The social constructions formed of target groups, which are used to justify the allotment of benefits and obligations, are now being discussed in organisations at street level. Using qualitative interview data from eight municipalities, the article examines how the local social construction of deservingness constrains frontline work. In comparing everyday practices for checking eligibility and altering a recipient's behaviour, the study found four distinctive administrative practices. Standardised administrations represent their clients as deserving, and engage with the recipients in a service-oriented way. Semi-standardised administrations aim at rightful payment, but construct deserving and undeserving groups, subjecting the latter to behavioural change. Disciplining administrations create all clients as undeserving and emphasise control. Poor relief administrations withhold social rights for the undeserving and provide paternalistic support for the deserving. Local conceptions of (un)deservingness severely affect social citizenship and are thus crucial to understanding and detecting the impact of social policy reform.

As a consequence of the recent financial and economic crisis, social cohesion and integration are in jeopardy all over Europe. In this context, scholars also speak of decreasing solidarity, which is defined as a normative obligation to help each other and to make sacrifices to reach common goals. By taking the empirical example of Austria, we argue that the meaning of solidarity is increasingly being contested. Various collective actors such as trade unions, civil society actors, but also right-wing populist parties are engaged in symbolic struggles over solidarity. To show this, we examine the different concepts and foundations of solidarity and analyse where and why they conflict with each other, referring to recent debates on political issues, such as the needs-based minimum benefit system and the access to the labour market for refugees.

In 2010, the new means-tested minimum income was implemented by all Austrian provinces. The policy sought to replace the provincial standard benefit rates with a national minimum income threshold and for the job centres to serve as an accessible entry point for claimants. Using qualitative and quantitative data from a study conducted between 2010 and 2012, this paper analyses the implementation of the policy in two provinces, Styria and Upper Austria with a focus on discretion. It is shown that discretion has not been curtailed by the introduction of a national framework, by the provincial legislation nor by managerial reforms.

No abstract

Der Beitrag behandelt die Frage, inwiefern der Übergang von neo-liberalen zu Pro-Wohlfahrtsstaatsprogrammen tatsächlich als neues Erfolgsrezept von extremen und populistischen Rechtsparteien in Europa angesehen werden kann. Mit „links-autoritär“ oder „exkludierende Solidarität“ wurden vielfach Parteien etikettiert, die autoritäre soziokulturelle Positionen mit Unterstützung für den Sozialstaat in sozioökonomischen Positionen verbinden. Bei letzterem spielt Wohlfahrtschauvinismus, also die Ausgrenzung national definierter Fremdgruppen von sozialstaatlichen Leistungen, eine große Rolle. Inwiefern von einer solchen neuen Ausrichtung der populistischen und extremen Rechten gesprochen werden kann, wird an den Länderbeispielen Frankreich, Österreich, Ungarn und den Niederlanden diskutiert. Dafür fassen die Autor*innen die Entwicklung extremer und populistischer Rechtsparteien zusammen, stellen die Veränderungen ihrer Programmatik dar und geben Auskunft über die Entwicklung ihrer Wählerschaft. Soweit sie Parteien in Regierungsverantwortung sind, wird die Umsetzung der Programmatik in tatsächliche Maßnahmen beurteilt.