Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives

IF 1.6 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES Journal of Poverty and Social Justice Pub Date : 2020-02-10 DOI:10.1332/175982720x15791324318339
K. Summers, David Young
{"title":"Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives","authors":"K. Summers, David Young","doi":"10.1332/175982720x15791324318339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants,\n we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective\n of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.","PeriodicalId":45090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/175982720x15791324318339","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: 9

Abstract

A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants, we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.
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
通用简洁?从行政和索赔人的角度来看,所谓的通用信贷的简单性
通用信贷的一个关键目标是简化社会保障体系。虽然其介绍的几个方面受到了关键的注意,但这一总体目标继续得到接受和支持。根据两项涉及经济状况调查的福利申领人的实证研究,我们的目标是解构“简单”作为社会保障设计特征的想法,并认为它取决于视角。我们认为,从管理的角度来看,简单性的要求往往是合理的,但从索赔人的角度来看,却没有这样的经验,相反,索赔人可能面临管理复杂性的更大责任。
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
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 Poor and satisfied? A review of the monetary poverty indicator in the EU Take-up of social security benefits: past, present – and future?
×
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:604180095
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