ABSTRACT

Norway has a strong welfare state that emphasises a combination of enabling activation policies and behavioural conditionality (BC) in a broad range of benefits, including the main health-related, long-term social insurance benefit and the last-resort social assistance (SA) benefit. The frontline workers in employment and welfare agencies thus need to form particular understandings of appropriate conduct of claimants with different needs when deciding what a measure should consist of (i.e. what is a suitable condition), and whether to impose a sanction in cases of non-compliance. The paper asks how frontline workers implement BC for recipients of different benefits in the era of increasingly unifying welfare policies. Reporting on qualitative interviews with 27 frontline workers, the findings suggest that frontline workers are less concerned with questioning conduct for claimants of the health-related insurance benefit, while frontline workers who provide with follow-up of recipients of SA more frequently question benefit eligibility. However, frontline workers of both benefits reason with a basis in ‘soft paternalistic’ and reciprocal justifications of conditionality, and both emphasise dialogue and relational work with claimants. BC can therefore also include reasonable help that protects against the risks of health and social problems for citizens.

摘要

挪威拥有强大的福利国家，强调在广泛的福利中结合启用激活政策和行为条件 (BC)，包括与健康相关的主要长期社会保险福利和最后的社会援助 (SA)益处。因此，就业和福利机构的前线工作人员在决定一项措施应该包括什么（即什么是合适的条件），以及在非遵守。该论文询问在福利政策日益统一的时代，一线工人如何为不同福利的接受者实施BC。对 27 名一线工人的定性访谈报告，调查结果表明，一线工人不太关心询问与健康相关的保险福利索赔人的行为，而为 SA 接受者提供后续服务的一线工人更频繁地质疑福利资格。然而，这两种利益的一线工作人员都以“软家长式”和条件性的相互正当理由为基础进行推理，并且都强调与索赔人的对话和关系工作。因此，BC 还可以包括合理的帮助，以保护公民免受健康和社会问题的风险。这两种利益的一线工人都以“软家长式”和条件性的相互正当理由为基础进行推理，并且都强调与索赔人的对话和关系工作。因此，BC 还可以包括合理的帮助，以保护公民免受健康和社会问题的风险。这两种利益的一线工人都以“软家长式”和条件性的相互正当理由为基础进行推理，并且都强调与索赔人的对话和关系工作。因此，BC 还可以包括合理的帮助，以保护公民免受健康和社会问题的风险。