IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hdl/wpaper/1808.html

Weighing up work willingness in social assistance: a balancing act on multiple levels

Author

Listed:
  • Marjolijn De Wilde
  • Sarah Marchal

Abstract

In all European countries, social assistance receipt is conditional upon the willingness to work. Yet despite the harsh consequences of losing social assistance, we know surprisingly little about how social assistance agencies and social workers implement this policy in day-to-day practice. In this paper, we focus on three important questions regarding the implementation of work willingness as a condition for continued social assistance benefit receipt. First, how does the actual implementation of the work willingness condition take place in light of specific client characteristics, circumstances and behaviour? Second, is the interpretation of such behaviour similar across case managers and municipalities, or does the combination of vague work willingness legislation and a decentralized organisation lead to variation in implementation? Third, can such variation be seen as the express objective of decentralization and personalized work willingness assessments? We build on an innovative and purpose-designed factorial survey of social workers in Belgium. We identified the determinants of 582 social workers’ sanction decisions upon a job refusal, clustered in 89 municipalities, on almost 5000 experimentally varied client cases. These unique data allow to distinguish between the effects of individual client characteristics, characteristics of the social workers assessing the individual cases and the characteristics of the local welfare agency and municipality in which she operates. Moreover, we assess how characteristics within and between these levels interact. In line with the literature, we find substantial variation in sanctions related to work unwillingness at the client level, that can be explained by individual client characteristics. Variation between municipalities is relatively limited, and can be fully explained by municipality characteristics. Surprisingly, we find the largest variation at the social worker level. Whereas some of this variation is random, a substantial part can be explained by the characteristics of the social worker. This finding raises concerns about the unintended consequences of the large discretion awarded to social workers within contemporary social assistance schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjolijn De Wilde & Sarah Marchal, 2018. "Weighing up work willingness in social assistance: a balancing act on multiple levels," Working Papers 1808, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
  • Handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:1808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://medialibrary.uantwerpen.be/oldcontent/container2453/files/CSB%20WP%202018/CSBWorkingPaper1808.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guillermina Jasso, 2006. "Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(3), pages 334-423, February.
    2. Marjolijn De Wilde & Peter Goos, 2017. "The Implementation of Social Policy: A Factorial Survey Approach," Working Papers 1706, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    3. Lael R. Keiser & Peter R. Mueser & Seung‐Whan Choi, 2004. "Race, Bureaucratic Discretion, and the Implementation of Welfare Reform," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 314-327, April.
    4. Kai Rehwald & Michael Rosholm & Bénédicte Rouland, 2015. "Does Activating Sick-Listed Workers Work? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," Working Papers hal-01228454, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marjolijn De Wilde & Bart Meuleman & Koen Abts, 2018. "In a category of their own? A multigroup SEM comparison of the welfare state attitudes of social workers and the general public," Working Papers 1812, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adams, Ian T., 2025. "Automation and artificial intelligence in police body-worn cameras: Experimental evidence of impact on perceptions of fairness among officers," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Azadegan, Arash & Golara, Sina & Kach, Andrew & Mousavi, Nasim, 2018. "Corporate environmental investments: A cross-national study on managerial decision making," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 47-64.
    3. Feldmann, Marcel, 2010. "A Factorial Survey on Fair Leadership Behavior and the Role of Superiors," MPRA Paper 26009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Faith Bradley & William D. Schreckhise & Daniel E. Chand, 2017. "Explaining States’ Responses to the REAL ID Act: the Role of Resources, Political Environment, and Implementor Attitudes in Complying with a Federal Mandate," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(3), pages 877-897, September.
    5. Wietzke, Frank-Borge, 2024. "Perceptions of social class in Africa. Results from a conjoint experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Hermann Dülmer, 2007. "Experimental Plans in Factorial Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(3), pages 382-409, February.
    7. Frodermann, Corinna & Auspurg, Katrin & Hinz, Thomas & Bähr, Sebastian & Abraham, Martin & Gundert, Stefanie & Bethmann, Arne, 2013. "Das Faktorielle Survey-Modul zur Stellenannahmebereitschaft im PASS : 5. Erhebungswelle (2011)," FDZ Methodenreport 201305_de, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    8. Carlo Michael Knotz & Mia Katharina Gandenberger & Flavia Fossati & Giuliano Bonoli, 2022. "A Recast Framework for Welfare Deservingness Perceptions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 927-943, February.
    9. Guillermina Jasso, 2012. "Safeguarding Justice Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(1), pages 217-239, February.
    10. Kim, Sehoon & Connerton, Timothy Paul & Park, Cheongyeul, 2022. "Transforming the automotive retail: Drivers for customers' omnichannel BOPS (Buy Online & Pick up in Store) behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 411-425.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0204631 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Knotz, Carlo Michael & Gandenberger, Mia Katharina & Fossati, Flavia & Bonoli, Giuliano, 2021. "Public attitudes toward pandemic triage: Evidence from conjoint survey experiments in Switzerland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    13. Martin Abraham & Natascha Nisic, 2012. "A simple mobility game for couples’ migration decisions and some quasi-experimental evidence1," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(2), pages 168-197, May.
    14. Van Borm, Hannah & Burn, Ian & Baert, Stijn, 2021. "What Does a Job Candidate's Age Signal to Employers?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Jennifer Kunz & Stefan Linder, 2011. "ZP-Stichwort: Vignetten-Experiment," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 211-222, January.
    16. Rüdiger Hahn & Thomas Pioch & Daniel Reimsbach & Frank Schiemann, 2025. "What Drives Carbon‐Reducing Investments? A Vignette Experiment on Managers' Decision‐Making From a Multilevel Perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 3008-3026, March.
    17. Valentine, Nicole & Verdes-Tennant, Emese & Bonsel, Gouke, 2015. "Health systems' responsiveness and reporting behaviour: Multilevel analysis of the influence of individual-level factors in 64 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 152-160.
    18. Tamás Keller, 2018. "Dare to Dream: A Vignette Survey on Self-Selection in Secondary Education Track Choice," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 23(2), pages 354-373, June.
    19. Katerusha, Dmytro, 2021. "Barriers to the use of recycled concrete from the perspective of executing companies and possible solution approaches - case study Germany and Switzerland," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    20. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    21. Kools, Lieke & Koning, Pierre, 2019. "Graded return-to-work as a stepping stone to full work resumption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 189-209.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:1808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Santiago Burone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csbuabe.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.