Mediating the claim? How ‘local ecosystems of support’ shape the operation and experience of UK social security

Abstract

Local state and third sector actors routinely provide support to help people navigate their right to social security and mediate their chequered relationship to it. COVID‐19 has not only underlined the significance of these actors in the claims‐making process, but also just how vulnerable those working within ‘local ecosystems of support’ are to external shocks and their own internal pressures. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork with organisations providing support to benefit claimants and those financially struggling during COVID‐19, this paper examines the increasingly situated nature of the claims‐making process across four local areas in the United Kingdom. We do so to consider what bearing ‘local ecosystems of support’ have on income adequacy, access and universality across social security systems. Our analysis demonstrates how local state and third sector actors risk amplifying inequalities that at best disadvantage, and at worst altogether exclude, particular social groups from adequate (financial) assistance. Rather than conceiving of social security as a unitary collection of social transfers, we argue that its operation needs to be understood as much more fragmented and contingent. Practitioners exhibit considerable professional autonomy and moral agency in their discretionary practice, arbitrating between competing organisational priorities, local disinvestment, and changing community needs. Our findings offer broader lessons for understanding the contemporary governance of social security across welfare states seeking to responsibilise low‐income households through the modernisation of public services, localism, and welfare reforms.

Smooth Operators, Predictable Glitches: The Interface Governance of Benefits and Borders

“…Because DWP rarely helps individuals navigate the program's interface, claimants rely on outside agencies and family members for assistance. Claimants must therefore become experts in navigating the wide web of actors beyond DWP who might help them interact with the Universal Credit system (Edmiston et al 2022). Likewise, front-line officials often describe interfaces as intensifying the technical aspects of their work.…”

Who counts in poverty research?

“…There are, however, risks in drawing inferences from such sources without recognition that linked datasets can introduce new sources of measurement error, and invariably only cover the target sample of income surveys (usually private households) rather than the wider low-income population. Equally, a sole emphasis on the use of administrative records misses those ineligible for, or on the periphery of, social security support such as those with No Recourse to Public Funds or the ‘missing workless’ not claiming benefits (Edmiston et al, 2022b; Shildrick et al, 2012). Indeed, distributional analyses employing ‘improved measures, higher-quality data and several thresholds’ that go some way to addressing these issues find that deeper forms of poverty are likely underestimated, particularly when accounting for homeless populations (Brady & Parolin, 2020, p. 2338).…”

When means‐testing meets work‐testing: A multi‐level institutional analysis of claiming in‐work benefits in Hong Kong

“…It is suggested that people's willingness to claim social assistance is shaped by the administration of case managers' assessments and the extent to which policy is customised to clients' needs at the local level (De Wilde & Marchal, 2019; Edmiston et al, 2022). Thus, a multi‐level institutional analysis of claimants' experiences displays actors' aggregated moves and meaning‐making processes in relation to the welfare systems (Gřundělová, 2021; Rice, 2013).…”