There are of course important methodological problems in seeking to 
identify intergenerational worklessness as others have explained.

However, even assuming that it were possible to do so, the fundamental 
issue is one of appropriate causal inferences. The fact that any identified 
group experience 'worklessness' across multiple generations does not in 
itself demonstrate that such problems are a consequence of norms and values 
associated with 'benefit dependency'. This latter issue is rarely 
investigated but the scant empirical evidence offered in support of this 
view does not in any case establish whether this is a cause of 
'worklessness' or (more likely) a response to the unavailability of 
meaningful and adequately remunerated work.

More importantly, it is at least equally plausible that any such trends in 
intergenerational worklessness reflect a consistent pattern of 
vulnerability across generations arising from structural factors associated 
with social inequalities in wealth and power. Thus, different generations 
of 'disadvantaged' households could be subject to similar structural 
injustices  resulting in similar outcomes across time. Declining 
intergenerational social mobility is sustained by structural inequalities 
which ensure that working class families stay working class (and that poor 
families stay poor) rather than by the 'transmission' of cultural norms 
which militate against intergenerational mobility.

Eldin Fahmy


--On 09 December 2011 11:18 +0000 Rob Macmillan <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

> See also a literature review commissioned by DWP itself on the
> problematic idea of a 'culture of worklessness' in deprived areas, as
> part of the evaluation of its 'Working Neighbourhoods Pilot' programme in
> 12 neighbourhoods:
>
> http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/summ2005-2006/255summ.pdf
>
> And, linked to the evaluation:
>
>
> FLETCHER, D. R. (2007). A culture of worklessness? Historical insights
> from the Manor and Park area of Sheffield. Policy and politics, 35 (1),
> 65-85.
>
>
> Rob Macmillan
> Research Fellow
> Third Sector Research Centre
>
> ________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S.
> [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 09 December 2011 09:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>
> It is certainly the case that there is an inter-generational pattern of
> experiencing spells of worklessness which in effect indicates the
> exposure of poorer people across generations to the disadvantages of
> flexible labour markets and poor work. That is not the same however as
> inter-generational total benefit dependency which implies no real
> connection with work generation on generation.
>
> The Macmillan study identified below is quite interesting although I
> think the regression techniques deployed are in fact fairly useless for
> exploring complex causality. Far more important is what I regard as the
> misuse of the word worklessness since this is operationalized not in
> terms of real data describing life course but rather on the basis of
> observations of father's employment status at a set of time points,
> usually just two. In other words we do not have information on life
> course but just snapshots. Likewise son's worklessness is defined in
> terms of experiencing a period of long term unemployment, not in terms of
> no connection with the labour force.  Always look at how something is
> defined. And that said there is a really rather odd tendency in the paper
> to assign substantive significance when there is no statistical
> significance. Worth reading and lots of interesting information, but not
> a support for the myth of multiple generations with no connection with
> the labour force.
>
> David Byrne
>
> ________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
> behalf of Peter Whiteford Sent: Fri 09/12/2011 06:06
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>
>
> If one is interested in large scale statistical studies, there is a
> fairly comprehensive OECD working paper reviewing the literature on
> intergenerational mobility in many dimensions (including welfare receipt)
> that can be found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf The
> discussion of welfare receipt is at pages 34 to 36.
>
>
>
> A more focused Australian review can be found at
> http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/austsocialp
> olicy/Documents/austsocpolicy_2006/downloads.htm
>
>
>
> Interestingly, neither review refers to any UK literature.
>
>
>
> There is a recent UK study of multi-generation joblessness by Lindsey
> Macmillan at
> http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2010/wp231.pdf
>
>
>
> "The results indicate that there is a large correlation in workless
> experiences between fathers' and sons' in the UK. Son's from both
> cohorts are over twice as likely to experience workless spells themselves
> if they come from a family where the father was not observed in work
> throughout childhood compared to a father observed as employed at either
> 11(10) or 16. ... Controlling for observable characteristics accounts for
> 30% of the intergenerational correlation in the two cohorts and the use
> of more intensive workless measures of the father increases this
> percentage to 42% and 48% in the NCDS and BCS respectively."
