For
the past three years, I have been exploring whether there is much we can do to
counter one of society’s most devastating ills.
It is associated with a wide range of problems: including poor mental health, social isolation and
even suicide. This is not a disease in the typical sense
but it certainly carries the characteristics of a ‘social disease’. It is, of course, unemployment.
The
best way to counter unemployment is to of course promote or provide
employment. But in an economic system
like capitalism, there will always be a ‘rump’ of unemployed people: no matter
how fair or equal a society is. The
question then turns to what we can do to help those who find themselves
suffering from job loss.
There
are lots of things governments can do.
They can, for example, provide social benefits to ease the economic
costs of unemployment. Over the past
twenty years or so however, one particular intervention has expanded in the UK
and beyond: training programmes designed to move unemployed people closer to
the labour market.
Training
programmes for the unemployed are a diverse range of interventions. And this is
a crucial point. People most often
associate such schemes with welfare-to-work interventions like the Work
Programme. Yet, whilst the Work
Programme is the largest such intervention, there are a huge range of other
programmes: skills training, education, work experience or, more simply,
‘keeping people busy’.
My
main research question is whether such programmes mitigate some of the
psychological, health and social costs of being unemployed. But why might this be the case? One argument is that being unemployed and on
a programme is very different to being unemployed and not on a programme. It involves more daily structure and
activity, social interaction and – if they are of sufficient quality – optimism
for the future.
Some
of my findings have just been published in the Journal of Happiness Studies and the results are fairly consistent: training
programmes are associated with higher well-being amongst the unemployed. Looking at data from the large-scale Annual
Population Survey, I found that unemployed participants had higher life
satisfaction, life worth and feelings of happiness compared to unemployed
non-participants.
This
is largely in line with the small number of studies from other countries – such
as the US, Finland,
Australia,
Sweden
and Germany
– that also show a positive well-being impact of training programmes for the
unemployed.
Yet,
it is not quite as simple as this. There
are, at least, three important caveats for future policy-making.
First,
the effect of training programmes is relatively small. Whilst it is a statistically significant
effect, it is not comparable to the well-being effect of paid work. In terms of happiness at least, training
programmes are certainly no substitute for a real job. Further, there is no effect of programmes on
reducing the anxiety of the unemployed.
Second,
there are only well-being effects for certain types of participants. Women benefit less, as do older unemployed
people and the more highly qualified.
Training programmes are not a well-being panacea for all types of
unemployed people and we need to explore why they are ineffective for large
numbers of participants.
Thirdly,
and perhaps most importantly from a policy perspective, specific types of
programmes are more effective than others.
In particular, there is a crucial dichotomy at work. On the one hand, programmes that focus on
skills, training and work experience – many of which are voluntary – have apparently high well-being effects. On the other hand, programmes that focus on
intensified advice – most of which are mandatory
– are completely ineffective. Vitally,
this includes the main welfare-to-work scheme the Work Programme, which I find
to be exactly the same as ‘open unemployment’ in terms of well-being.
So,
what is going on and why do some types of programmes have observable well-being
effects? One idea is that such
programmes mimic the ‘latent functions’ of paid work.
This the theory that work is good for well-being for a wide variety of
non-economic reasons: time structure, daily activity, social contacts,
collective purpose and social status. By
mimicking these functions, training programmes can improve well-being.
A
second idea, which has emerged from qualitative research I conducted in Greater
Manchester, is far simpler. This is that
the better quality and voluntary schemes might simply treat people with
dignity, respect and care. Unemployed
people often feel stigmatised and ashamed by their status. When they enrol on a programme where advisers
treat them with dignity - and give them the time and space to develop – such
feelings of stigma and shame can be challenged.
Sadly however, this is far from the case in the Work Programme, which
invoke in many people feelings of antipathy and hostility.
The
conclusion then is that training programmes can promote the well-being of the
unemployed. But only in specific
training contexts, for certain types of unemployed people and if they promote
the right type of values. On these terms
then, the Work Programme is certainly not the cure for the psychological impact
of unemployment.
