Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T20:53:35.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating Inflow or Outflow: A Comparison of the Work Capability Assessments in the UK and Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2015

HEIDI MOEN GJERSØE
HEIDI MOEN GJERSØE*
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, P.O.Box 4, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway email: heidi-moen.gjersoe@hioa.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the era of activation policies, several OECD countries have introduced work capability assessments to measure the employability of sick and disabled people. In essence, such assessments concern how sick and disabled people get access to incapacity benefits and services. This paper investigates how the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is designed and implemented within the different institutional contexts of the UK and Norway. The paper concludes that introducing WCAs represents a challenge to the bureaucratic and legal models of administrative justice by emphasising a managerial model (in the UK) and a professional model (in Norway). In the UK, the WCA tool seems to be primarily aimed at reducing the inflow of new recipients, while in Norway it seeks to increase the outflow of recipients. Consequently, the paper argues that the introduction of the WCAs as activation policy instruments has intensified the country-specific characteristics within which the instruments are implemented.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 141 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Aasback, A. W., Kiik, R. and Skjefstad, N. S. (2013), ‘Brukermedvirkning i arbeidsevnevurderingen’, Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 16: 3, 172–184.Google Scholar
Adler, M. (2003), ‘A Socio-Legal Approach to Administrative Justice’. Law & Policy, 25: 4, 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M. (2006), ‘Fairness in Context’, Journal of Law and Society, 33: 4, 615–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M. (2013), ‘Conditionality, sanctions, and the weakness of redress mechanisms in the British “New Deal”’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barbier, J.-C. and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2004), ‘Introduction: the many worlds of activation’, European Societies, 6: 4, 423–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumberg, B., Warren, J., Garthwaite, K. and Bambra, C. (2015), Rethinking the Work Capability Assessment, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R. (2011), The work capability assessment and a “real world” test of incapacity: Considerations from, and for, quantitative research, ISER Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. and Terum, L. I. (1997), ‘How Nordic is the Nordic model? Social assistance in a comparative perspective’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 6: 4, 247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, D. and Innjord, A. K. (2011), ‘Inklusjonsorientert NAV-praksis?’ Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 14: 1, 38–50.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2014), ‘Policies of Personalisation in Norway and England: On the Impact of Political Context’, Journal of Social Policy, 43: 03, 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2007), ‘Between workfare and enablement – the different paths to transformation of the welfare state: a comparative analysis of activating labour market policies’, European Journal of Political Research, 46: 6, 823–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2013), A Guide to Employment and Support Allowance – The Work Capability Assessment, ESA214.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fevang, E., Markussen, S. and Røed, K. (2014), ‘NAV-reformen: Støvet legger seg etter en turbulent omstilling’, Søkelys på arbeidslivet 01: 02, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fosstestøl, K., Breit, E. and Borg, E. (2014), NAV-reformen 2014. En oppfølgingsstudie av lokalkontorenes organisering etter innholdsreformen, AFI-rapport (Vol. 13), Oslo: AFI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaasen, A. M. and Lima, I. A. Å. (2014), ‘Arbeidsevnevurderinger i NAV: Kunnskapsstatus og veien videre’, Arbeid og velferd: Vol. 3: NAV.Google Scholar
Garthwaite, K. (2014), ‘Fear of the Brown Envelope: Exploring Welfare Reform with Long Term Sickness Benefits Recipients’, Social Policy & Administration, 48: 7, 782–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garthwaite, K., Bambra, C., Warren, J., Kasim, A. and Greig, G. (2014), ‘Shifting the goalposts: a longitudinal mixed-methods study of the health of long-term Incapacity Benefit recipients during a period of substantial change to the UK social security system’, Journal of Social Policy, 43: 02, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State: the Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjersøe, H. M. (2015), ‘Getting Sick and Disabled People off Temporary Incapacity Benefits: Dilemmas and Strategies in the Welfare State's Frontline’, Work in progress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, C. and Piggott, L. (2010), ‘From Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance: social sorting, sickness and impairment, and social security’, Policy Studies, 31: 2, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagelund, A. (2014), ‘From Economic Incentives to Dialogic Nudging – The Politics of Change and Inertia in Norwegian Sickness Insurance’, Journal of Social Policy, 43: 01, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, S. (2003), Judicial Review and Compliance with Administrative Law, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, K. and Stjernø, S. (2008), Work, Oil and Welfare: the Welfare State in Norway, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (2010), An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment, London: The Stationery Office, for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (2011), An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – Year Two, London: The Stationery Office, for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).Google Scholar
