Origins
As criticism of long-term unemployment and welfare dependency grew after the 1970s, the United States and Britain pursued reforms attaching work obligations to benefits, with the 1996 US welfare reform as the leading example. Jessop (1993) read this as a shift from a Keynesian welfare state pursuing full employment and income security to a 'Schumpeterian workfare state' prioritizing competitiveness and labor flexibility. Peck (2001) critically analyzed workfare as a disciplinary device pushing people into low-wage labor markets. It is closely tied to neoliberal welfare theory.
Work-first and enabling approaches
Comparing national programs, Lødemel and Trickey (2001) distinguished a 'labor market attachment' approach stressing rapid job entry from a 'human resource development' approach based on education and training. Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer (2004) mapped the many worlds of activation, and Dingeldey (2007) compared paths of workfare stressing sanctions and obligations with 'enablement' stressing services and support. Approaches combining generous benefits and training, like Danish flexicurity, are closer to the latter.
Effects and critiques
The meta-analysis by Card, Kluve and Weber (2010) found that job-search assistance had larger short-run effects and training larger long-run effects. Bonoli (2010) divided active labor market policies into incentive reinforcement, employment assistance and upskilling and analyzed their political roots. Critics argue that work conditions expand low-paid, insecure work and penalize carers and vulnerable groups. The debate has shaped the social investment state and the design of unemployment benefits.
FAQ
- What is workfare in simple terms?
- A welfare approach that makes benefits conditional on working, looking for work or taking training.
- Are workfare and activation the same?
- Workfare mainly stresses obligations and sanctions, while activation is a broader idea that also includes training and support.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Peck, J. (2001). Workfare states. Guilford Press. Political economy of workfare.
- Jessop, B. (1993). Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist political economy. Studies in Political Economy, 40(1), 7–39. From welfare to workfare state.
- Lødemel, I., & Trickey, H. (Eds.). (2001). An offer you can't refuse: Workfare in international perspective. Policy Press. International comparison.
- Barbier, J.-C., & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2004). Introduction: The many worlds of activation. European Societies, 6(4), 423–436. Many worlds of activation.
- Dingeldey, I. (2007). Between workfare and enablement: The different paths to transformation of the welfare state. European Journal of Political Research, 46(6), 823–851. Workfare vs enablement.
- Bonoli, G. (2010). The political economy of active labor-market policy. Politics & Society, 38(4), 435–457. Types of active labor policy.
- Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2010). Active labour market policy evaluations: A meta-analysis. Economic Journal, 120(548), F452–F477. Meta-analysis of effects.