>
>
>
> An Australian study referred to in the first two links finds a fairly
> similar level of association between parent's and children's' patterns of
> welfare receipt, but it worth noting that these are increased
> probabilities, not certainties.
>
>
>
> For example, while children whose parents received welfare when they were
> young were more than twice as likely (as children whose parents did not
> receive welfare payments) to receive welfare themselves before the age of
> 25, about two-thirds of this group (living in families receiving welfare
> during their childhood) did not receive welfare themselves.
>
>
>
> As the quote above suggests, identifying causal factors is also complex,
> although levels of educational attainment appears to be crucial.  There
> is also the issue that ideally one should compare parents and children at
> the same age, and once they have had sufficient time to enter the
> workforce and become established (say by the time they are in their 30s).
>
>
>
> I doubt that there is any large scale study that looks at three
> generation welfare receipt, since if you wanted to look even at people
> currently in their early 20s you would need studies that cover the past
> 40 years or more to work out what their grandparents were experiencing at
> the same age.
>
>
>
>
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacDonald, Rob Sent:
> Friday, 9 December 2011 7:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>
> Intergenerational Worklessness? Hunting the Yeti
>
> Yes, we identify ourselves! Thanks to John VW for the plug.
>
> Led by Tracy Shildrick and with Andy Furlong, Johann Roden and myself,
> we're conducting a qualitative study (and review of the literature) for
> JRF on 'intergenerational cultures of worklessness'. In essence, this is
> dogged 'shoe leather ethnography' and interviewing over 9 months in
> particularly deprived locales of Teesside and Glasgow, searching out, in
> the first instance, 'three generations of families were no-one has ever
> worked' (to hold interviews at each generation level). Our strategy, if
> unsuccessful in filling our sample quota of 20 such families, was to move
> to 'two generations of families were no-one has ever worked' and then, if
> still struggling to find recruits, to 'extensive worklessness' in two
> generations (e.g. a very long-term workless father and an unemployed
> seventeen year old son).
>
> We're writing the draft report now, probably to be launched/ published by
> JRF in early-mid 2012. We're still finalising what we say amongst
> ourselves and JRF haven't seen it so can't really say much more - apart
> from, suffice to say, that we had to deploy the whole recruitment
> strategy (above), the Yeti proves very elusive and that we look forward
> to sharing our findings in the near future.
>
> Also see
> Gaffney, D (2010) The myth of the intergenerational workless household,
> http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/09/the-myth-of-the-intergenerational-
> workless-household/
>
> Rob
>
> Prof. Robert MacDonald AcSS
> Professor of Sociology/ Deputy Director - Social Futures Institute
> School of Social Sciences and Law
> Teesside University
> Middlesbrough UK TS1 3BA
> email. [log in to unmask]
> tel. 01642 342351 (direct)
> fax. 01642 342399
> http://www.tees.ac.uk/sections/research/social_futures/staff_profile_deta
> ils.cfm?staffprofileid=U0000948
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Veit-Wilson
> [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 08 December 2011 14:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality Multi-generational unemployment -- I
> was recently told there is already an ongoing research project trying to
> find the 3rd generation unemployed in a couple of industrial cities, but
> so far without success [the researchers can identify themselves if they
> want to -- I shan't as the work hasn't been published]. Apparently it's
> like the yeti -- impossible to disprove.
>
> Hypothetically, if 3 generations worked in for example a coal mine which
> closed, all 3 could then be simultaneously signing on [synchronic]. But
> that is very different from the myth of entire successions of lives
> [diachronic], even though at the level of myth creation they might be
> related.
>
> However, the myth needs to be challenged very time it is uttered. What
> have IDS's officials produced in evidence? If any single 'family' [do
> they mean household of unrelated people?] could be found, what does this
> say about the profitability of its members to local employers and the
> capability of the local jobcentre staff to do their boasted job of
> helping people into work they are meant to do? His department and its
> contractors are incompetent?
>
> There are also unemployed people whose disabilities are not outwardly
> visible [psychological and personality conditions] -- these too are
> subject to mythology about living on the dole or malingering [John
> Humphrys referred to one in prejudiced terms in Splott when he was
> young]. At a time when even the visibly incapacitated are publicly
> abused, the situation of the non-visible may be even worse in terms of
> prejudiced discriminations of the mythological kind government ministers
> and their acolytes purvey.
