Access to welfare is increasingly dependent on people's behaviour, on the grounds that this promotes responsibility. However, in this guest post, Viv Ashley, from Essex University, argues that this penalises people for factors beyond their control and erodes responsibility.As austerity cuts bite ever deeper, there are indications that society's tolerance of people receiving welfare is wearing increasingly thin - even towards those traditionally considered to be deserving of support, like disabled people.
This is causing policymakers to raise more and more questions over whether the state can afford to support people who are seen as creating their own welfare need through choices perceived as reckless.
They argue unconditional welfare support only encourages irresponsible behaviour and that withdrawing support is a cost-effective way of rationalising scarce resources. However, the feedback we received from social workers and other practitioners who attended our workshop on autonomy and responsibility in social welfare last week shows that this approach might be mistaken and even counter-productive - possibly damaging the life-chances of extremely vulnerable people and their children. Practitioners felt that extra support might be needed, not less.
Those attending the workshop explained how the principle of 'welfare conditionality' is becoming increasingly dominant in social welfare policy. This principle presumes that the claimant could have made a prudent decision, and should therefore bear the costs of their choice - for example, those found to have caused their own homelessness are excluded from re-housing.
But, practitioners say there are fatal flaws in such a presumption. They pointed out people often fall foul of welfare conditionality because of troubled childhoods, social exclusion or personal crises that undermine their ability to make choices which effectively promote their wellbeing.
I would argue that such people could be said to fall into the 'grey area' between 'capacitous moral failure' and 'psychopathological incapacity' - where someone lacks mental capacity due to mental impairment. Laws such as the Mental Capacity Act aim to catch those who fall into the latter category, whilst welfare claimants capable of making wise decisions are caught by the first
But, policymakers need to be more aware that there is a significant group of individuals whose ability to make 'good' decisions is hindered by circumstances beyond their control.
Continue reading Support, not coercion, is the route to moral responsibility.
Significant savings can be made by giving people with cognitive impairments automated medication dispensers, thus cutting down the need for home care visits to remind people to take their pills. That's the finding 
I do hope you've all booked your free place at this year's 
