This paper examines paternalism as a justification for welfare reforms making benefits conditional on participation in activation programs. We clarify different types of what we denote ‘throffer paternalism’ – a paternalism conjoining an offer with a threat – and ask whether there is a good case for any of them. We argue that hard but non-perfectionistic paternalism provides the most promising defense for mandatory activation but conclude that it does not give a convincing justification for this type of welfare policy.

中文翻译：

---

为了他们自己的最大利益。福利条件有家长式的案例吗？

本文将家长式作风作为福利改革的理由，以参与激活计划为条件。我们澄清了我们所说的“Throver 家长式作风”的不同类型——一种将提议与威胁相结合的家长式作风——并询问其中任何一种是否有充分的理由。我们认为，严厉但非完美主义的家长制为强制激活提供了最有希望的辩护，但得出的结论是，它没有为这种福利政策提供令人信服的理由。