Unemployment and punitive activation as human rights issues

Raffass, Tania

doi:10.1080/1323-238x.2014.11882139

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the face of the empirical failure evidenced by the persistence of labour underutilisation and poverty and, after decades of normative criticism of workfare, the commitment to supply-side intervention focused on 'availability for work' rather than full employment remains staunch. There is therefore a continued need to argue that attempts to expand labour force participation, without fundamental reforms to address the shortage of jobs and labour market inequalities, are irrational and iniquitous and therefore incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy, as enshrined in human rights (Raffass, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Enforcement in Liberal Democracies

Raffass

2016

J. Soc. Pol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper aims to contribute to the normative debate concerning work enforcement in liberal democracies. In the late 1980s, OECD countries began to revert to the pre-welfare-state tradition of attributing unemployment to personal failure. The new welfare-to-work policies emphasised individual responsibility for securing employment. Stepping up job search requirements and sanctions for failure to meet them was presented as a public intervention that helps unemployed individuals return from dependency to autonomy. Jobseekers have been made to believe that success in obtaining employment depends on how doggedly they search for work and how adaptable they become to employer needs. These presumptions are challenged in the paper. Contracts that jobseekers are forced to sign with providers of employment services curtail their autonomy not only to the extent that they cannot avoid unproductive activity tests imposed on them, but also from a lifetime perspective in cases where they are forced into inferior jobs. In job-short economies, employers are also certain to discriminate against disadvantaged jobseekers notwithstanding the intensity of their effort or openness to occupational change.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Enforcement in Liberal Democracies

Raffass

2016

J. Soc. Pol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with the political change, the quantitative aspect of the human right to work (i.e. full employment) has been effectively nullified through interpretation (Raffass, 2014). Since employment is not guaranteed as of right and, statistically, there are not enough jobs to be held by every person wanting a job, what is being enforced is not even the duty to work, but merely a duty to activate .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demanding Activation

Raffass

2016

J. Soc. Pol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distinctive character of the unemployment policies overhaul, known as the 'activation turn' of the 1990s, was that OECD governments intensified coercion against unemployed individuals while relaxing their commitment to ensuring full employment. By now supplyside activation policies have been tested long enough to permit conclusive evaluations, and the article surveys the body of empirical assessments to determine the achievements of the activation turn. The implementation of welfare-to-work policies has not resulted in bringing down the rates of unemployment (independently of the business cycle), combating long-term unemployment, reducing (in-work) poverty or empowering jobseekers as consumers of public services, which were all goals of the reformed 'activating state'. Instead, activation has been working as a mechanism of entrapment at the margins of liberalised labour markets by dint of its complementarity with employer-centred flexibility. The activation turn has thus failed to achieve its direct labour market and social objectives. However, it has produced pronounced indirect negative effects in the labour market, and its social impact has been regressive and repressive, as anticipated in normative and political-economic critiques of the rising 'workfare state'.

show abstract

“…Mestan (2014) cites one former policy advisor of the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations who said that all income support recipients need rules because 'they are good for you', and that sanctions are justified to compel individuals do what is supposedly good for them. Raffass (2014) therefore calls what is happening in Australia and other liberal welfare states 'punitive activation'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%