Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:53.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Assistance and Territorial Justice: The Example of Single Payments*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2010

Robert Walker  and
Dorothy Lawton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social assistance in many countries is administered locally. Centralised, uniform schemes, such as those which operate in Britain are often assumed to guarantee, or at least to enhance, territorial equity, that is the equal treatment of individuals with identical needs irrespective of where they live. This assumption is examined with respect to the system of single payments—lump sum payments to meet exceptional needs—which existed prior to the 1988 social security reforms. Although much of the geographic variation in the volume of awards which used to exist is explicable in terms of variations in the level of need, territorial inequity is demonstrated to have occurred in what was a nationally administered and closely regulated scheme. The reasons for the inequity seem in part to have been due to variations in office work flow and working practices, welfare rights activity and unidentified processes linked in some way to the regional administrative structure of DHSS.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 437 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ayres, T. and Walker, R. (1986), ‘Designing housing benefit claim forms’, Housing Review, 36, 3, 82–84.Google Scholar
Beltram, G. (1984), Testing the Safety Net, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R. (1984), The Reform of Supplementary Benefit: Research Papers 84/5.1 and 84/5.2, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R., Benson, S. and Williams, S. (1986), Standing Up For Claimants: Welfare Rights Work in Local Authorities, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J.R. (1987), ‘The Social Fund’, in Brenton, M. and Ungerson, C. (eds), The Vear Book of Social Policy, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. (1986), ‘The ecological fallacy: its implications for social policy analysis’, in Bulmer, M. (ed.), Social Science and Social Policy, Allen and Unwin, London, 207–22.Google Scholar
Cmnd. 8900 (1966), Report of the National Assistance Board 1965, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cmnd. 6910 (1977), Supplementary Benefits Commission Annual Report 1976, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cmnd. 9519 (1985), Reform of Social Security, Background Papers, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Child Poverty Action Group (1985), Burying Beveridge, CPAG, London.Google Scholar
Davies, B.P. (1968), Social Needs and Resources in Local Services, Michael Joseph, London.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. and Bradshaw, J. (1983), Reserved for the Poor, Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, Oxford.Google Scholar
DHSS (1986), Social Security Statistics, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
DHSS (1987), Public Support for Residential Care (Firth Committee Report), HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Donnison, D. (1977), ‘Against discretion’, New Society, 09 15.Google Scholar
Donnison, D. (1982), The Politics of Poverty, Martin Robertson, London.Google Scholar
Duncan, G. and Coe, R.D. (1984), ‘The dynamics of welfare use’, in Duncan, G. (ed.), Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Duncan, O.D. (1966), ‘Path analysis: sociological examples’, American Journal of Sociology, 72, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durbin, E. (1973), ‘Work and welfare: the case of aid to families with dependent children’, journal of Human Resources, 8, 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, V. and Lawson, R. (1980), Poverty and Inequality in Common Market Countries, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (1969), ‘The exercise of discretion in the National Assistance Board’, Public Administration, 47, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. and Bramley, G. (1986), Analysing Social Policy, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. (1985), ‘Some dimensions of regional inequality’, Poverty, 61, 32–38.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. (1972), Econometric Methods, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Jones, J.P. and Kodras, K.E. (1986), ‘The policy context of the welfare debate’, Environment and Planning, A, 15, 465–73.Google Scholar
Kempson, E. (1986), Welfare Benefit Work by Non-Statutory Advice and Law Centres, Acumen.Google Scholar
Lawson, R. (1980), ‘Poverty and inequality in West Germany’, in George, V. and Lawson, R. (eds), Poverty and Inequality in Common Market Countries, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Lawson, R. (1980), The Structure of Social Assistance in 1979: Report for the European Commission, University of Southampton, mimeo.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy, Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Lynes, R. (1969), Welfare Rights, Tract 395, Fabian Society, London.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. and Cooke, K. (1987), ‘The costs of childrearing’, in Walker, R. and Parker, G. (eds), Money Matters, Sage, London, 25–35.Google Scholar
Norusis, M.J. (1985), SPSSX Advanced Statistics Guide, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Pirie, G.H. (1983), ‘On spatial justice’, Environment and Planning, A, 15, 465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Higgins, M., Bradshaw, J. and Walker, R. (1988), ‘Income distribution over the life cycle’, in Walker, R. and Parker, G. (eds), Money Matters, Sage, London, 227–56.Google Scholar
Rummel, R.J. (1970), Applied Factor Analysis, Northwestern University Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Terum, L.I. (1986), Geografisk Ulikskap og Nasjonale Normer, INAS Report 86:2, Oslo.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R.M. (1971), ‘Welfare “rights”, law and discretion’, Political Quarterly, 42, 2, 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, C. (1983), Changing Social Policy, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1984), ‘Resources, welfare expenditure and poverty in European countries’, in Walker, R., Lawson, R. and Townsend, P., Responses to Poverty: Lessons from Europe, Heinemann, London, 28–78.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1985a), Allocating the Social Fund, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Paper 274, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1985b), Housing Benefit: the Experience of Implementation, Housing Centre Trust, London.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Lawton, D. (1986), Trends in the Payment of Lump Sum Grants to Supplementary Benefit Claimants, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Paper 305, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Lawton, D. (1987a), Environmental and Regional Influences on the Level of Single Payments, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Paper 350, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Lawton, D. (1987b), Single Payments: A Note on the Impact of Local Office Characteristics and Welfare Rights Activity, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Paper 377, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Williams, J. (1986), ‘Housing benefit: some determinants of administrative performance’, Policy and Politics, 14:3, 309–35.Google Scholar
Winegarden, C.R. (1973), ‘The welfare explosion: determinants of size and recent growth of the AFDC population’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 32, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlenberg, E.H. (1976), ‘An index of eligibility Standards for welfare benefits’, The Professional Geographer, 28, 381–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1960), ‘Path coefficients and path regressions: alternative or complementary concepts?’, Biometrics, 16, 189–202.Google Scholar