Welfare policy is both in crisis and stagnant, a chronic stasis. Occasionally there are moments of change and transformation – times of reform – yet repeatedly, these yield to the return of familiar tensions and frustrations. This is because there is a contradiction or paradox at the heart of the welfare state; it both ‘giveth and taketh away’ (Job 1:21) With one hand it supports the unemployed, yet simultaneously it demands certain things of them, mainly that they seek work, but also attend meetings, undergo assessment, write CVs, work on themselves, retrain, and strive continuously to redeem themselves. These demands are usually made with threats of sanctions for non-compliance: reduced payments or being cut off completely. This is known as ‘welfare conditionality’ or ‘activation’ in recent academic or policy terms, and obviously the welfare state also provides for others in a different manner, for instance, the retired, but the impulse towards ‘reform’ has been extended in recent decades, for instance, towards single-parents.

Intermittently, how the unemployed are treated becomes a contentious public issue, with interest waxing and waning as the dole queue lengthens, and policymakers, scholars and critics incessantly debate the issue and produce research supporting their arguments. Strikingly, key ideas seem to persist over time; for instance, the contemporary idea of ‘rights and responsibilities’ echoes older ideas of morality or good character. There is a notable confluence of right and left: conservatives argue for more state investment in getting the unemployed back to work, despite their historic antipathy to the ‘big state’; socialists argue for policies which ensure that everyone is supported into work.

Even the big ‘revolutionary’ ideas have advocates across the political divide: the idea of a universal basic income – basically tax-funded support for everyone – is supported by radical leftists like Guy Standing (2015), and right-wing polemicists like Charles Murray (2006). Taking little heed of such radical alternatives, policymakers continue with ‘welfare reforms’, tinkering with systems of support and activation, to ‘get people back to work’ at almost any cost. Meanwhile, the looming threats of roboticization or automation and ecological unsustainability are acknowledged but scarcely addressed: what matters is the present, the current rate of unemployment, the effectiveness of existing activation measures.