Symbolic purposes and factual consequences of the concepts “self‐reliance” and “dependency” in contemporary discourses on welfare

Abstract

Symbolic purposes and factual consequences of the concepts "self-reliance" and "dependency" in contemporarv J discourses on welfare Halvorsen K. Symbolic purposes and factual consequences of the concepts "self-reliance" and "dependency" in contemporary discourses on welfare Scand J SOC Welfare 1998: 7: 56-64. 0 Blackwell. 1998.To be self-reliant has been a dominant norm in Western societies since early Christianity. Today the concept has the symbolic purpose of maintaining individualism and the work ethic in capitalism and reducing dependency on the state. This article contrasts the original meaning of individual selfreliance with its contemporary use in public discourses on welfare. We demonstrate the vagueness of the term and its varying interpretations. Using examples from the United States, the United Kingdom and Norway, the article attempts to demonstrate that the hegemonic use of the concepts of self-reliance and dependency today provides ideological justifications for keeping people in poverty and outside the mainstream of life. It increases social distance and promotes marginality. The article concludes by suggesting that other ways for solving problems of balancing rights and duties of citizens have to be found in order to maintain a fair distribution of dignity and social integration.

Does ‘workfare’ work? The Norwegian experience

“…Referring to our previous discussion of the four social policy discourses, these outcomes fit well with the social integrationist discourse (SID). In the Norwegian version of this discourse, as in many other countries, there is an emphasis on self‐sufficiency (Halvorsen, 1998). This is a vague term, but a reasonable interpretation is that both earnings and employment should be of a certain magnitude and have some sustainability.…”

Moral Societal Renewal or Getting the Country Back to Work: Welfare State Culture as a Resource and a Constraint for Policy Discourse

“…In addition to this ambivalent role of the welfare culture, it is conceivable that not every welfare culture is an equally useful resource for justifying certain reforms. A number of authors suggest that presenting welfare reforms normatively in terms of “deservingness” (basically, the perception or evaluation of whether a person deserves welfare benefits) is particularly suited for selling welfare retrenchment (Halvorsen ; Slothuus ; van Oorschot ). This normative framing, however, does not fit different welfare cultures to the same extent.…”

“I Wish to be Self-Reliant”: Aspiration for Self-Reliance, Need and Life Satisfaction, and Exit Dilemma of Welfare Recipients in Hong Kong

“…The low-skilled workers are, in particular, the victims; they are less able to adapt to the change and are exposed to an increasing risk of unemployment, insecure employment, and low-paying jobs. When they are laid off and access their public assistance or unemployment entitlements, they face a welfare benefit system which is generally and increasingly selective and keen on activating them for reemployment for the sake of avoiding the ''poverty trap'' and the development of a ''dependency culture'' (Dean and Taylor-Gooby 1992;Halvorsen 1998). Of course, one should not deny the fact of higher welfare benefits and lower market wages, as mentioned above in the CSSA review report of the Hong Kong government.…”