It is clear to see that during almost the entire period described above, stigma has been attached to claiming unemployment benefits (Page, 1984).
Research has shown that stigma can have more of an effect on claimants’
behaviour than legal sanctions (Yaniw, 1997), therefore its use as a way of regulating numbers of those claiming is interesting. It should be noted, however, that a much lower burden of proof is required to remove a claimant from social security than in a court of law (Moore, 1981). Becker (1963) argues that in creating stigma, policy is attempting to create and label deviant behaviour. Becker states that the public could reject these labels. However, widespread media support for scrounger discourses, such as the reporting of ‘common knowledge’ until it creates ‘the very mythology it seeks to evoke’, makes a public rejection of such a myth unlikely (Golding and Middleton, 1978:195). Thus, the assertions present in recommendations for policy change that cite the prevention of abuse as the key factor for reform (see for example, Murray, 1990) should be regarded with caution.
Stigma can also be used, particularly in times of economic difficulty, as a way to prevent rising costs (Moore, 1981): attaching stigmatising conditions to benefit receipt can also be seen as a policy tool to attempt to regulate demand. Although this phenomenon is described much less within academic texts, it is possible to see that policies such as Pathways to Work include references to wide-scale savings as 1 million people exit IB (DWP, 2002). Various ways can be used to attach stigma to social security including demeaning and time-consuming procedures to claim the benefit (Craig, 1998) and the attachment of conditions (Bastagali, 2008). As such, Page (1984:38) argues that those who administer benefits ‘will often be the
perpetrators of such stigmatization.’ This theory will be examined in more detail in the next section.
However, Page’s (1984) work also shows evidence from a number of American studies that show that public attitudes towards benefit claimants are sometimes more harsh than those of benefit administrators, particularly to groups that they consider to be less deserving such as lone parents.
Later research in the UK carried out on behalf of the DWP found that the public were ‘comfortable’ with the idea of conditionality being attached to the receipt of benefits (Williams et al., 1999:1). Respondents in the Williams et al. (1999) research were also able to differentiate between groups that they thought were deserving and undeserving of state assistance, such as those who were not trying to get a job whilst claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance.
Relating such a phenomenon to Talcott Parsons’ (1951) concept of the sick role, Williams (2010) argues that the concept of getting better and thus exiting the sick role, one of Parson’s key principles, can be seen as being breached by those who remain on IB for some time. Following Becker’s (1963) theory, it can be argued that these individuals are seen as breaking one of society’s norms, and as such they are labelled negatively by people who perceive themselves to be law-abiding. However, it is important to note that those who are labelled as undeserving, or deviant, may not believe that they deserve such a label and may choose to apply that label to other people in a process know as othering (Becker, 1963).
On the other hand, Dwyer’s (2002:280) focus group research with benefit claimants found that ‘the state should continue to have a centrally important role in meeting future welfare needs.’ Thus, this more recent research undertaken before the financial down-tum shows that this representative group of claimants were not persuaded by discourses about welfare scroungers. Furthermore, the participants were not convinced about the suitability of conditionality regarding social security for groups beyond the unemployed, with a strong minority group arguing against conditionality for all claimants. This group viewed unemployment as a result of structural
failings (Field, 1989) as opposed to individual failings (Murray, 1990). It should also be noted, that all of the participants thought that some groups should be excluded from some welfare rights. However, they emphasised their need, and thus their legitimacy to be included in welfare rights (Becker, 1963).
It is also important to note that in recent years stigma has become attached to a variety of lifestyle choices which can have a negative impact on health including smoking cigarettes (Bayer and Stuber, 2006); excessive alcohol consumption and the dysfunctional use of illegal drugs (Room, 2005) and obesity (Townsend, 2009). Within the New Labour era, citizens who do not live a healthy lifestyle become labelled as a burden to the state (Dean, 1999). However, it is important to note that these ‘unhealthy behaviours’
are often related to poverty (Townsend, 2009) and inequality (Marmot, 2010). As a result of their poverty, many benefit claimants, therefore, may also be stigmatised for their lifestyle choice, particularly if the activity contributes towards their incapacity and thus may further reduce their deserving status. Becker (1963) would argue that this may result in the rejection of stigmatising labels and the growth of a subculture. Whilst the previous section showed that the use of stigma has been a common policy tool within benefits associated with unemployment, the next section will show how social security policy is implemented by those on the ground who can be seen as perpetuating stigma when an individual claims benefits (Page, 1984).