The new means-tested minimum income in Austria: discretion and regulation in practice

Abstract

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.

Subsidiarity and social citizenship: Social assistance schemes in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and Norway

“…Until the 1990s, all four nations had structured their social assistance as a second safety net which strongly enforced the principle of subsidiarity and obligated users to re‐gain their ability to self‐help; therefore, territorial differences remained equally present (Hermans, Raeymaeckers, & Casman, ; Lødemel, ; Melinz, ; Seip, ). In Austria, the federal state and the nine provincial governments agreed on a national framework for a means‐tested guaranteed minimum income, which since 2010 has acted as a guideline for provincial legislation (Leibetseder, Altreiter, & Leitgöb, ).…”

“…15a Vereinbarung, ). Nevertheless, benefits fluctuate between different provinces due to housing allowances and family bonuses (Die Armutskonferenz, ) and local variations in benefits calculations prevail (Leibetseder et al, ). The Swiss Conference for Social Aid and Welfare issued non‐binding rules on benefit amounts and put forward a set of entitlement criteria, which the majority of the cantons have implemented accordingly, with major variations (Bauman, Stremlov, Strohmeier, & Bieri, ).…”

“…Under the new scheme, recipients have to be ‘willing to work’ and be registered as job seekers at employment centres. Social assistance offices can require further efforts, as caseworkers can access job centre files online, thus increasing surveillance (Leibetseder et al, ). Nevertheless, harsher sanctions could be imposed.…”

“…The Austrian regulation suggests it is the social assistance offices’ responsibility to ‘introduce’ case management, leaving the bulk of the work to municipal social assistance offices. In everyday interactions, disciplining work‐related measures prevail and caseworkers rarely address the client's social needs or views (Leibetseder et al, ).…”

“…However, in real terms it could be lower because some provinces already had thresholds at the present level and they had abolished higher benefit rates for ‘permanent’ social assistance recipients and some extra payments (Die Armutskonferenz, ). The rate is currently tied to the minimum social insurance pension, although it has been reduced by 15% to increase the income difference with low‐wage work (Leibetseder et al, ). In Belgium, the federal state sets a benefit rate level that is linked with inflation, but because this amount is well below the poverty line, regular conflict occurs over the benefit level, although it does not result in sizeable increases (Dierckx et al, ).…”