Neue Veröffentlichung: Unemployed + Sick = More Deserving? A Survey Experiment on How the Medicalization of Unemployment Affects Public Opinion

The literature on the social legitimacy of welfare benefits has shown that sick persons are perceived more deserving than unemployed individuals. However, these studies examine sick and unemployed persons as distinct groups, while unemployment and sickness are in fact strongly related. Policymakers across Europe have been increasingly concerned with discouraging a medicalization of unemployment and activating sick unemployed persons. Therefore, it is crucial to understand welfare attitudes toward this group. Using a factorial survey fielded with a representative sample of German-speaking adults (N=2,621), we investigate how sickness affects attitudes toward a hypothetical unemployed person on three dimensions: benefit levels, conditions, and sanctions. Respondents allocated similar benefit levels to unemployed persons regardless of whether they have an illness. Yet, they were more hesitant to apply existing conditions (e.g., active job search, job training) or sanction benefits when the unemployed person was also sick. This is except for conditions that tie benefits to obligatory health services (back training or psychological counseling) which was supported by the majority of respondents. Our research shows that the German public is not more generous and only partially more lenient toward sick unemployed persons as there is strong support for conditions targeted at overcoming ill health for this group. The findings underscore that sickness matters for how unemployed persons are perceived, but the impact varies across different dimensions of welfare attitudes.

Linden, P.; Reibling, N.(2022): Unemployed + Sick = More Deserving? A Survey Experiment on How the Medicalization of Unemployment Affects Public Opinion. In: Front. Sociol. 7

Neue Veröffentlichung: Constructions of Unemployed Individuals in German Parliamentary Debates on Active Labour Market Policy Reforms: A Comparative Analysis of 2003 and 2016

Active labour market policy (ALMP) reforms have fundamentally changed welfare states over the last decades. Their objectives are quite diverse: workfare reforms have increased conditionality and sanctioning of benefits, while enabling reforms have extended education and training opportunities for the unemployed. Little is known about the political discourse on ALMP reforms. We investigate how the individual unemployed person is portrayed in ALMP reforms via a comparative coding analysis of parliamentary debates on labour market reforms that took place in Germany in 2003 (workfare) and in 2016 (enabling). Our results indicate that compared to enabling reforms the individual unemployed is less important in the framing of workfare reforms but more often blamed. Party characteristics matter: parties on the left more often point to the deservingness of the unemployed. However, when the social democratic party in government introduced a workfare reform they used blaming of unemployed persons as a framing strategy.

Ariaans, M; Reibling, N (2022): Constructions of Unemployed Individuals in German Parliamentary Debates on Active Labour Market Policy Reforms: A Comparative Analysis of 2003 and 2016. In: Social Policy and Society, S. 1–18

Neue Veröffentlichung: Wie viel Geld ist angemessen? Eine Vignettenstudie zur Akzeptanz von Sanktionen im SGB II

Seit den Reformen des SGB II 2004/05 gelten Sanktionen in der Grundsicherung als zentrale Säule im aktivierenden Sozialstaat. Sozialpolitisch wird dabei häufig diskutiert, ob Sanktionen generell zulässig sind bzw. dazu führen dürfen, dass Betroffene (temporär) unterhalb des soziokulturellen Existenzminimums leben. Zudem stufte das Bundesverfassungsgericht 2019 Kürzungen über 30 % der Grundsicherungsleistung als verfassungswidrig ein und mahnte einen Reformprozess an. Eine breite öffentliche Akzeptanz der veränderten Sanktionspraxis könnte erreicht werden, wenn empirische Evidenz zur Wahrnehmung solcher Sanktionen den Reformprozess begleitet. Der Beitrag untersucht mittels einer Vignettenanalyse, welche Sanktionen in der Bevölkerung akzeptiert werden, wenn hypothetische Sozialleistungsbeziehende ihre Mitwirkungspflicht verletzen. Eine Mehrheit der repräsentativen deutschen Stichprobe (N = 2621) befürwortet eine als Sanktion verhängte Leistungskürzung bis 30 % der Grundsicherungsleistung. Eine geringe Motivation zur Arbeitssuche, Terminversäumnisse mit den Fachberaterinnen und ein ausländischer Name erhöhen für sich genommen, aber vor allem in Kombination miteinander, die Akzeptanz von Sanktionen signifikant. Das Alter der hypothetischen Sozialleistungsbezieherinnen spielt dagegen nur eine marginale Rolle.

Philipp Linden (2021): Wie viel Geld ist angemessen? Eine Vignettenstudie zur Akzeptanz von Sanktionen im SGB II. In: WSI 74 (6), S. 454–462.