal credit, personal independence payments and the spare room subsidy do not help

the poorest members in society and that the welfare to work scheme employed by the Coalition in

fact hinders people’s chances of reducing poverty levels in the UK and improving their quality of life.

I have argued that the current welfare reforms introduced by the government in 2012 are

ideologically driven and are unable to stand up to realistic scrutiny. The lasting effect of a reduction

in the welfare state is deeper levels of poverty for the bottom two fifths of society and a further

concentration of wealth amongst a very small number of economically elite, which leads to greater

resentment and increased social tension. These criticisms of ideologically driven welfare reduction

show that increased social and economic inequality breeds increased levels of mortality, mental

health issues and crime, as is argued by Wilkinson and Pickett (2010), which show direct correlation

between inequality and social problems.

My Argument can also be supported by the information gathered from my interview participants,

who have all argued that a reduction in the welfare state and an introduction of sanctions to the

benefits system have increased economic pressure on the most vulnerable members of society and

further increased the gap between the wealthiest and poorest members of society. This research

was conducted to highlight the way in which the poor and working class are negatively portrayed

both in the media and through government legislation. The underlying fact is that an ideological

austerity has been imposed on British society as a way of recovering from the global economic

collapse of 2008. However, the cause of the crisis was not the poorest sections of society, but those

at the very top of the economic spectrum. Despite this, government legislation has led to an increase

in wealth for the richest and a decrease in living standards and wealth for the poorest and most

vulnerable members of society unseen since the end of the Second World War.

An alternative to a reduction of the welfare state and public expenditure would be the introduction

of a living wage, which would help those in minimum wage and low skilled jobs to be able to work

their way out of poverty and become more included in wider society and more bale to contribute to

the taxation system instead of relying on state funded top ups for wages so low that they do not give

people enough income table to afford the basic standards of living. This would help to reduce the

levels of inequality in the UK and bring communities together through a rise in living standards and a

reduction of economic pressure, whilst also improving the state of the British economy by widening

the levels of participation in the taxation system, which leads to a more fair and equal society and

improved infrastructure that is necessary to build a successful, inclusive and genuinely meritocratic

society.

Bibliography

Anderson, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. (Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth).

BBC (2013) Universal credit: Welfare reform 'poor value' watchdog says. Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23963867.

Beattie, J. (2015) David Cameron's government sees desperate foodbank families soar by 1,665%,

Daily Mirror, [online]. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-

government-sees-desperate-5562487#ICID=sharebar_twitter.

Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2014) The impact of welfare reform on the Valleys. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/welsh-valleys-report-2014.pdf (Accessed 11

April 2015).

Benefits Britain: The Bedroom Tax (2014) Channel 4 Television, 27 October

Beresford, P. (2012) The People's Review of the Work Capability Assessment. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/The-Peoples-Review-of-the-Work-Capability-

Assessment.pdf. (Accessed 08 April 2015).

British Sociological Association. (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological

Association. Available at http://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/27107/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf?

1430257665784.

Bull, D. and Harries, E. (2013) BEYOND BEANS: FOOD BANKS IN THE UK. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Beyond-beans.pdf (Accessed: 10 April 2015).

Channel 4 (2013) Disability testing system causes 'misery and hardship'. Available at:

http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-causes-misery-and-hardship.

Chartered Institute of Housing (2014) UK Housing Review 2014. (Available at:

http://www.cih.org/publication/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/publication/data/

UK_Housing_Review_2014)

Child Poverty Action Group. (2014) Child Poverty Facts and Figures. (Available at:

http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures).

Chivers, T. (2014) The '10,600 people died within six weeks of being declared fit to work by Atos' stat

is simply wrong [online], Available at:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100279306/the-10600-people-died-within-

six-weeks-of-being-declared-fit-to-work-by-atos-stat-is-simply-wrong/

Craine, S. (1997) ‘The black magic roundabout: cyclical transitions, social exclusion and alternative

careers’, in MacDonald, R. Youth, the

‘Underclass’ and Social Exclusion, London, Routledge.

DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) (2012) Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of Recipients. Available

at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223050/

incap_decd_recips_0712.pdf.

DWP (Department for Work and Pensions). (2010) Universal Credit: Welfare That Works (London:

HMSO)

DWP (Department for Work and Pensions). (2012) Family Resource Survey: United Kingdom 2010/11

(London: DWP)

Dwyer, P. (2012) ‘Creeping Conditionality in the UK: From Welfare Rights to Conditional

Entitlements?’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29 (2): 265:87.

European Commission. (2011) Poverty in Rural Areas of the EU, Brief no.1, May (Luxembourg:

European Commission)

Fitzpatrick, S. Bramley, G. Watts, B. Wilcox, S. and Pawson, H. (2014) The Homelessness Monitor.

(Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/homelessness-monitor).

Gentleman, A. (2013) Work capability assessments decision follows years of criticism, Guardian

[Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/22/work-capability-

assessments-criticism.

