CULTURES OF WORKLESSNESS – WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WORK, NOT WELFARE

It’s popular for politicians to talk about generations of the same family that have never worked. But, as Rob MacDonald explains, research shows this is misleading.

The real problems of ‘in-work poverty’ and ‘underemployment’ are finally making some headlines, elbowing their way into the usual discourse about welfare to work and benefit dependency. Yet the idea of a culture of worklessness – values, attitudes and behaviours that prefer welfare dependency to employment – remains influential and widely held. Politicians, policy makers and welfare practitioners talk confidently of ‘three generations of families where no-one has ever worked’.

A new study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tested these ideas. The aim was to see whether cultures of worklessness helped explain long-term unemployment in families across generations.

We undertook concerted, intensive fieldwork in very deprived neighbourhoods of Glasgow and Middlesbrough but we were unable to locate any families with three generations who had never worked. If such families exist, they can only account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Recent surveys suggest that less than one per cent of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

Next, we undertook lengthy, life history interviews with 20 families with long-term worklessness across two generations. Even locating these families was very challenging. So, what did we find?

• There was no evidence of a ‘culture of worklessness’. Families remained committed to the value of work and would have preferred to be in jobs rather than have ‘the miserable existence’ of a life on benefits.
• Workless parents were unanimous in not wanting their children to end up in the same situation as themselves and actively tried to help them find jobs.
• Working-age children remained strongly committed to conventional values about work as part of a normal transition to adulthood. They were keen to avoid the poverty, worklessness and other problems experienced by their parents.
• The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of the impact of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. As one interviewee asked, ‘how can you work when you have a life like mine?’ In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

If we cannot find a ‘culture of worklessness’ here, amongst these extreme cases of very long-term unemployed families, we are unlikely to find it anywhere. Politicians and policy-makers need to abandon theories – and policies flowing from them – that see worklessness as primarily the outcome of a culture of worklessness, held in families and passed down the generations. This returns us to our starting point. The real challenge is creating opportunities for work – jobs that help people escape from poverty and insecurity.

Poverty and Insecurity: life in low-pay, no-pay Britain is published this week by Policy Press. TO FOCUS ON WORK, NOT WELFARE

It’s popular for politicians to talk about generations of the same family that have never worked. But, as Rob MacDonald explains, research shows this is misleading.

The real problems of ‘in-work poverty’ and ‘underemployment’ are finally making some headlines, elbowing their way into the usual discourse about welfare to work and benefit dependency. Yet the idea of a culture of worklessness – values, attitudes and behaviours that prefer welfare dependency to employment – remains influential and widely held. Politicians, policy makers and welfare practitioners talk confidently of ‘three generations of families where no-one has ever worked’.

A new study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tested these ideas. The aim was to see whether cultures of worklessness helped explain long-term unemployment in families across generations.

We undertook concerted, intensive fieldwork in very deprived neighbourhoods of Glasgow and Middlesbrough but we were unable to locate any families with three generations who had never worked. If such families exist, they can only account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Recent surveys suggest that less than one per cent of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

Next, we undertook lengthy, life history interviews with 20 families with long-term worklessness across two generations. Even locating these families was very challenging. So, what did we find?

• There was no evidence of a ‘culture of worklessness’. Families remained committed to the value of work and would have preferred to be in jobs rather than have ‘the miserable existence’ of a life on benefits.
• Workless parents were unanimous in not wanting their children to end up in the same situation as themselves and actively tried to help them find jobs.
• Working-age children remained strongly committed to conventional values about work as part of a normal transition to adulthood. They were keen to avoid the poverty, worklessness and other problems experienced by their parents.
• The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of the impact of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. As one interviewee asked, ‘how can you work when you have a life like mine?’ In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

If we cannot find a ‘culture of worklessness’ here, amongst these extreme cases of very long-term unemployed families, we are unlikely to find it anywhere. Politicians and policy-makers need to abandon theories – and policies flowing from them – that see worklessness as primarily the outcome of a culture of worklessness, held in families and passed down the generations. This returns us to our starting point. The real challenge is creating opportunities for work – jobs that help people escape from poverty and insecurity.

Poverty and Insecurity: life in low-pay, no-pay Britain is published this week by Policy Press.
Joseph rowntree foundation

Manchester is ranked in the top ten authorities worst hit by Government cuts, according to new figures.

Labour have accused the Government of targeting the country’s most deprived areas to reduce spending, while protecting affluent regions.

Analysis released by the party suggests that the north of England and inner-city parts of London are taking the brunt of the cuts to welfare and local councils.

The figures amount to an average of £508 cuts for every person in the North West, £566 in the North East, and £511 in the capital.

This is compared to just £292 in the South East outside London and £324 in the east of England.

Manchester is the seventh hardest hit authority in terms of cuts, despite being ranked fourth highest in the Government’s own deprivation figures, according to Labour’s figures.

The worst-hit area, Knowsley in Merseyside, sees a total loss of £850 per head – £515 per head in welfare cuts and £336 in local government cuts.

By contrast, the least-hit area, Mole Valley – which covers the towns of Dorking and Leatherhead and surrounding villages in Surrey – loses £182 per head, made up of £164 in welfare reductions and £18 in local government cuts.

The list of ten local authority areas hardest hit by the cuts includes seven out of the eight most disadvantaged parts of the country, according to the Government’s own deprivation index.

Knowsley, which ranks fifth in the index, is followed by Westminster (87th in the index, losing £824 per head), then Hackney in east London (second in the deprivation index, £821), Liverpool (first, £817), Blackpool (sixth, £792), Hartlepool (24th, £724), Manchester (fourth, £715), Newham in east London (third, £710) and Middlesbrough (eighth, £696).

Mole Valley is 310th out of 326 in the deprivation index, and the other areas on which the cuts are having least impact are equally well-off. Second least-affected is Waverley in Surrey (321st on the index, losing £187 a head), Wokingham in Berkshire (325th, £189), Hart in Hampshire (326th, £194) and Elmbridge in Surrey (320th, £196).

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said: “The Tories are zeroing in on areas in need and hitting them hard – twice.

“Communities facing the biggest hit to local government are also losing most from cuts to their tax credits and benefits, yet instead of helping working families the Tories are giving millionaires a tax cut. That tells you everything you need to know about this Government’s priorities.”

According to Labour’s figures, based on independent research conducted by Sheffield Hallam University and Newcastle City Council, the overall loss per head from welfare and local government cuts is £566 in the North-East, £511 in London, £508 in the North-West, £421 in Yorkshire and the Humber, £388 in the West Midlands, £364 in the East Midlands, £334 in the South-West, £324 in the East of England and £292 in the South-East.

See Map – http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-one-worst-hit-places-government-2995627