This dissertation analyzes the impact of the UK Coalition government's 2012 welfare reforms. Through qualitative interviews and a literature review, the student examines whether the reforms help those most in need. The literature suggests the reforms systematically target the poorest through sanctions and reduced benefits. Interviews show welfare cuts increase poverty and reliance on charities. The conclusion is that a generous welfare system is needed to reduce inequality rather than penalize the vulnerable. The reforms appear ideologically driven to shrink the welfare state rather than help those they aim to support.

1. Dissertation in Sociology with Education
Student Name: David Rhys Grinszpan
Student Number: 12020273
Supervisor: Dr Stephen Williams
Date of Submission: Friday 1st
of May 2015
Word Count: 10,633
DissertationQuestion:Docurrent welfare reforms helpthosewhoneedit
most?

2. Abstract
This report presents an analysis and critique of the current welfare system and the results of the
Coalitiongovernment’swelfare reforms, which began to take place in 2012. The initial argument is
based upon literature from Wilkinson and Pickett (2010), Jones (2012, 2014) and Mabbett (2014),
which argues that only a generous welfare state can lead people out of poverty and provide a
positive outcome for the economy. As opposed to the ideologically enforced austerity measures
being passed by the current government, which seeks to systematically blame those who require
welfare support in a way that is unfair and closely resembling a form of class warfare. This project
focuses on both previously conducted research, like those mentioned above and a group of
interviewswith people from different areas who have all experienced the effects of the shrinking
welfare budget and the increasing restrictions on access to financial support. The results of this
researchhave showna clearindicationthata reductionwelfarebenefitsandthe implementation of
sanctionsresultinhigherlevelsof povertyandacorrespondingrise inthe numberof peopleneeding
to relyoncharitable foundations like the Trussell Trust,whorunfood banks across the country. The
interview dataandaccompanyingliterature all show that the most effective way to reduce poverty
and help people back into work is the implementation of a generous welfare system that reduces
the financial pressures on vulnerable groups such as lone parent families, the elderly and the
disabled. The conclusive result shows that the introduction of welfare sanctions such as the spare
room subsidy and the withholding of benefits have systematically targeted the poorest and most
vulnerable membersof societyandiscausingincreasedfinancial pressure toculminateinawidening
of the disparity between the richest and the poorest in society and the destruction of vital public
services, which provide the necessary infrastructure for a more balanced society.

3. Contents:
Page 1 – Introduction
Page 2-5 – Methodology
Page 6-12 – Literature Review
Page 13-28 – Findings and analysis
Page 29-30 – Conclusion
Page 31-36 – Bibliography

4. Introduction
The question that this paper attempts to answer is “do current welfare reforms benefit those who
needitmost?”The researchattemptstoanalyse whetherwelfare reformsintroduced in the welfare
reform act 2012 have had a positive or negative effect on the poorest members of society, which
wouldinclude familieswithahistory of welfare dependency, the elderly, the disabled and families
withan income belowthatof the national average, who predominantly rely on at least one form of
in work benefit such as child tax credits and working tax credits. In the first section the paper will
discussthe bestwaysinwhichto findthe answerstothisquestionthroughmethodology.The second
chapter of the paper will look at previous work conducted in the field and the corresponding
literature, which provides a basis for my research and examples of how to achieve a strong
conclusiontomyargument. Chapter three will focus on my findings and analysis and will be where
the bulk of my argument is based by analysing my primary data, gathered from interviews with
benefit recipients and taking into account real life experiences of changes brought on by the
introductionof welfarereformsandthe impacttheyhave hadon societyonan individual levelandas
a whole. The final chapter of this dissertation will draw together all the data I have gathered and
explain how the answer to my question was reached in a concluding argument that highlights the
importance of the welfare state and the necessity to protect it as part of a compassionate society,
and whetherthe benefitsreformsintroducedby the Coalition government are ideologically driven.
Additionally I will attempt to argue whether the existence of a generous welfare state breeds a
culture of welfare dependencyorwhetheragenerouswelfare system provides a means of reducing
inequality in a society where the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in society has grown
consistently larger over the past decade.

5. Methodology
Considering the theoretical and ideological viewpoints that are clearly present when discussing
welfare andthe overall economicandsocial impactthatsurroundsits policies, it is important to use
a variety of research methods in order to collect the most relevant and information rich data. It is
critical that the information gathered during my research is entirely relevant to the research
question“Do currentCoalitionwelfare policy really help those who need it most?” The majority of
my research will be conducted using qualitative research methods that strictly conform to the
ethical guidelinessetforthbythe BritishSociological Association and the University of South Wales
withregardsto avoidance of harm, deception and the use of anonymity when discussing evidence
given by interview participants (BSA 2002). As most of the data I will be collecting through my
research is opinion and experience based it would be difficult to support my conclusions using
largelyquantitative methods.Ibelieve that using mostly qualitative research methods will provide
my data witha greatdeal of richand profoundinformationandtherefore yield the most conclusive
evidence to base my research on.
However, deciding to base my research on mainly qualitative research does open the data to
criticism,asmanybelieve qualitativedata to be biased toward the opinion of the researcher and in
many cases highly unscientific as it relies on opinion rather quantifiable facts. These flaws with
qualitative researchalsoallow the possibility that any information gathered may be unreliable as I
may be seenascreatingmeaningindata where there is none in order to suit my own hypothesis. It
is therefore necessary that I also use quantitative research techniques in order to corroborate my
hypothesis from all angles and add surety to my collected data in order to safeguard my research
and acquired data from the chance of being corrupted by researcher bias. However, It is still
essential that the majority of the data gathered is through qualitative methods such as semi -
structured on unstructured interviews so that I can guarantee my research is full of peoples’ real
worldexperiencesof the welfare state andprovide myparticipants with the opportunity to provide

6. greater detail to my questions than could be possible using quantitative methods. Qualitative
research also provides the best opportunity to allow information to gather organically through
conversationandguarantee participantsthe opportunitytomake theirthoughtsandfeelings heard.
Being as the majority of my primary research will be conducted in order to determine the
characteristics and definitions of welfare policy and gauge the public’s opinions, beliefs and
interpretationsonthe state of the current welfare system in the UK it would be unsuitable to base
my primaryresearchsingularlyonquantifiable methodsandstatistics. However, there are statistics
fromdifferentorganisations such as the UK governments’ Department for Work and Pensions, The
Joseph Rowntree Foundation and relevant theoretical literature used in my findings in order to
corroborate my findingsfromthe qualitativeresearch.The main advantages of qualitative research
isthat it providesthe researcherwithanabundance of richdata,which can provide a more detailed
understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings and beliefs about a certain topic and encourages
people tofeel atease andopenupabout theirownexperiences.Thiskindof datais in essence what
sociologyisall about,because of the richsocial data and insightintosociety thatisparamounttothe
field and the movement towards positive social change Burns 2000; Punch 2006). Although
quantitative research and statistics were used in my research, they were treated with caution as
statisticscan also be subject to bias and can often hide the true number, especially when covering
sensitivesubjects such as vulnerable people and welfare. There is also the chance that the criteria
under which the figures were gathered may not suit the research criteria of your choice. For
example, government employment statistics would show that unemployment in the UK is at its
lowestrate indecades.However,whatthatfigure doesnotshow isthatthe fall in unemployment is
mainlydowntothe addition of zero-hour contracts to the labour market, which have distorted the
figurestosuitthe current government’sagendaandportraytheirpolicies in a more positive light. It
is for that reason that more faith will be given to the data collected through qualitative methods.

