dc.contributor.author | Molander, Anders | |
dc.contributor.author | Torsvik, Gaute | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-30T09:04:14Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-05-30T09:04:14Z | |
dc.date.created | 2021-02-18T13:00:19Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-02-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Social Policy. 2021, . | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0047-2794 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1469-7823 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2996690 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper examines paternalism as a justification for welfare reforms making benefits conditional on participation in activation programs. We clarify different types of what we denote ‘throffer paternalism’ – a paternalism conjoining an offer with a threat – and ask whether there is a good case for any of them. We argue that hard but non-perfectionistic paternalism provides the most promising defense for mandatory activation but conclude that it does not give a convincing justification for this type of welfare policy. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Journal of Social Policy;Volume 51, Issue 1 | |
dc.rights | Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no | * |
dc.subject | Welfare conditionality | en_US |
dc.subject | Welfare reforms | en_US |
dc.subject | Paternalism | en_US |
dc.subject | Perfectionism | en_US |
dc.subject | Threat offer | en_US |
dc.subject | Throffer | en_US |
dc.title | In Their Own Best Interest. Is There a Paternalistic Case for Welfare Conditionality? | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.description.version | publishedVersion | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | © The Author(s) | en_US |
cristin.ispublished | true | |
cristin.fulltext | original | |
cristin.fulltext | original | |
cristin.qualitycode | 2 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279420000768 | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 1891345 | |
dc.source.journal | Journal of Social Policy | en_US |
dc.source.volume | 51 | en_US |
dc.source.issue | 1 | en_US |
dc.source.pagenumber | 191 - 208 | en_US |