IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Debating conditionality for disability benefits recipients and welfare reform: Research evidence from Pathways to Work

Listed author(s):
  • Katharine Weston


Registered author(s):

    The Coalition Government’s reform of welfare has revived debate about the imposition of conditions on receipt of disability benefits. In particular a debate published in the journal Policy and Politics in 2011 discussed the extension of increased conditionality to this group and the associated policy levers, often referred to as ‘carrots’ (incentives) and ‘sticks’ (sanctions). This article adds to the debate by presenting findings from research with service users of Pathways to Work (until recently the main employment programme for people on disability benefits). These findings help to argue for greater recognition of the heterogeneity and diverse levels of need among disability benefits claimants, demonstrate advantages and disadvantages of conditional benefit receipt, and highlight the limited effectiveness of incentives and sanctions. Furthermore findings suggest a need to reconsider the emphasis in government policy on conditionality, where this obscures messages about the availability of personalised support.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by London South Bank University in its journal Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit.

    Volume (Year): 27 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 5-6 (August)
    Pages: 514-528

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:27:y:2012:i:5-6:p:514-528
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:27:y:2012:i:5-6:p:514-528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.