7. The main bodyof my primary data will be obtainedusingsemi-structured interviews, which consist
of mainlyopenendedquestionswithpeople fromavarietyof different situations, who have varied
experiencesof the welfare system.The use of openendedquestionswill allowthe interview to take
on a more natural and relaxedfeeling,hopefullyputtingthe interviewee at ease and allowing me to
listen to what people have to say on the subject rather than simply asking regimented questions
withno roomfor elaboration,whichwill provideme withinsightsintothe waypeople feelaboutthe
state of the current welfare system, and hopefully provide me thoughts and ideas that would not
have occurredto me underdifferentcircumstances.Ihave decidedtoconductteninterviews for my
research as I believe that the effects of the welfare system are broad and have a wide range of
outcomesand experiences for people in different situations (Oakley 1999). Therefore I have been
able to obtaininterviewswith threepeople whorelyon a variation of different benefit bayments. I
have also been in the process of acquiring an interview with a member of the local job centre, as I
believe it is important for the sake of balance to have the opinions of someone who rather than
relying on the support of welfare, is responsible for deciding whether those who request aid are
eligible to receive it. This way I can also learn the routines and strict guidelines that government
officials must follow when processing claims for welfare, and whether they have been trained
adequately for the position, which entails a great deal of responsibility. However in order to
consolidate myfindingsfromthe interviews I will also be using an online questionnaire containing
both open and closed questions. This will allow me to corroborate the data collected from the
interviews and provide me with quantifiable data necessary to ensure my researches reliability
(Strauss 1987; Anderson 2009).
As some of my interviews will be conducted with members of society that could be considered
vulnerable,i.e.the elderly,Ihave takenstepstoensure thatnone of the questions I ask and none of
the informationIwill publishcancause harmto any of the people takingpartinmyresearchproject.
Therefore, I have clearly communicated to all participants prior to their respective interviews that
any information given will be published under pseudonyms in order to protect the participant’s

8. identities and thus prevent others from linking any sensitive information to them (Mann And
Stewart2000; Reed2007). All intervieweeshave alsobeeninformedof whowill seethe information
theyhave provided, and were then asked if they were willing for any information I gathered to be
usedas part of my research,and all readily consented. It is also crucial that during my research as a
memberof the Universityof SouthWalesIensure thatnothingIdo will inanyway negativelyimpact
on the university. Therefore, I have ensured that I have not mentioned the university during
interviews or on my online questionnaires. This step has ensured that no damage can come to the
universities reputation and that no reputational damage can be done to my interview subjects
thanks to their anonymity.

9. Literature Review
Whenresearchingwelfare and poverty as I have chosen to do for my dissertation there is a wealth
of information available to uphold any argument. As the welfare system in the UK is a widely
debatedtopicthroughoutthe countryasmany people depend upon the welfare system in order to
survive, many authors and social commentators have given in depth views on the subject using a
variety of media sources, from books and newspaper articles to online journals and television
interviews. The main issue that arises with such a vast amount of information is deciding which
sourcesprovide the moststable basesforyour argument. My research will focus on the theory that
the current welfare systeminthe UKsince the Coalition’swelfarereformactof 2012 not onlyfailsto
help those in need of welfare support in any form, but instead seeks to penalise and sanction the
poor fora global economicstruggle thatwasnofaultof the workingclassand furtherentrenchesthe
victim blaming culture of right wing politics that argues that the poor are poor because it is the
natural order of society.
The literature Ihave usedformy researchwill show thatthe UK government has developed its new
welfare policies have been developed in a post-recession global economy, which has included
spending cuts in public services, which have systematically attacked the poor in the name of
ideological austeritythatreducesthe amountof money available for use on welfare and other vital
public services that allow even the poorest members of society in a world leading economy to
maintain a basic standard of living (Giddens 2013).
In orderto demonstrate the ideological backgroundusedinthe creationof the welfarereformssuch
as the spare roomsubsidytax (bedroomtax),personalindependence payment, universal credit and
the developmentof benefitssanctionsIhave usedthe workof OwenJones’“Chavs:Demonizationof
the workingclass”(2012), andJones’otherbook“The Establishment:And How They Get Away With
It” (2014), that emphasisesthe waysinwhichcorporate culture andgreedexploitsthe work force in
orderto maximise profitswithoutanythoughtof the consequencesthatbefallthe economy,society

10. and the workingpeople .Thisresearchclearlyhighlightsthatalthoughthe conservatives portray the
image of wanting to help the vulnerable be more independent and return to work, their ultimate
goal is a shrinking of the welfare state to its absolute minimum and thus putting the onus on the
individualtolookafterthemselves.Thisideology attempts to essentially lead Britain into a state of
individualismthatleavesadiminishedresponsibilityfor the state, and therefore blaming those rely
on welfare forbeing “feckless, work-shy, amoral, dirty, sexually debauched and even animal-like”
(Jones2012, p24). Also,ithasbeenshownthatdespite the governments’attemptstostereotypethe
poor andworkingclasswhoreceive benefits,sixtypercent of those who in fact receive any form of
benefit also work (Plunkett 2013). This viewpoint is supported by research undertaken by the
National Equalitypanel whoworkalongsidethe JosephRowntree Foundation, which found that the
amount of people in the UK who suffer from ‘deep poverty’, which equates to less than forty per
centof medianhouseholdincomesissix million,whichalsoequatestofortyfive percentof all those
believedtobe sufferingfrompovertyof one formoranother.Thisproportionof people is at highest
since 1979 andhas occurred as a resultof welfare reformsthattarget working families and families
with only one incoming wage (NPI 2014).
In order to maintain my hypothesis that current government welfare reforms are an ideological
attack on the poor, it is of utter importance that the idea of poverty itself is discussed in order to
decide onan absolute definitionof poverty.The WorldBankgivesabroad interpretationbydefining
poverty as pronounced deprivation in well-being (World Bank 2010). However, there are two
differentdefinitionsof povertyuseddependingonwhetheryouconformtoa conservative or liberal
ideology.Accordingtoconservative ideologists,those inpovertyare those whosufferfrom absolute
poverty. In order to be suffering from absolute poverty you must not have enough physical
requirementsinordertomaintainlife.Usingthisdefinition,conservatives would argue that nobody
inthe UK suffersfromabsolute poverty.However,thisstatementhasbeendiscreditedbynumerous
organizationssuchasthe ChildPovertyActionGroup,whoshow thatthere are currently three and a
half millionchildrenlivinginpoverty(CPAG2014), the Trussell Trust,whose statisticsindicatethat in