Heum, I. (2010), ‘Brukerrettet arbeidsmetodikk i NAV’, in Hernes, T., Heum, I. and Haavorsen, P. (eds.), Arbeidsinkludering: Om det nye politikk - og praksisfeltet i velferds Norge, Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
Jessen, J. T. and Tufte, P. A. (2014), ‘Discretionary decision-making in a changing context of activation policies and welfare reforms’, Journal of Social Policy, 43: 2, 269–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobcentre Plus, Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) (2014), Limited Capability for Work Questionnaire, ESA50.Google Scholar
Kalstø, Å. M. and Sørbø, J. (2014), Personer med nedsatt arbeidsevne og mottakere av arbeidsavklaringspenger. Desember 2014, Statistikknotat. Oslo: Arbeids- ogvelferdsdirektoratet.Google Scholar
Kemp, P. A. and Davidson, J. (2010), ‘Employability trajectories among new claimants of Incapacity Benefit’, Policy Studies, 31: 2, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kildal, N. and Nilssen, E. (2011), ‘Norwegian welfare reforms: social contracts and activation policies: challenges to social citizenship’, in Betzelt, S. and Bothfeld, S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Konle-Seidl, R. and Eichhorst, W. (2008), ‘Does activation work?’, in Eichhorst, W., Kaufmann, O. and Konle-Seidl, R. (eds.), Bringing the Jobless into Work? Experiences with Activation Schemes in Europe and the US, Bonn: Springer.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., McQuaid, R. W. and Dutton, M. (2007), ‘New approaches to employability in the UK: combining “human capital development” and “work first” strategies?’ Journal of Social Policy, 36: 4, 539–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litchfield, P. (2013), An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – Year Four, London: The Stationery Office, for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).Google Scholar
Litchfield, P. (2014), An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – Year Five, London: The Stationery Office, for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).Google Scholar
Mabbett, D. (2003), Definitions of Disability in Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Mandal, R., Ofte, H. J., Jensen, C. and Ose, S. O. (2015), Hvordan fungerer arbeidsavklaringspenger som ytelse og ordning? Trondheim: Sintef.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (1983), Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
NAV (2010), Retningslinjer for oppfølgingsvedtak i NAV, 28 July 2015, https://www.nav.no/Arbeid/_attachment/269927.Google Scholar
NAV (2012), Self-Assessment, 28 July 2015, https://www.nav.no/_attachment/239612?download=true.Google Scholar
Nilssen, E. (2014), ‘Activation policies and proceduralization of law in Britain, Denmark and Norway’, in Aasen, H. S., Gloppen, S., Magnussen, A.-M. and Nilssen, E. (eds.), Juridification and Social Citizenship in the Welfare State, Cheltenham: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
Office of the Auditor General of Norway (2014), Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av NAVs arbeidsrettede oppfølging av personer med nedsatt arbeidsevne. Dokument 3:10. Oslo.Google Scholar
Proba (2012), Evaluering av arbeidsevnevurdering i NAV. Oppfølgingsundersøkelse 2012, Oslo: Proba Samfunnsanalyse.Google Scholar
Roulstone, A. and Prideaux, S. (2012), Understanding Disability Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. (2008), ‘Administrative justice, discretion and the ‘welfare to work’ project.’ Journal of Social Welfare and Familiy Law, 30: 4, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spartacus Network (2014), Beyond the Barriers. A Spartacus Network report into Employment Support Allowance, the Work Programme and recommendations for a new system of support. Retrieved 17 April, 2015, from http://www.spartacusnetwork.org.uk/images/reports/BBReportAndAppendices.pdfGoogle Scholar
Svele, A.-L. (2012), ‘Arbeidsevnevurdering og aktivitetsplan som verktøy for NAV og som vilkår for trygderettigheter.’ Tidsskrift for erstatningsrett, 9: 1/2, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, L. G. and Evetts, J. (2010), ‘Introduction’. In Svensson, L. G. and Evetts, J. (eds.), Sociology of professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions. Gothenburg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
Terum, L. I. (1996), Grenser for sosialpolitisk modernisering. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Terum, L. I., Tufte, P. A. and Jessen, J. T. (2012), ‘Arbeidslinja og sosialarbeiderne’, in Stjernø, S. and , Ø. E. (eds.), Arbeidslinja - arbeidsmotivasjonen og velferdsstaten. Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Vågeng Expert Committee (2015), Et NAV med muligheter. Bedre brukermøter, større handlingsromog tettere på arbeidsmarkedet. Sluttrapport fra Ekspertgruppen. Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Warren, J., Garthwaite, K. and Bambra, C. (2014), ‘After Atos Healthcare: is the Employment and Support Allowance fit for purpose and does the Work Capability Assessment have a future?’, Disability & Society, 29: 8, 1319–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar