Abstract
This article focuses on experiences of welfare recipients summoned to do volunteer work. Proponents of ‘workfare volunteerism’ argue that it leads to empowerment and employability while critics dismiss it as disempowering, stigmatising, and disciplining. Our longitudinal qualitative inquiry into experiences of sixty-six ‘workfare volunteers’ in the Netherlands shows how experiences of disempowerment or empowerment are dependent on caseworker approaches as well as on time. Disempowerment can turn into empowerment when an individual's past is considered, but can revert to disempowerment if changing needs go unrecognised. These findings have broader implications for debates on activating policies. They point to the need for diachronic approaches, which reflect the changing experiences of target groups over time and adaption of policies and caseworker approaches that respond to their clients’ changing needs and self-understanding.
Highlights
Policies to re-integrate welfare recipients into the labour market are prominent within the strategies of the ‘activating welfare state’ (Goul Andersen et al, 2005; Serrano Pascual, 2007) or ‘enabling state’ (Gilbert and Gilbert, 1989; Gilbert, 2002) to encourage ‘active citizenship’ (Kampen et al, 2013)
Our study shows that both proponents and critics can be right, depending on four conditions
Even though our data confirm that workfare clients are looking for freedom, contrary to critics’ assumptions, workfare clients in our sample were primarily interested in positive rather than negative freedom: freedom to do something, rather than freedom from interference (Berlin, 1969)
Summary
Policies to re-integrate welfare recipients into the labour market are prominent within the strategies of the ‘activating welfare state’ (Goul Andersen et al, 2005; Serrano Pascual, 2007) or ‘enabling state’ (Gilbert and Gilbert, 1989; Gilbert, 2002) to encourage ‘active citizenship’ (Kampen et al, 2013). The turn towards activation of welfare recipients has been the subject of much scholarly criticism and debate While some argue it contributes to the empowerment, employability, and responsibility of welfare clients (Crick, 2000; Soupourmas and Ironmonger, 2002; Roberts and Devine, 2004), others maintain that it is disempowering, stigmatising (Patrick, 2017), and disciplining
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