Giddens, A. and Sutton, W. (2013) Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press)

Gov. (2015) Universal Credit. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit

Hartley-Brewer, J. (2015) Extending the right to buy is economically illiterate and morally wrong, The

Guardian, [Online]. Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-

economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html .

Jenkins, C. (2014) ‘’Bed Tax Forces people Out of Homes’’. Available at:

http://www.channel4.com/news/bed-tax-forces-people-out-of-homes.

Johnston, I. (2014) Benefit changes are killing the vulnerable, say campaigners, The Independent

[Online]. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-changes-are-killing-

the-vulnerable-say-campaigners-9877872.html.

Johnston, I. (2015) Nearly 100,000 of Britain's poorest children go hungry after parents' benefits are

cut, The Independent [Online}, Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-

families/health-news/nearly-100000-of-britains-poorest-children-go-hungry-after-parents-benefits-

are-cut-10079056.html.

Jones, O. (2012) Chavs: The Demonization of The Working Class (London: Verso)

Jones, O. (2014) The Establishment: And how they get away with it (London: Allen Lane)

Jones, O. (2015) If you vote for the Tories’ right to buy, where will your children live? The Guardian,

[Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/right-to-buy-

children-tories-pledge.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2014) REDUCING POVERTY IN THE UK: A COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE

REVIEWS. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Reducing-poverty-

reviews-FULL_0.pdf. (Accessed 17 February 2015).

Lelkes, O. (2010) Poverty Among Migrants in Europe (Vienna: European Centre for Welfare Policy

and Research)

Lister, R. (2004) Poverty (Cambridge: Polity Press)

Lister, R. (2011) ‘The Age of Responsibility: Social Policy and Citizenship in the Early 21st Century’, in

Holden, C. Kilkey, M. and Romia, G. (Bristol: Polity Press)

Mabbett, D. (2014) The Second Time as Tragedy? Welfare Reform under Thatcher and the Coalition,

The Political Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 1, January–March 2013 [Online]. Available at:

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b5b0db6c-61ec-

486d-b8da-ec9cf8e6447c%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=128.

Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A handbook for

researching on-line (London: Sage)

National Equality Panel. (2014) An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK: Report of the National

Equality Panel (London: Government Equalities Office)

Oakley, A. (1997) People’s way of knowing: gender and methodology. Cited in Hood, S. Mayall, B.

and Oliver,S. (eds) Critical Issues in Social Research: Power and Prejudice (Buckingham: Open

University Press)

OECD (Office for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2014) Social Expenditure Update,

November. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2014-Social-Expenditure-Update-

Nov2014-8pages.pdf.

Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty First Century (Harvard: Harvard University Press).

Plunkett, J. (2013) ‘Under George Osborne's benefit cuts, it's the strivers who suffer most’ Observer,

5 January [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/05/george-osborne-

benefit-cuts-strivers.

Reed, K. (2007) Bureaucracy and beyond: the impact of ethics and governance procedures on health

research in the social sciences, Sociological Research Online, 12 (5). Available at:

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/18.html.

Siddique, H. (2014) Atos quits £500m work capability assessment contract early, Guardian 8

February [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/27/atos-quite-

work-capability-assessment-contract-early.

Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013) The Double Crisis of the Welfare State and What We Can Do About It.

Available at:

https://www.academia.edu/3550232/The_Double_Crisis_of_the_Welfare_State_and_What_We_Ca

n_Do_about_It. (Accessed 19 March 2015).

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013) The Wrong Way to Tackle Poverty. [online], Available at:

file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Taylor_Gooby2WORK%20AND%20POVERTY.pdf

(Accessed 10 February 2015).

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2014) Can ‘New Welfare’ address poverty through more and better jobs? Available

at:

https://www.academia.edu/5709822/Can_New_Welfare_address_poverty_through_more_and_be

tter_jobs

Taylor-Gooby, P. and Taylor, E. (2015) Benefits and Welfare: Chapter from 2015 British Social

Attitudes Survey report. Available at:

https://www.academia.edu/11755671/Benefits_and_Welfare_Chapter_from_2015_British_Social_A

ttitudes_Survey_report.

Titmuss, R. (1965) Income Distribution and Social Change: A Study in Criticism (London: Unwin

University Books)

Trussel Trust. (2015) Low income and welfare problems see foodbank numbers rise by 38% despite

economic recovery. (Available at: http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015).

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone [Online].

Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/wolfson.institute/events/Wilkinson372010.pdf.

Williams, L. (2014) Benefit cuts are already being blamed for the deaths of many vulnerable people,

but there could be 60 more that we never hear about, Independent 23 December [Online]. Available

at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-benefit-cuts-are-already-being--

blamed-for-the-deaths-of-three-vulnerable-people-and-there-may-be-60-more-9942735.html.

World Bank. (2011) World Development Indicators 2011 (Washington DC: World Bank)