11. 2013/14 over nine hundred thousand people required emergency food and support because they
could not afford to feed their families (Trussell Trust 2015); and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
who argue that since the implementation of the 2012 welfare reforms the number of people
sleepingroughinthe UK has risenexponentially(JRF2014). There isalso a recent survey conducted,
which shows that over 100,000 children have gone hungry as a result of their parents being
sanctioned under the 2012 reform act (Johnston 2015). These statistics are more in line with the
more liberal ideological definitionof poverty,whichistodescribe poverty as relative. This has been
defined by the European Commission as living below 60 per cent of the median income of the
country.Put simply,relativedeprivationrelatestohow much the poorest in society have compared
to the richest in society (European Commission 2011).
UsingTitmuss’three modelswe candeduce thatthe coalitionisattemptingtorevertthe UK welfare
systemtoa residual welfare model,where servicesshouldbe profitable, and therefore provided by
private companies to reduce the responsibilities of the state. However, this model is believed to
produce greaterdisparitybetweentopandbottomearners,and unjustly sanction the working class
whilst reducing the responsibility of those at the top to those at the bottom (Titmuss 1965; Jones
2012). Others believe that this model compounds the difficulty for the most vulnerable such as
migrants and children. Research shows that Migrants from both inside and outside of the EU are
more likelyto be livinginpovertythanthe average indigenousperson, but they are also more likely
to be paid lower wages for the same jobs and thereby exploited by employers. Working class
childrenare alsomore likelytocontinue livingin poverty as they enter adult life, and are also more
likelytoleave school withfewerqualifications,sufferfrommalnutritionandotherhealthcomplaints
(Lelkes 2010; Lister 2004, 2011).
According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) the universal credit system being
introduced gradually in 2013 and nationwide in 2016 was devised to prevent people falling into
povertytraps,where people were oftengiventhe choice of workinglonger hours and lose benefits,

12. reducingthe amountof money they brought in or to work less and earn more through the benefits
system (DWP 2010). The DWP say that because universal credit is income related that it will help
reducedthe povertylevelsof workingfamilies. However, receipt of universal credit which replaces
six different benefits will also hand down sanctions for those who refuse work. Those who refuse
any job offer within one year will lose three months’ worth of their benefits. These sanctions are
seen as incentive to work by the DWP (DWP 2012), but are seen as ways of punishing the poor and
leaving them trapped in a vacuum of debt from which it is almost impossible to climb out because
oftentheirsole source of income isthe benefitswhichtheyrelyoninorder to pay their bills (Dwyer
2012).
A reportintothe pilotingof universal creditinWarringtonbyChannel 4 has highlighted many of the
disastrous effects the universal credit system has had on the one thousand people piloting the
system,andon the amountthisnewbenefitschemehascostthe Britishtax payerbefore it has even
beenrolledouttothe rest of the country. The development of computer software designed to run
the universal creditsystem,whichwillsupposedly be handled entirely online has already cost over
one hundredandseventymillionpoundstodevelopandrectifyinitial errors.Inaddition,it has been
notedthat because of the universal creditsystemrunningentirelyonline,itis especially difficult for
those who cannot afford a computer and those who are unable to use a computer to access the
benefits to which they are entitled. The report found that of those that received the universal
credit, of which housing benefit is a part; they were not informed by government staff that the
money that was usually paid to their landlords directly was now being sent to their own accounts
and that they were then responsible for paying their landlords themselves. Due to this lack of
informationnine out of ten people who received the housing benefit were found to be in arrears,
compared with only four out of ten under the original housing benefit scheme. This change to the
previouslyusedsystemledtosome resortingtothe illegal use of loan sharks in order to ensure that
theywere able topay theirrent(Channel 42014; CharteredInstitute of Housing2014).The universal
credit system has also received widespread criticism for not being able to take into account the

13. complex situations of individual claimants and being overly narrow in its criteria for awarding
benefits.The policyhasalsobeencriticisedforits slow speed of development and its lack of ability
to inform those it affected of the necessary information they would need in order to claim (BBC
2013).
The spare roomsubsidyintroducedbythe governmentessentiallytargets five million people in the
UK who claimhousingbenefits.If those whoclaim housing benefit are found to be living in a home
with a spare bedroom, they are likely to be losing fourteen per cent of their housing benefit
(Chartered Institute of Housing 2014). Research by Mabbett indicates that the current welfare
reforms,withparticularemphasisonthe spare roomsubsidyare drivingdownthe standardof life of
the poorestmembersof societyatlargelythe same rate as the Thatcher government was able to do
withthe sellingof Britishmanufacturingtooverseascompanies (Mabbott 2014). The circumstances
createdviathe spare roomsanctions are especially cruel for the disabled. For example, those with
physical disabilities who require additional support from carers and social workers may also need
theirhomestobe modifiedinordertomeettheirspecificneeds.Socialhousinglike thisisespecially
rare and as a result is forcing disabled tenants to move further from their original home or face
losing some of their housing support as there is nowhere for them to go (Jenkins 2014). Further
research by the Chartered Institute of Housing shows that only fifteen per cent of those who are
registeredtodownsizetoa smallersocial housing property have been able to do so, because there
are not enough social housing units with only one or two bedrooms (Chartered Institute of Hosing
2014).
The personal independence paymenthasbeenone of the mostwidelycriticised policies introduced
by the governmentforitscallousattackon the vulnerableandfor the lives it has reportedly ruined.
This welfare reform has mostly been criticised because of the introduction of new disability
assessmentsrunbyAtos,a FrenchIT companyusedto determine people’s capabilities to work. It is
reported that these assessments have been the cause of a great deal of suffering for the disabled

14. whohave beenfoundfittowork despite continuingandoftensevere disabilities (Siddique 2014). In
a report bythe Guardian it was found that ten thousand six hundred people who were declared fit
to workby the Atoswork capabilityassessmentsdiedwithinsixweeksof being declared fit to work,
demonstratingthatthe assessmentsdidnotwork,butwere alsodirectlytargeting the vulnerable in
order to reduce the amount of people claiming incapacity benefits and thus conforming to
conservative ideology (Gentleman 2013; Channel 4 2014; DWP 2012). Many disabled people who
losttheirentitlementtodisability benefit as a result of this new policy have been forced to rely on
charities for support and some who suffer from mental health disorders have even died as from
starvationandotheravoidable healthproblemsasadirectresultof havingtheirbenefitentitlement
withdrawn (Johnston 2014). These results are proof that the government’s attempts to reduce the
amount of benefit being provided to the poor and vulnerable is causing unending hardship and
miseryforthe most vulnerable membersof oursocietyandhave even been described as killing the
mostvulnerable throughaformof passive euthanasia(Williams 2014). These findings also coincide
withnumerousworksbyTaylor-Gooby(2013, 2014, 2015), whousesnumerousreportsandresearch
criteria to argue that the undermining of the welfare state through budget cuts and restriction of
access is further increasing destitution and other hardships on the poor and vulnerable. He also
shows evidence of how a well-funded and more generous welfare system, in contrast to the
ideologicallydrivenwelfare systemunderthe coalitiongovernment can help people out of poverty,
into employment that is sustainable and benefit the economy.
In conclusion, my research has led me to research conducted by Wilkinson and Pickett released in
2010 for proposed changes to the way in which the government sees those less fortunate. This
researchdisplayshowcountrieswithasmallerdisparitybetweenthe finances of those at the top of
the economic spectrum and those at the bottom suffer less crime in all forms, a greater level of
social cohesionandfewerhealthproblemsthancountrieswherethere isalargergap betweenthose
at the top and those at the bottom (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010). They have also drawn a link
between mental health and inequality. The research concludes that in countries where the gap

15. between richand poor is greater, there are a higher percentage of people who suffer from mental
healthproblems.Therefore,itwouldbe agreatimprovementtothe countryas a whole tolower the
gap between rich and poor and build a more equal society within Britain (Wilkinson and Pickett
2010).
In addition to this the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published an
economic review in 2014, which showed categorically that a more generous welfare system that
helpsbringpeople outof povertyinsteadof blamingpeoplefortheireconomicpovertyand a higher
rate of taxation for those in middle and higher income brackets helps to fuel the economy, bring
down social exclusion and improve the wealth of the entire country, not just those at the top. In
conclusion this report shows that higher taxes and a more generous welfare system make us all
richer (OECD 2014). The OECD have also suggested that raising the national minimum wage would
also help to stimulate the economy in the long term and help those on minimum wage incomes
alleviate financial constraints and stimulate growth in the economy. This research demonstrates
how the political ideology of the conservative led coalition, who created welfare sanctions to
victimize,stereotype andblame the poorfortheirowneconomicsituation,wasdesignedin order to
keepthe majorityof the wealthinBritaininthe hands of only a few wealthy elites, whist creating a
victimblamingculture inthe UK that ensures the poor and working class aren’t able to see the real
cause of their suffering.

16. Findings and analysis
The findingsof thisstudyhave beenconsistentwithevidence uncoveredinthe literature review and
previous studies of a similar nature, which have attempted to understand and analyse the
consequencesof a reduction in the welfare state in the United Kingdom and the underlying effect
this has on the sections of the population that rely on state funded welfare in order to survive.
In order to ensure that my research has stayed within ethical guidelines it was made clear at the
beginningof eachinterview thatparticipantsdetails and names would remain anonymous and that
no direct details that could incriminate them would ever be linked to them in any way in order to
protecttheirprivacyand ensure thatthere wasno formof deceptionandanavoidance of harm.This
allowed all of my participants to feel relaxed and more willing to share information that might be
consideredembarrassingorevenharmful totheirreputationorwellbeing. It was also made clear at
the beginningof mypublishedonline surveythat participants would remain anonymous in order to
protect their anonymity and to avoid deception. It was also necessary to inform interview
participants of what my research was based on. However, it was important not to tell them my
opiniononthe subjectsoas to avoidintroducinginterviewerbias into the interviews and to avoid a
situationwhere participantsonlycommunicatedwhattheythoughtwouldhelp me arrive atmy own
conclusion. Thistype of biaswouldbe misrepresentative of true public thoughts and feelings about
the Coalition’s welfare reform act introduced in 2012. It must be stated that any information
gatheredfrommyonline questionnaire have beenomittedfrommyfindingsdue to a poor response
rate,whichdoesnot provide atrue representationof the populationsfeelings and does not provide
an accurate result of the thoughts and feelings of any of my chosen demographics.

17. Ideology:-
To beginmy results it is prudent to discover whether I have answered the question being asked in
this paper, and I believe I have through the information I have gathered through my interviews,
whichhave beenrichinfirst-handknowledgeof the experiencesof the general population and their
feelingsonhowthe government welfare reforms have impacted both them and the wider society.
I also believe that my primary data has emphasised and corroborated the conclusions that were
drawnduringmy literature research,whichisthatcurrentwelfare reformshave negativelyimpacted
the poorestmemberof societyandthose inlow payingwork whilst providing a further platform for
the rich rulingclassto exploitlabour,demonisethose whorely on welfare payments from the state
and stigmatise the most vulnerable members of society.
These findingswill aimtoshowthatthe government and media stereotyping of the poor and those
on welfare isentirelyideological and exempt from the reality of poverty, and that austerity, which
has a directimpacton welfare expenditure is an unnecessary exploitation of the poor by the ruling
classin orderto maximise profitsandpunishthe poor fora global financial crisis for which, the poor
and working class were not responsible for.
For the first section of my findings I will be focussing on the ideology of the Coalition’s welfare
reformsandhow participantsperceive politiciansandhow theycreate policies.Duringthe interview
with Sam, a part-time college lecturer who found his way into work through education after many
years of welfare dependency argues that it is impossible for a coalition government made up of
mostlywealthy,privatelyeducatedpoliticians that have never had to work on low wages or rely on
welfare support of any kind to understand the hardship that welfare reforms cause for the most
vulnerable in society, and that these reductions in public expenditure are fuelled purely on an
ideological theory that the rich are simply more deserving and the poor are poor because they are
less capable. Sam’s feelings of dissatisfaction and anger with the way the current politically elite

18. system and its lack of empathy for the poor, struggling and vulnerable people of the UK when he
suggested that:
“In a very real sense they have no understanding or experience of conditions of life of the
poor. They’ve come from backgrounds of privilege, so that’s easy for them to have attitudes
about the poor that are detached from any real experience. Like eugenics, the poor are poor
because they’re biologically inferior. This thinking is still in the background of all political
rhetoric.”
Thisattitude andbelief that politicians are now ideologically driven to punishing the poor through
welfare sanctions is legitimised through work by Craine (1997) and Jones (2012, 2014) who argues
that the shrinking of the welfare state is leading the UK into a state of individualisation and
selfishness that destroys community cohesion and turns working class people against each other
through the use of media propaganda and political rhetoric, which seeks to punish the poor for
beingpoorusingvictimblamingtoavert public attention from the realities of suffering of the poor
and vulnerable members of society. This argument towards dangerous ideological reform can be
demonstratedthroughthe effects of the spare room subsidy, which has been heavily criticised for
heavilysanctioningthe poorandcreating further economic hardship for those who can least afford
it profit at the expense of the working class (Mabbett 2012, Jones 2015).
The rhetoricof the workingclassfecklessattitudesanddependencyculture are addressedbyKelly,a
who has seen a rise in welfare claimants since the 2008 global economic crisis and argues that
people are willingtowork,butthat punishingandvictimisingpeople for not being able to find work
when there are so few jobs available is a ludicrous notion. This demonization of the poor only
increases the strain on public services in a time where public service budgets are being drastically
reduced,whichasa result means that many vulnerable people with little understanding of how to
claim the benefits they are entitled to are not being given sufficient support and are being
marginalised and are suffering simply due to the fact that the current government has built its

