Take-up of social security benefits: past, present – and future?

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES Journal of Poverty and Social Justice Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1332/17598273y2023d000000005
Fran Bennett
{"title":"Take-up of social security benefits: past, present – and future?","authors":"Fran Bennett","doi":"10.1332/17598273y2023d000000005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews evidence on and possible causes of non-take-up of social security benefits, focusing on the UK, and analyses the implications of the introduction of Universal Credit for take-up. It discusses why (non-)take-up is an important issue, in relation to those affected, the performance of social policies in relation to their goals and the nature of social citizenship. It explains how take-up is usually measured (or estimated) in the UK, giving some recent results, and describing recent policy decisions to halt the publication of figures on take-up of working-age benefits. It investigates explanations put forward about why entitlements are not claimed, highlighting analysis of obstacles at the individual claimant level; barriers within benefits administration; problems with system design; and wider structural issues in society. It examines the implications of the introduction of Universal Credit both for take-up and for the evidence base about it. The integrated nature of Universal Credit was argued to favour higher take-up; but features of its design and administration may have the opposite effect. Evidence is, however, lacking on the outcome of this combination. The conclusion reflects on the future of initiatives to boost benefit take-up, especially those relying on automation – often interpreted in different ways. It argues in favour of taking more account of the reasons for non-take-up relating to the nature of potential claimants’ relationship with the state, and the characteristics of benefits left unclaimed, rather than assuming that administrative information and automation will overcome all the obstacles currently resulting in non-take-up.","PeriodicalId":45090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17598273y2023d000000005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article reviews evidence on and possible causes of non-take-up of social security benefits, focusing on the UK, and analyses the implications of the introduction of Universal Credit for take-up. It discusses why (non-)take-up is an important issue, in relation to those affected, the performance of social policies in relation to their goals and the nature of social citizenship. It explains how take-up is usually measured (or estimated) in the UK, giving some recent results, and describing recent policy decisions to halt the publication of figures on take-up of working-age benefits. It investigates explanations put forward about why entitlements are not claimed, highlighting analysis of obstacles at the individual claimant level; barriers within benefits administration; problems with system design; and wider structural issues in society. It examines the implications of the introduction of Universal Credit both for take-up and for the evidence base about it. The integrated nature of Universal Credit was argued to favour higher take-up; but features of its design and administration may have the opposite effect. Evidence is, however, lacking on the outcome of this combination. The conclusion reflects on the future of initiatives to boost benefit take-up, especially those relying on automation – often interpreted in different ways. It argues in favour of taking more account of the reasons for non-take-up relating to the nature of potential claimants’ relationship with the state, and the characteristics of benefits left unclaimed, rather than assuming that administrative information and automation will overcome all the obstacles currently resulting in non-take-up.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会保障福利的领取:过去、现在和未来?
本文以英国为重点,回顾了有关未领取社会保障福利的证据和可能原因,并分析了全民信贷的引入对领取社会保障福利的影响。文章从受影响者、社会政策在实现其目标方面的表现以及社会公民的性质等方面,讨论了(未)领取福利为何是一个重要问题。报告解释了英国通常是如何衡量(或估计)领取率的,给出了一些最近的结果,并介绍了最近关于停止公布工龄福利领取率数据的政策决定。报告调查了对未申领福利的原因所做的解释,重点分析了申领者个人层面的障碍、福利管理方面的障碍、制度设计方面的问题以及更广泛的社会结构问题。本报告探讨了引入全民救济计划对参与情况和相关证据基础的影响。通用信贷的综合性质被认为有利于提高参与率;但其设计和管理的特点可能会产生相反的效果。然而,目前还缺乏有关这种综合效应的证据。结论对提高福利领取率的举措的未来进行了反思,特别是那些依赖自动化的举措--通常有不同的解释。它主张更多地考虑未领取福利的原因,这些原因涉及潜在申领者与国家关系的性质,以及未领取福利的特点,而不是假定行政信息和自动化将克服目前导致未领取福利的所有障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
23.10%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice provides a unique blend of high-quality research, policy and practice from leading authors in the field related to all aspects of poverty and social exclusion. The journal has changed its name to reflect its wider scope and has growing international coverage. Content spans a broad spectrum of poverty-related topics including social security, employment and unemployment, regeneration, housing, health, education and criminal justice, as well as issues of ethnicity, gender, disability and other inequalities as they relate to social justice.
期刊最新文献
Early action in the asylum support sector: a scoping review Goodbye to PIP, but hello to what? Disability, social security, devolution and policy change in Scotland Sticking plaster support: the Household Support Fund and localised assistance in the UK welfare state Living in ‘waithood’: perceived impact of socio-economic conditions on quality of life of youth in Zandspruit informal settlement, South Africa Exploring the disability–poverty nexus in children: a cross-national comparative analysis in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1