Emerging modes of digitalisation in the delivery of welfare‐to‐work: Implications for street‐level discretion

Abstract

Countries are increasingly looking to ‘digitalise’ how public services are delivered, with welfare‐to‐work and public employment services being key sites of reform. It is hoped that digitalisation can achieve efficient, effective, and targeted services for those in need and there is now a growing body of research on both the opportunities and pitfalls associated with this transition to digital welfare states. However, as a concept, ‘digitalisation’ remains ambiguously defined, hindering understanding of the distinct ways that discrete technological innovations are reshaping citizens' access to social protection and the role of street‐level discretion in welfare administration. Drawing on interviews with expert informants from three countries pioneering digital reforms, this study aims to better understand what digitalisation entails for the delivery of activation. We identify three discrete modes of ‘digitalisation’ in welfare‐to‐work programmes: virtual engagement (remote activation), transactional automation (self‐activation), and digital triaging (targeted activation). Far from digitalisation heralding the automation and curtailment of frontline discretion, the different modes reshape frontline delivery and citizens' access to social protection in specific ways.

Activation through welfare conditionality and marketisation in active labour market policies: Evidence from Indonesia

“…The '100 percent online' feature of the program is also argued by policymakers to worsen the situation when it demonstrably favours those who (1) can afford technology to register and access the training program (INT15) and (2) tend to be 'the middle to upper class who are high tech and mostly in urban areas with good Internet signals ' (INT5). This observation aligns with the findings on the PKP itself (see, for instance, Kurnianingsih et al, 2020) and welfare programs elsewhere (Ball et al, 2023;O'Sullivan & Walker, 2018). The identified differences of experiences within the program hint at a level of inequality among program users, which is concerning when a majority of participants (70.2%) are on the lower side of educational level (see Table 6).…”

Does digital government hollow out the essence of street‐level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools' foster curtailment, enablement and continuation of street‐level decision‐making

“…The growing use of digital tools in policy implementation-the process of putting policy goals into practice by carrying out concrete actions, for example distributing benefits-has altered public service provision, the interaction between government and citizens and the work of frontline workers (Ball et al, 2023;Buffat, 2015;. Traditionally, street-level bureaucrats had substantial discretion in the execution of their work (Lipsky, 2010;Tummers & Bekkers, 2014).…”