19. welfare reformsfromanideological standpointthathasno credible basis and has been criticised on
numerous occasions for its lack of empathy and understanding of the suffering that a reduction in
welfare payments causes those with little or no other means of income.
“These ideasaboutchangingwelfare are definitely sensationalised by people who have never had
to budget and have no real world experience.” Her suggestion is that a reduction in the welfare
budget further increases poverty and feckless attitudes towards work rather than encouraging
people to find work. It is argued that the further strain on public resources is also leading to a
fatalistic approach from poor families who have relied upon the welfare state for multiple
generations and see no positive reasons for finding work in unstable employment areas that pay
onlythe minimumwage,whichisnotenoughtobe able to afford to support a family with children.
It istherefore necessaryforthese familiesto rely on welfare payments in order to provide for their
children.Thistheme of poor employment opportunities is present throughout each interview and
can be summedbySamwho argues,“Youcan’t builda life around the type of work that’s available,
and evenforthe relativelywell qualified it’sstill zerohours and part time work”. The argument that
it isinfact a lackof opportunities for work rather than working class apathy has been corroborated
by the OECD who argue that a more generous welfare system provides a way out of poverty and
back intoemploymentbyreducingthe financialhardshipsof the poorestsectionsof societywho are
then free to find work and contribute to public funding through taxation, which as a result would
improve the economic wealth of the country (OECD 2014).
Furtherevidence suggeststhatagreat deal of welfare expenditureisgiventopeopleinemployment
but are unable to support them and their families on short-term or minimum wage employment,
such as Sara, a workingsingle motherwhoreliesonworking tax credits and housing benefits to top
up her wages, which are insufficient to be able to afford to live independently and care for her
family. This statement is supported by statistics which show that in the UK the majority of
householdsliving in poverty are in fact in work, which suggests that the majority of available work

20. does not provide a high enough source of income and that the only way to survive is to rely on
benefits of one form or another. The main strategy put forward in this analysis is to raise the
minimum wage to a living wage, which rises to cope with the increased cost of living, and thus
alleviate the need to rely on the state to subsidise poor wages and freeing up extra money to be
spent on other public services (Taylor-Gooby 2013).
Sara arguesthat she wouldbe happyto live onherfull time wage alone if itwere possible to be able
to pay her bills without the help of welfare adding to her low wages. However, she argues that, “I
couldn’tlive how I live without working tax credits and child tax credits, because my wages do not
cover the cost of my rent and my bills.” Sara also believes that your social situation and chances of
steady well-paying employment rely greatly on social position and the economic position of a
person’s family and that the social and education systems are geared towards maintaining the
disparitybetweenthe richandpoorrather thancreatinga more equal andmeritocraticsociety. Sara
also makes reference to the effects of socialisation by suggesting that it’s not the fault of wealthy
politiciansthattheyare unable to see circumstances from the perspective of the poor and working
classbecause theywere raisedunder entirely different circumstances, which suggests that current
welfare sanctions and victim blaming ideology can be seen as a strongly structured form of class
warfare that seeks to further isolate the working class from all forms of wealth and ensure the
maximisation of profit through a reduced welfare state and low wages (Jones 2014).

21. Spare Room Subsidy:-
As Kellyhasargued,welfaresanctionssuchasthe spare room subsidyhave beenpoorlythoughtout
and are havinga detrimentalimpactonthe qualityof life of the disabledand elderly couples whose
childrenhave lefthome,orrequire the use of a spare room for part-time care workers and medical
equipment.“If thisideahadeventhe slightestchance of working, they needed to build more social
housingforpeople todownsizetobefore theythoughtof implementing it.” However, it seems that
the government’s current welfare reform that sanctions people for under occupying homes is
fracturingcommunitiesandfurthermarginalising vulnerable people by forcing them to relocate to
areas where they have no ties to the community, but this was a result of the right to buy scheme
that did not work back then and won’t work now because there simply are not enough houses
available for people who do not have sufficient funds to buy their homes. This move to reduce
welfare expenditure byattackingthe livingsituationsof the poorand arguingthat those who rely on
housing benefits should either sub-let spare rooms or downsize to smaller properties is a clear
indicationof idealisticexploitation and stigmatisation of welfare claimants similar to the actions of
the Thatcher governments attempt to privatise the housing market in order to create corporate an
ideological culture of individualism where a person’s only responsibility is to themselves and their
own success (Mabbett 2012; Taylor-Gooby 2013).
The concept that those living in state funded accommodation are living beyond their means at the
expense of working people is a key concept of the government’s argument that those on benefits
shouldnothave a largerincome thanthose whowork. Althoughthe conceptistrue andmany agree,
including Sara who says “To get anywhere or achieve anything you should have to work. Nobody
shouldgetanythingforfree.” However, it fails to accommodate those who are unable to work due
to longstanding health issues and other problems. Additionally, Sara clarified her comments by
suggestingthatthe minimumwage shouldbe raisedtoensure thatpeople who work do not require
additional financial support from the government, and that those with long term welfare

22. dependency who are unable to find work should be incentivised to search for work rather than
punished. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that sanctions as opposed to a
more generouswelfaresystemisincreasingthe likelihoodof people beingforcedintopovertyrather
than incentivisingpeople tofindwork,which in large parts of the country in unavailable (JRF 2014).

23. Universal Credit:-
The Universal Credit system is designed to make the welfare system easier to understand to a
perceivedovercomplexity that supposedly stops those entitled to certain benefits from receiving
them.However,ithas been argued that universal credit, which has not yet been set out across the
country is completely incapable of ensuring those who require certain benefits will receive them,
due to itscomplete reliance onITandthe lackof informationbeingpassedontobenefitsrecipients.
The universal creditsystemessentiallyplaces six forms of benefit payments together, consisting of
jobseekersallowance,housingbenefit,workingtax credit,childtax credit,employment and support
allowance and income support (GOV 2015). Although this seems to be a logical solution to the
interpretationof adifficultwelfare system that has been described as complicated to navigate, the
universal creditsystemhasfailedinitsattempttosimplifythe welfare system. Many argue that the
idea of simplifying the welfare system narrows criteria for claimants who have a broad range of
issuesandcircumstances,which under the proposed changed could be missed or result in a loss of
benefits or a misinterpretation of certain criteria Taylor-Gooby 2014, 2015).
“It’ssupposedtohelppeople live more independentlives,butuntil youexplaintopeople how
these changesaffectthemthenit will onlycause problemsbecause people will be wondering
where the extramoneyintheiraccountiscoming from and won’t know what it’s supposed to
be used for.”
The above statement from Kelly is testament to one of the main criticisms of the universal credit
systemandit’sfailingtohelpthose whorequire welfare support from the state. The main criticism
of the universal creditsystemisthe lackof informationavailable to the public about which benefits
will be affected and how people will need to manage their finances differently and with more
personal responsibility.Duringthe trial inWarrington,whichhadone thousandparticipants in order
to test the readiness for the universal credit scheme to be rolled out to the public, many of those
usingthe systemwere unsure of exactlywhatthe additional moneyintheiraccountswasforas their