>
> John VW.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> From Professor John Veit-Wilson
> Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
> Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
> Telephone: +44[0]191-222 7498
> email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilso
> n>/
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S. Sent: 08
> December 2011 13:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality I very much agree with Adrian's
> general comments but I suppose that on reflection what worries me is the
> failure to have a voice in action which manages to deal with reality as
> it is and to support a programme of redistributive (by which I mean
> challenging exploitation in the classic sense) social democracy. My
> quarrel with Marmot and say 'The Spirit Level' is that that work, good
> though it is (despite some reservations about the spirit level's modes of
> statistical reasoning) just posits equality as a general good without
> recognizing the hard reality of completing interests and in particular,
> to be clear, competing class interests. There is a US literature which
> tries to make people there realize that the great majority of them are
> working class in terms of economic relations. Here we used to know
> something like that because of the class foundation of politics but since
> New Labour the whole sensibility seems to have gone by the board. The
> equation of working class with poor or chav is part of this programme and
> the ability to be divisive in relation to benefits is reinforced by that
> tendency.
>
> By the way has anybody anywhere any evidence that there are really
> significant numbers of families / households with multi-generational
> experience of benefit dependency through life? I very much doubt it
> mostly because of the nature of reality and historical experience, but
> also by the way because our longitudinal data sets are really badly
> deficient in general in documenting the life trajectories of the poorest.
> The big thing is that this bullshit is a myth. The little thing is that
> our tools couldn't find it even it it wasn't a myth.
>
> David Byrne
>
> ________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
> behalf of Adrian Sinfield Sent: Thu 08/12/2011 12:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>
> I share Dave Byrne's concerns about recent BBC coverage - although on
> this occasion I disagree with him.  I thought that Michael Marmot
> effectively demolished the Adam Smith Institute speaker - wasn't it
> Eamonn Butler?  Admittedly Marmot did not use any of his killer
> quotes, 'social injustice is killing on a grand scale' or 'social
> justice is a matter of life and death', but he left no doubt that
> inequality was a very important issue, and not one to be left to
> market correction under any circumstances.  I also enjoyed the way
> that Eddie Mair referred to them both at the end with the stress on
> Marmot as the specialist - it quite surprised me.
>
> I have been much more concerned by the astonishing Humphrys hour on
> The Future State of Welfare on BBC2 at 9 on Oct 27.  It was almost as
> one-sided as his long piece in the Daily Mail earlier that week on
> the way that Beveridge had led to a 'culture of entitlement' (and not
> a word about bankers' 'guaranteed' bonuses). I stress the time of the
> programme as the hour before on BBC1 was to be 'Britain on the
> Fiddle'.  The Radio Times said: 'with some £22bn of taxpayers' money
> effectively stolen each year through fraud, Richard Bilton uses
> undercover cameras in this Panorama Special to expose people,
> allegedly on benefits, sailing yachts and driving Bentleys.  He also
> follows the work of fraud investigators tackling the growing number
> of benefit cheats, using fake identities to steal millions.'  So
> clearly, although not actually said so, £22bn going on welfare
> stealing, and growing ...  Thankfully it was replaced by a story on
> Dale Farm.  But it was broadcast a week later.  The listener could
> easily be left thinking that all £22bn was welfare fraud, and I
> gather the Daily Mirror later repeated £22bn on welfare abuse.  The
> Scotsman this week suggested that it was £38bn - the full total of
> the National Fraud Authority estimate on public and private fraud
> where benefits and tax welfare fraud was put at £1.6bn.
>
> Humphrys has been critiqued by Declan Gaffney -
> http://<https://stone.tees.ac.uk/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> www.leftfootforward.org/2011/10/john-humphrys-is-wrong-on-social-
> security/
> There has also been a series of pieces by Ben Baumberg on the
> Inequalities blogs. The link to the first is
> http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-deservingness-of-
> benefit-claimants-i/
>
> I would agree with Heejung Chung that Nick Robinson's pieces on
> taxing and spending were also remarkably misleading.  In the first he
> stressed that governments could never deny old people anything with
> constant references to the cost of the universal winter fuel
> allowance and no mention of the change to the pension indexation that
> will reduce pensions significantly over time.
