Cargando…
The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence
In recent decades, the use of conditionality backed by benefit sanctions for those claiming unemployment and related benefits has become widespread in the social security systems of high-income countries. Critics argue that sanctions may be ineffective in bringing people back to employment or indeed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36000019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421001069 |
_version_ | 1783605478329155584 |
---|---|
author | Pattaro, Serena Bailey, Nick Williams, Evan Gibson, Marcia Wells, Valerie Tranmer, Mark Dibben, Chris |
author_facet | Pattaro, Serena Bailey, Nick Williams, Evan Gibson, Marcia Wells, Valerie Tranmer, Mark Dibben, Chris |
author_sort | Pattaro, Serena |
collection | PubMed |
description | In recent decades, the use of conditionality backed by benefit sanctions for those claiming unemployment and related benefits has become widespread in the social security systems of high-income countries. Critics argue that sanctions may be ineffective in bringing people back to employment or indeed harmful in a range of ways. Existing reviews largely assess the labour market impacts of sanctions but our understanding of the wider impacts is more limited. We report results from a scoping review of the international quantitative research evidence on both labour market and wider impacts of benefit sanctions. Following systematic search and screening, we extract data for 94 studies reporting on 253 outcome measures. We provide a narrative summary, paying attention to the ability of the studies to support causal inference. Despite variation in the evidence base and study designs, we found that labour market studies, covering two thirds of our sample, consistently reported positive impacts for employment but negative impacts for job quality and stability in the longer term, along with increased transitions to non-employment or economic inactivity. Although largely relying on non-experimental designs, wider-outcome studies reported significant associations with increased material hardship and health problems. There was also some evidence that sanctions were associated with increased child maltreatment and poorer child well-being. Lastly, the review highlights the generally poor quality of the evidence base in this area, with few studies employing research methods designed to identify the causal impact of sanctions, especially in relation to wider impacts. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7613403 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76134032022-08-22 The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence Pattaro, Serena Bailey, Nick Williams, Evan Gibson, Marcia Wells, Valerie Tranmer, Mark Dibben, Chris J Soc Policy Article In recent decades, the use of conditionality backed by benefit sanctions for those claiming unemployment and related benefits has become widespread in the social security systems of high-income countries. Critics argue that sanctions may be ineffective in bringing people back to employment or indeed harmful in a range of ways. Existing reviews largely assess the labour market impacts of sanctions but our understanding of the wider impacts is more limited. We report results from a scoping review of the international quantitative research evidence on both labour market and wider impacts of benefit sanctions. Following systematic search and screening, we extract data for 94 studies reporting on 253 outcome measures. We provide a narrative summary, paying attention to the ability of the studies to support causal inference. Despite variation in the evidence base and study designs, we found that labour market studies, covering two thirds of our sample, consistently reported positive impacts for employment but negative impacts for job quality and stability in the longer term, along with increased transitions to non-employment or economic inactivity. Although largely relying on non-experimental designs, wider-outcome studies reported significant associations with increased material hardship and health problems. There was also some evidence that sanctions were associated with increased child maltreatment and poorer child well-being. Lastly, the review highlights the generally poor quality of the evidence base in this area, with few studies employing research methods designed to identify the causal impact of sanctions, especially in relation to wider impacts. 2022-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7613403/ /pubmed/36000019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421001069 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Article Pattaro, Serena Bailey, Nick Williams, Evan Gibson, Marcia Wells, Valerie Tranmer, Mark Dibben, Chris The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title | The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title_full | The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title_fullStr | The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title_full_unstemmed | The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title_short | The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence |
title_sort | impacts of benefit sanctions: a scoping review of the quantitative research evidence |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7613403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36000019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421001069 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pattaroserena theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT baileynick theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT williamsevan theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT gibsonmarcia theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT wellsvalerie theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT tranmermark theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT dibbenchris theimpactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT pattaroserena impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT baileynick impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT williamsevan impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT gibsonmarcia impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT wellsvalerie impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT tranmermark impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence AT dibbenchris impactsofbenefitsanctionsascopingreviewofthequantitativeresearchevidence |