Abstract
The measures that New Labour have introduced to punish and prevent anti‐social behaviour need to be discussed in the context of the broader debate about conditionality in welfare. This paper outlines briefly three arguments that have been put forward to justify conditionality in welfare, the contractualist, the paternalist and the mutualist justifications. It then considers the force of these arguments in respect of New Labour's approach to anti‐social tenants. The paper concludes that it is possible to formulate a powerful case for the kinds of measures that New Labour is currently taking by integrating elements of the three justifications. It is argued that it is a mistake to view such measures as necessarily disciplinary in intent or in effect. Measures to enforce the obligations that people owe to each other are not incompatible with policies to widen opportunities for self‐fulfilment and to reduce social exclusion. On the contrary, they can be seen as two sides of the same coin.
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 callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: 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.