24. newfinancial obligationssuchaspayingtheirownrentwere notclearlyexplainedtothemat the job
centre. As a result of this lack of support, nine out of every ten participants fell into arrears due to
unpaidrent,whichbefore the universal creditsystemwasintroduced,waspaiddirectly to landlords
(TUC 2014). This ledtoincreasedfinancial constraintsonhouseholdswith very minimal income and
insome cases ledtoundue sanctioning or deferral of welfare payments, which further entrenched
people inpovertywithoutahelpful meansof escape.Asaresult, causing additional alienation from
mainstream society and further widening of the gap between those on the base and peak of the
economic spectrum (Chartered Institute of Housing 2014).
In addition,alarge criticismof the universal creditsystemisitslackof accessibilityforthose without
the required levels of computer literacy necessary to access necessary paperwork, which
disproportionatelyaffectsthe elderly.Allinterview participants have stated that they worry for the
elderly within their family who rely on any of the aforementioned benefits grouped within the
universal creditsystemastheydonothave the computer skills necessary to access vital funds. “My
mum can barely get to grips with her mobile phone, let alone a computer.” This statement
highlights the lack of awareness that those currently in government have of the difficulties that
vulnerable people face in their daily lives, and the adverse effects of ideological welfare reform
(Gentleman2015).This problemwillnotonlyadverselyaffectthe elderlybutalso the very poor that
lack access to such items as a home computer. As has been stated by both Kelly and Sara, those in
rural areaswhocan’t affordto take publictransportwheneverthe need to access a computer arises
will find themselves further marginalised and unable to access the vital support they need.
In response itwassuggestedthatsharedproblemssuchasa lack of accessibility could be helped by
usingcommunitycentrestohelpvocalise common problems within the community. However, due
to the decrease inpublicexpenditure a large number of community groups and even social service
departments who are able to help with financial difficulties are finding it difficult to reach all the
people who are adversely affected by these changes to the welfare system. As a result, greater

25. amountsof people who find themselves without benefits are relying on charities in order to keep
themselves and their families from starving, as is highlighted in the report that show food bank
consumption having risen by over 1000% since the Coalition government entered power in 2010
(Beattie 2015). These figures further demonstrate the levels of inequality in equality in the UK, as
the top ten per cent of earners have become wealthier since the 2008 financial crisis, the bottom
twenty per cent of the population with regards to income have been adversely affected by the
introduction of an ideological austerity process and the reduction in welfare spending, which has
seen an unprecedented rise in the number of people living in food poverty who have to decide
whether to buy food or heat their homes (Bull and Harries 2013).

26. Personal Independence Payments and Work Capability Assessments:-
A greatdeal has beensaidaboutthe introduction of the personal independence payments and the
concept of continual reassessment of the disabled in order to claim their benefits payments.
Research has underlined the unnecessary harm this causes form of welfare reform has caused the
disabledthroughcontinual reassessment and the use of Atos assessments, which have since been
halteddue totheirpoor performance and failure to ascertain correctly whether a person truly is fit
to work.As a social worker,Kelly provides a first-hand account of how unfair these work capability
assessmentshave beenandthe damagingeffectthattheyhave hadonthe lives of many vulnerable
people.
“What they were really doing wasn’t assessing whether or not you were capable of living
independentlyorwhetheryouhadthe capacity to work,buthow muchpain they could put
you through before you gave in and they could take your money away from you. People
have criedto me saying they have no money, and it’s not just the financial effect of these
assessmentsbutthe psychological damage andstressitdoes.It’snotfair,it’sdehumanising
and it ruins people’s lives.”
Kelly’sknowledge of workcapabilityassessmentsfurtherhighlightsthe damage caused to the lives
of the disabledbyideologicallytargetingthe poorandthe vulnerable inorder to reduce the state’s
welfare expenditure.Thisconceptisfurthercorroboratedbyresearchthatshowshow the mentally
ill have been unduly targeted and exploited by these assessments and how the redefining of
disabilitybenefitsisresponsible foragreatdeal of damage to the lives of many vulnerable people
(Beresford2013).This damning report undertaken by the People’s Review of the Work Capability
Assessmentshighlightsthe lackof awareness bythe DWPand the total lack of responsibility of the
consequences of these assessments by the DWP or the doctors at Atos who perform the
assessments. The systemof reassessmentforpeople withlongtermandoftenincurable conditions
has been criticised on numerous occasions for being not fit for purpose. As Sara states, “Who’s

27. goingto regrowa missinglimb?They’re justawaste of time and money that could be better spent
somewhere else, and then they say there isn’t enough to go around.” The fact that the Atos run
workcapabilityassessmentshave beenscrappeddue towidespreadpubliccondemnationisfurther
evidence that the current government places little thought as to the real consequences of their
welfare reforms,whichare directlyaffectingthe livesof millions of people around the UK. Figures
publishedbefore the workcapabilityassessmentsrunby Atos were paramount in pointing out the
harmful effectsof the assessmentsbyshowingthat many thousands of people died from illnesses
withinsix weeksof beingjudgedasfitto workand notneedinganyformof personal independence
payments, although the direct figure is under constant revision. (Chivers 2014). This statistic
highlights the lack of forethought and empathy the government shows towards the sick and the
vulnerable in society, whether they be disabled or merely unable to find stable employment.
“It all reeksof social Darwinismreally,the factthatdisabledpeopleare beingmade tojump
through hoops just shows how little they care as long as they can save money. We’re all
expendable if someone canmake aprofit.It’sgoingto affectthe elderlyaswell,they won’t
wantto be pokedandproddedlike cattle.It’stotallyinhumane and something our country
should be ashamed of.”
The above quotation from Sam simply highlights the negative opinion the public has of how the
governmenttreatsthe disabledinoursocietywithassessmentsthatare entirelyincapable of judging
a person’s physical and mental capabilities, which are putting vulnerable people at risk of very
avoidable harm.These evidence furtherpointstowardsthe factthatthe welfare reforms introduced
in 2012 are the result of an ideological concept that profit and free market economics is the most
importantpart of society and that human suffering is merely an unavoidable by-product. Professor
Beresford’s report continually lists instances where those with deteriorating conditions were
adjudgedtobe capable of workingandtherefore had their disability benefit entitlements revoked,
whichleftthe vulnerable tosituations that should be non-existent in a modern country with one of

28. the largesteconomiesinthe world. The workcapabilityassessmentshave alsohad lasting effects on
the confidence of people, whichhasfurtherisolatedvulnerable people from mainstream society, as
though they had less worth than the able bodied who were able to contribute to society on an
economic basis (Jones 2012; Beresford 2013).

