Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T21:06:27.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities in Activation Programme? Evidence from a Vignette Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

LARS INGE TERUM ,
GAUTE TORSVIK  and
EINAR ØVERBYE
LARS INGE TERUM
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway email: larsinge.terum@hioa.no
GAUTE TORSVIK
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Oslo, and Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway email: gaute.torsvik@econ.uio.no
EINAR ØVERBYE
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway email: einar.overbye@hioa.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conducted a vignette experiment involving 470 Norwegian front-line workers to investigate whether their decisions to sanction non-compliance of activation requirements varied with the ethnicity of the welfare claimant. This is the first vignette experiment on ethnic discrimination in the administration of activation programmes in Europe. The study shows that front-line workers did not sanction claimants with a North African name more often than claimants with a native Norwegian name. However, among front-line workers who had experience with the relevant activation programme, a male claimant with a North African name was sanctioned less often than a male claimant with a native Norwegian name. Thus, we find some degree of reverse discrimination on the part of experienced front-line workers. This finding is contrary to a similar US vignette experiment that detected discrimination (not reverse discrimination) with regard to claimants with an ethnic minority name. The most likely explanation for the difference concerns the different institutional-cultural contexts within which Norwegian and US social policy programmes operate.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 39 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. L. (2004), Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, L., Jakobsson, N. and Kotsadam, A. (2012), ‘A field experiment of discrimination in the Norwegian housing market: gender, class and ethnicity’, Land Economics, 88: 2, 233–40.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1973), ‘The theory of discrimination’, in Ashenfelter, O. and Rees, A. (eds.), Discrimination in Labor Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Bay, A. H. and Stang, E. (2009), ‘Politisk svikt eller individuelt ansvar? Pressens portrettering av fattigdom’, in Bay, A. H., Pedersen, A. West and Saglie, J. (eds.), Når velferd blir politikk, Oslo: Abstrakt forlag, pp. 159–201 Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1957), The Economics of Discrimination, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M. and Mullainathan, S. (2004), ‘Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination’, American Economic Review, 94: 4, 991–1013.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (1997), ‘Inside the welfare contract: discretion and accountability in state welfare administration’, Social Service Review, 71: 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013), ‘Street-level organizations and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bursell, M. (2014), ‘The multiple burdens of foreign-named men – evidence from a field experiment on gendered ethnic hiring discrimination in Sweden’, European Sociological Review, 30: 3, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T. (2015), ‘Stereotyped at seven? Biases in teacher judgement of pupils’ ability and attainment’, Journal of Social Policy, 44: 3, 517–47.Google Scholar
Engebrigtsen, A. (2005), ‘Somaliere i Norge. Noen trek fra tilpassning i eksil’, in Nes, K., Skoug, T. and Strømstad, M. (eds.), Somaliere i Norge: perspektiver på integrering, språk og religion, Vallset: Opplandske bokforlag, pp. 168–179.Google Scholar
Fangen, K. (2008), Identitet og praksis: etnisitet, klasse og kjønn blant somaliere i Norge, Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
Fix, M. and Turner, M. A. (eds.) (1998), A National Report Card on Discrimination in America: The Role of Testing, Proceedings of the Urban Institute Conference (Washington, DC, March 1998) ERIC No. ED438348.Google Scholar
Friberg, J. H. and Elgvin, O. (2014), Når aktivering blir ydmykelse: en studie av møtet mellom somaliske innvandrere og NAV, Fafo report 2014:43, Oslo: Fafo.Google Scholar
Gilens, M. (1999), Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjersøe, H. M. (2016), ‘Regulating inflow or outflow: a comparison of the work capability assessments in the UK and Norway’, Journal of Social Policy, 45: 1, 141–58.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1998), ‘Social welfare as a collective social responsibility’, in Schmidtz, D. and Goodin, R. E. (eds.), Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–194.Google Scholar
Gubrium, E., Harsløf, I. and Lødemel, I. (2014), ‘Norwegian activation reform on a wave of wider welfare state change: a critical assessment’, in Lødemel, I. and Moreira, A. (eds.), Activation or Workfare? Governance and Neo-Liberal Convergence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
Hagelund, A. and Terum, L. I. (2015), ‘Fra saksbehandler til veileder. Om iverksetting av velferdspolitikk i arbeidslinjens tid’, in Bay, A. H., Hagelund, A. and Hatland, A. (eds.), For mange på trygd? Velferdspolitiske spenninger, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, K., Stjernø, S. and Øverbye, E. (2013), Innføring i helse- og sosialpolitikk, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. J. and Siegelman, P. (1993), ‘The Urban Institute Audit Studies: their methods and findings’, in Fix, M. and Struyk, R. J. (eds.), Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, http://works.bepress.com/peter_siegelman/33/ (accessed).Google Scholar
Jewell, C. J. (2007), Agents of the Welfare State. How Caseworkers Respond to Need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Google Scholar
Jakobsson, N., Kotsadam, A., Syse, A. and Øien, H. (2015), ‘Gender bias in public long-term care? A survey experiment among care managers’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, available online 14 September 2015.Google Scholar
Lima, I. A. and Naper, S. O. (2013), ‘Kommer deltakerne i kvalifiseringsprogrammet i jobb?’, Arbeid og Velferd, 2: 43–59.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980/2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Google Scholar
Midtbøen, A. H. and Rogstad, J. (2012), ‘Discrimination. Methodological controversies and sociological perspectives on future research’, Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 2: 3, 202–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molander, A. and Torsvik, G. (2015), ‘Getting people into work: what (if anything) can justify mandatory activation of welfare recipients?’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 32: 4, 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumark, D. (2012), ‘Detecting discrimination in audit and correspondence studies’, Journal of Human Resources, 47: 4, 1128–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Inclusion (2006), Arbeid, velferd og inkludering, St. meld nr 9 (2006–2009) [Work, welfare, and inclusion, White Paper No. 9], Oslo: Norwegian Regjeringen.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. S. (1972), ‘The statistical theory of racism and sexism’, American Economic Review, 62: 4, 659–61.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1993), ‘Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy’, American Political Science Review, 87: 2, 334–47.Google Scholar
Schram, S. F., Soss, J. and Fording, R. C. (eds.) (2003), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schram, S. F., Soss, J., Fording, R. C. and Houser, L. (2009), ‘Deciding to discipline: race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform’, American Sociological Review, 74: 3, 398–422.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2008), ‘Social rights, welfare generosity, and inequality’, in Beramendi, P. and Anderson, C. J. (eds.), Democracy, Inequality, and Representation: A Comparative Perspective, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 62–92.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. and Allan, J. (2006), ‘Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16: 1, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terum, L. I. and Hatland, A. (2014), ‘Sysselsetting og trygd under arbeidslinja’, Søkelys på Arbeidslivet, 31: 1–2, 3–22.Google Scholar
Van Der Waal, J., Achterberg, P., Houtman, D. and de Koster, W. (2010), “Some are more equal than others”: economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in the Netherlands’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 4, 350–63.Google Scholar
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2013), ‘Race, respect, and red tape: inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies’, in Brodkin, E. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 167–184.Google Scholar
Watts, B., Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G. and Watkins, D. (2014), ‘Welfare sanctions and conditionality in the UK’, in Research Round-up, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. and Markus, H. (1982), ‘Affective and cognitive factors in preferences’, Journal of Consumer Research, 9: 2, 123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar