https://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mepyso_logo.png344904Torsten Schneiderhttps://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mepyso_logo-300x114.pngTorsten Schneider2022-04-11 16:36:342022-04-11 16:39:00Closing event with the BMAS
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.
https://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mepyso_logo-e1537892569468.png95250Torsten Schneiderhttps://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mepyso_logo-300x114.pngTorsten Schneider2022-03-02 17:11:592022-05-06 14:43:14New Publication: Constructions of Unemployed Individuals in German Parliamentary Debates on Active Labour Market Policy Reforms: A Comparative Analysis of 2003 and 2016
Since the reforms of the Social Code Book II in 2004/05, sanctions in the minimum income system have been considered a central pillar of the activating welfare state. However, in terms of social policy, it is often debated whether sanctions are generally permissible, since those affected then live (temporarily) below the socio-cultural subsistence level. In addition, the Federal Constitutional Court classified cuts above 30 % of the minimum income benefits as unconstitutional in 2019 and called for a reform process. A broad public acceptance of the changed sanction practice may be achieved if empirical evidence on the perception of such sanctions accompanies the reform process. This article investigates – based on a Vignette analysis – which sanctions are considered acceptable by the population, when hypothetical welfare recipients violate their obligation to cooperate. A majority of the representative German sample (N = 2621) favours sanctions up to 30 % of the minimum income benefit. Sole factors such as low levels of motivation to look for work, missed appointments with the specialist advisors or having a foreign-sounding name significantly increase the acceptance of sanctions amongst the wider public. Especially a combination of these factors increases the acceptance of placing sanctions on welfare recipients. In contrast, the age of the hypothetical benefit recipients plays a marginal role.
https://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mepyso_logo-e1537892569468.png95250Torsten Schneiderhttps://mepyso.phil.uni-siegen.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mepyso_logo-300x114.pngTorsten Schneider2022-01-05 10:26:222022-01-05 10:27:53New Publication: How much Money is Appropriate? A Vignette Study on the Acceptance of Sanctions in SGB II
Dr. Nadine Reibling