29. Attitudes To Welfare:-
All the aforementioned evidence shows conclusive proof that welfare reforms introduced by the
Coalition government in 2012 have disproportionately affected the lives of the poorest and most
vulnerable members of society, whilst at the same time many of the wealthiest people in society
have become evenricher. Despite thisclearideological agendatoreduce the welfare state andleave
a great deal of state responsibility in the hands of individuals and charitable organisations, many
people in working class communities who suffer from the same social issues as one another have
negative attitudes toward others who receive any kind of welfare support.
However,researchshowsthatthe widelyheldview among the political elite that those dependent
on benefitsare sobecause theyeitherdon’twanttowork or refuse to work hard enough is entirely
untrue. One statistic that would refute this claim is that the majority of households that claim
benefitshave atleastone familymemberinwork(Taylor-Gooby 2013). There has been resentment
towardsbenefitclaimantsthathasbuiltupduringthe UK’s periodof austerity,whichhasculminated
in the general population having less sympathy for those who need financial support. All three
interview participantshowever, disagree withstereotypethatthose onbenefitsare merely workshy
or fecklessastheyargue that the vastmajorityof people claimingwelfare would rather have steady
employmenttoimprove theirfinancial situationsand give themselves a feeling of self-worth. Sera
argues that television programmes such as Benefits Street only serve to perpetuate stereotypes
aboutthe poorand are causingincreasedtension and resentment in working class communities, “I
don’t even watch programmes like Benefits Street because I’ll end up throwing something at the
telly.” This argument suggests that many of the negative thoughts about benefit claimants have
risen due to the use of the mass media by governments to perpetuate the idea that an overly
generous welfare state is one of the main causes for the current period of austerity in the UK, and
that a generous welfare system breeds a culture of welfare dependency.

30. Furtherevidence alsoshowsthe conceptof apathyamongthe poorto be an ideologicallymotivated
attack on the poorestinsocietybyshowingthatthe government’swelfare toworkscheme designed
to incentivise people into work no matter how poor the pay is fundamentally designed to improve
the livingstandardsforthose inthe higherlevelsof the economicspectrum.Itistherefore simple to
argue that the use of media indoctrination, which classifies benefits as the big problem in today’s
growinglyunequalsocietybythe political elite isawayof separatingcommunitiesand manipulating
people intobelievingthat whatthe governmentsuggestsinthe formof welfare reforms and a cut to
public services as the logical step forward for the UK (Chomsky 2012; Atkinson 2013). These
thoughts also align with the argument put forward by Craine (1997), that the politically elite have
adopted a victim blaming culture in order to divert blame for their own failings and the failings of
capital onto the shoulders of the poor and working class.
“The underlyingstrategyisderivedfromfree marketeconomics,neo-liberal agenda,which is
aboutentrenching free market or market like principles in all areas of life including health,
education and welfare. What it’s really doing is separating communities, breeding
resentment and ensuring that the more well off people in society will always benefit. The
mythology is that there’s work there, but there isn’t actually enough work for people who
need it, and hasn’t been since we sold off our manufacturing services.”
Sam bringsupthe argumentthatthe negative issuessurroundingthoseon benefits is a symptom of
a lack of opportunityforpeople tofindsteadyemployment,whichcouldserve asaway of improving
people’slivingstandards.He isalsoan advocate forraisingthe minimumwage,whichwould free up
a great deal of welfare expendituresothatpeople like himself,SaraandKellywouldnothave to rely
on inworkbenefitstotopup theirwagesthathave beencontinuouslystagnatingandhave not risen
along with the rising costs of living. This concept of a living wage is also supported by economists
whoargue that a livingwage wouldimprove the life standardsof manyandfree upadditional funds,

31. whichcouldbe collectedthroughtaxesandtherebyreturnedtothe publicservicesfundand making
a positive contribution to the economy (Piketty 2014).

32. Conclusion
Due to the conclusive evidence gathered,Ihave come tothe conclusionthe currentwelfare reforms
such as universal credit,personal independence payments and the spare room subsidy do not help
the poorestmembersinsocietyandthat the welfare to work scheme employed by the Coalition in
fact hinderspeople’schancesof reducingpovertylevelsinthe UKand improvingtheirqualityof life.
I have argued that the current welfare reforms introduced by the government in 2012 are
ideologicallydrivenandare unable tostandupto realistic scrutiny. The lasting effect of a reduction
in the welfare state is deeper levels of poverty for the bottom two fifths of society and a further
concentrationof wealthamongstaverysmall number of economically elite, which leads to greater
resentmentandincreasedsocialtension.These criticisms of ideologically driven welfare reduction
show that increased social and economic inequality breeds increased levels of mortality, mental
healthissuesandcrime,asisarguedby Wilkinsonand Pickett (2010), which show direct correlation
between inequality and social problems.
My Argument can also be supported by the information gathered from my interview participants,
who have all argued that a reduction in the welfare state and an introduction of sanctions to the
benefitssystemhave increasedeconomicpressureonthe most vulnerable members of society and
further increased the gap between the wealthiest and poorest members of society. This research
was conducted to highlight the way in which the poor and working class are negatively portrayed
both in the media and through government legislation. The underlying fact is that an ideological
austerity has been imposed on British society as a way of recovering from the global economic
collapse of 2008. However,the cause of the crisiswas notthe poorest sections of society, but those
at the verytopof the economicspectrum.Despitethis,governmentlegislationhasledtoanincrease
in wealth for the richest and a decrease in living standards and wealth for the poorest and most
vulnerable members of society unseen since the end of the Second World War.

33. An alternative toareductionof the welfare state andpublicexpenditure would be the introduction
of a livingwage,whichwould help those in minimum wage and low skilled jobs to be able to work
theirwayout of povertyand become more includedinwidersocietyand more bale to contribute to
the taxationsysteminsteadof relyingonstate fundedtopupsforwagesso low thattheydo not give
people enough income table to afford the basic standards of living. This would help to reduce the
levelsof inequalityinthe UKand bringcommunitiestogetherthrougharise in livingstandards and a
reduction of economicpressure,whilstalsoimprovingthe state of the British economy by widening
the levels of participation in the taxation system, which leads to a more fair and equal society and
improvedinfrastructurethatisnecessarytobuildasuccessful, inclusive and genuinely meritocratic
society.

34. Bibliography
Anderson, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth).
BBC (2013) Universal credit: Welfare reform 'poor value' watchdog says. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23963867.
Beattie, J. (2015) David Cameron's government sees desperate foodbank families soar by 1,665%,
Daily Mirror, [online]. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-
government-sees-desperate-5562487#ICID=sharebar_twitter.
Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2014) The impact of welfare reform on the Valleys. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/welsh-valleys-report-2014.pdf (Accessed 11
April 2015).
Benefits Britain: The Bedroom Tax (2014) Channel 4 Television, 27 October
Beresford, P. (2012) The People's Review of the Work Capability Assessment. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/The-Peoples-Review-of-the-Work-Capability-
Assessment.pdf. (Accessed 08 April 2015).
British Sociological Association. (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological
Association. Available at
http://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/27107/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf?1430257665784.
Bull, D. and Harries, E. (2013) BEYOND BEANS: FOOD BANKS IN THE UK. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Beyond-beans.pdf (Accessed: 10 April 2015).
Channel 4 (2013) Disability testing system causes 'misery and hardship'. Available at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-causes-misery-and-hardship.

35. Chartered Institute of Housing (2014) UK Housing Review 2014. (Available at:
http://www.cih.org/publication/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/publication/data/UK_Housing_
Review_2014)
Child Poverty Action Group. (2014) Child Poverty Facts and Figures. (Available at:
http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures).
Chivers,T.(2014) The '10,600 people diedwithinsix weeksof beingdeclaredfittoworkby Atos' stat
is simply wrong [online], Available at:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100279306/the-10600-people-died-within-
six-weeks-of-being-declared-fit-to-work-by-atos-stat-is-simply-wrong/
Craine, S. (1997) ‘The black magic roundabout: cyclical transitions, social exclusion and alternative
careers’, in MacDonald, R. Youth, the
‘Underclass’ and Social Exclusion, London, Routledge.
DWP (DepartmentforWorkand Pensions)(2012) IncapacityBenefits:Deathsof Recipients.Available
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223050/incap_de
cd_recips_0712.pdf.
DWP (Department for Work and Pensions). (2010) Universal Credit: Welfare That Works (London:
HMSO)
DWP (DepartmentforWorkand Pensions).(2012) FamilyResource Survey:UnitedKingdom 2010/11
(London: DWP)
Dwyer, P. (2012) ‘Creeping Conditionality in the UK: From Welfare Rights to Conditional
Entitlements?’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29 (2): 265:87.

36. European Commission. (2011) Poverty in Rural Areas of the EU, Brief no.1, May (Luxembourg:
European Commission)
Fitzpatrick, S. Bramley, G. Watts, B. Wilcox, S. and Pawson, H. (2014) The Homelessness Monitor.
(Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/homelessness-monitor).
Gentleman, A. (2013) Work capability assessments decision follows years of criticism, Guardian
[Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/22/work-capability-
assessments-criticism.
Giddens, A. and Sutton, W. (2013) Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Gov. (2015) Universal Credit. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit
Hartley-Brewer,J.(2015) Extendingthe righttobuyis economicallyilliterate andmorallywrong,The
Guardian, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-
economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html .
Jenkins, C. (2014) ‘’Bed Tax Forces people Out of Homes’’. Available at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/bed-tax-forces-people-out-of-homes.
Johnston, I. (2014) Benefit changes are killing the vulnerable, say campaigners, The Independent
[Online].Available at:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-changes-are-killing-
the-vulnerable-say-campaigners-9877872.html.
Johnston,I.(2015) Nearly100,000 of Britain's poorestchildrengohungry after parents' benefits are
cut, The Independent[Online},Availableat:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-
families/health-news/nearly-100000-of-britains-poorest-children-go-hungry-after-parents-benefits-
are-cut-10079056.html.
Jones, O. (2012) Chavs: The Demonization of The Working Class (London: Verso)

37. Jones, O. (2014) The Establishment: And how they get away with it (London: Allen Lane)
Jones,O.(2015) If you vote forthe Tories’righttobuy,where will your children live? The Guardian,
[Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/right-to-buy-
children-tories-pledge.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2014) REDUCING POVERTY IN THE UK: A COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE
REVIEWS. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Reducing-poverty-
reviews-FULL_0.pdf. (Accessed 17 February 2015).
Lelkes, O. (2010) Poverty Among Migrants in Europe (Vienna: European Centre for Welfare Policy
and Research)
Lister, R. (2004) Poverty (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Lister,R. (2011) ‘The Age of Responsibility:Social PolicyandCitizenship in the Early 21st Century’, in
Holden, C. Kilkey, M. and Romia, G. (Bristol: Polity Press)
Mabbett,D. (2014) The SecondTime asTragedy?Welfare ReformunderThatcher and the Coalition,
The Political Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 1, January–March 2013 [Online]. Available at:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b5b0db6c-61ec-
486d-b8da-ec9cf8e6447c%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=128.
Mann, C. and Stewart,F.(2000) InternetCommunication and Qualitative Research: A handbook for
researching on-line (London: Sage)
National EqualityPanel.(2014) An Anatomyof EconomicInequalityinthe UK:Reportof the National
Equality Panel (London: Government Equalities Office)
Oakley, A. (1997) People’s way of knowing: gender and methodology. Cited in Hood, S. Mayall, B.
and Oliver,S. (eds) Critical Issues in Social Research: Power and Prejudice (Buckingham: Open
University Press)

38. OECD (Office for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2014) Social Expenditure Update,
November. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2014-Social-Expenditure-Update-
Nov2014-8pages.pdf.
Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty First Century (Harvard: Harvard University Press).
Plunkett,J.(2013) ‘UnderGeorge Osborne'sbenefitcuts,it'sthe striverswhosuffermost’ Observer,
5 January [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/05/george-
osborne-benefit-cuts-strivers.
Reed,K.(2007) Bureaucracyand beyond:the impactof ethicsandgovernance procedures on health
research in the social sciences, Sociological Research Online, 12 (5). Available at:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/18.html.
Siddique, H. (2014) Atos quits £500m work capability assessment contract early, Guardian 8
February [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/27/atos-quite-
work-capability-assessment-contract-early.
Strauss,A.(1987) Qualitative AnalysisforSocial Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013) The Double Crisis of the Welfare State and What We Can Do About It.
Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/3550232/The_Double_Crisis_of_the_Welfare_State_and_What_We_Ca
n_Do_about_It. (Accessed 19 March 2015).
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013) The Wrong Way to Tackle Poverty. [online], Available at:
file:///C:/Users/Dave/Downloads/stuart%20welfare/Taylor_Gooby2WORK%20AND%20POVERTY.pdf
(Accessed 10 February 2015).
Taylor-Gooby,P.(2014) Can ‘NewWelfare’addresspovertythroughmore andbetterjobs? Available
at:

39. https://www.academia.edu/5709822/Can_New_Welfare_address_poverty_through_more_and_bet
ter_jobs
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Taylor, E. (2015) Benefits and Welfare: Chapter from 2015 British Social
Attitudes Survey report. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/11755671/Benefits_and_Welfare_Chapter_from_2015_British_Social_A
ttitudes_Survey_report.
Titmuss, R. (1965) Income Distribution and Social Change: A Study in Criticism (London: Unwin
University Books)
Trussel Trust.(2015) Low income andwelfare problems see foodbank numbers rise by 38% despite
economic recovery. (Available at: http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015).
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone [Online].
Available at: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/wolfson.institute/events/Wilkinson372010.pdf.
Williams,L.(2014) Benefitcutsare alreadybeingblamedforthe deathsof many vulnerable people,
but there couldbe 60 more that we neverhearabout,Independent23December[Online].Available
at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-benefit-cuts-are-already-being--
blamed-for-the-deaths-of-three-vulnerable-people-and-there-may-be-60-more-9942735.html.
World Bank. (2011) World Development Indicators 2011 (Washington DC: World Bank)