>
> Both Humphrys and Robinson are particularly important as known public
> figures and I understand the BBC has guidelines about taking care not
> to abuse their position as authority figures.
>
>
> Perhaps there is a wider issue that should be linked to this.  I have
> felt in recent months that there have been increasing lapses by the
> BBC and papers that one might expect to know better to reproduce what
> we might dismiss, and tolerate in that we do not complain, as tabloid
> coverage.  I recently heard a chief editorial writer, not from The
> Guardian, complain about the enormous difficulty of getting stories
> alternative to the offical and conventional wisdom.  She spoke at the
> AGM of a poverty group and went out of her way to stress the need for
> members to send her material.  I recall that Polly Toynbee made the
> same point when she spoke as President to the SPA conference a few
> years ago.
>
> And ministers are being allowed to get away with remarkable accounts
> of life on low incomes.  In the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture Iain
> Duncan-Smith in March this year spoke of those on benefits who 'have
> seen their parents, their neighbours and their entire community sit
> on benefits for life…'  This is not a slip, he repeats it: 'The
> Universal Credit is about understanding that people who have been out
> of work all their lives…and have never seen a family or even a
> community member in work…have to see the financial benefits from
> taking up employment'.  What evidence did he have for this?  OK, it
> can be quoted to provide a remarkable insight into thinking at the
> 'highest' levels in government, but in the last week he and others
> appear to be building on this sort of line to dismiss existing
> poverty measures because extra on benefits will only mean more on
> drugs and alcohol rather than more on children.
>
> Scottish poverty groups led by the Poverty Alliance have got so
> annoyed by the badmouthing of those on low incomes and particularly
> on benefits that they got the leaders of the political parties to
> sign up before the last election to a 'Stick Your Labels Campaign':
> 'The Commitment to Challenge the Stigma of People Living in Poverty
> in Scotland'.  I have reproduced it at the end.
>
> Is there something as a social policy community that we can do?
> Sharing our frustrations here is one important step forward but can
> it be lifted out of our narrow group?  Is this something where the
> SPA or the Academy of the Social Sciences could give a lead?  Or
> should we all deluge the BBC and others with our complaints?
>
> Best wishes, yours, Adrian
>
>
> 'The Commitment to Challenge the Stigma of People Living in Poverty
> in Scotland states:
> People experiencing poverty are often judged and blamed for their
> poverty. This can undermine their self-confidence, insults their
> dignity, perpetuates misunderstanding and creates barriers to
> escaping poverty.
> Individuals who experience poverty face additional obstacles which
> make it harder for them to make the best of opportunities which most
> of us take for granted, but the efforts they make to support
> themselves and their families are often ignored.
> People cope as best they can with very scarce resources, despite
> prejudices and stereotypes that paint them as lazy and undeserving.
> Stigmatising people experiencing poverty is not just cruel: it erodes
> understanding, is socially divisive, and inhibits effective policy
> responses.
> There is an urgent need to raise awareness about the negative effects
> of the stigmatization of people in poverty in Scotland, and challenge
> prejudiced attitudes. This is essential for tackling poverty and
> ensuring dignity for everyone.
> I join all those who care about the sustainability of our communities
> in calling for concerted action from all sections of society to end
> the stigmatization of people in poverty in Scotland.'
>
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2011, at 10:39, Heejung Chung wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> First of all, I am happy that David started this discussion - it
>> was long overdue.
>> I will be more than happy to contribute my share in forming that
>> complaint, especially because I think the recently aired BBC show
>> on taxes and spending "Your money and how they spend it"  was also
>> ludicrous conservative propaganda. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/
>> b017vd5m
>>
>> I've been wanting to write something using the recent OECD data and
>> perhaps some other income trend data myself anyhow.
>>
>> In terms of alternatives I found the recent Paul Krugman articles
>> quite interesting
>> About an alternative path: http://tinyurl.com/65ge8rj
>> Welfare state and recession: http://tinyurl.com/cjo5fj2
>> What to tax: http://tinyurl.com/c8raew9
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Heejung Chung
>>
>> Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy
>> School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
>> University of Kent
>>
>> http://www.heejungchung.com<http://www.heejungchung.com/>
>> http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Rowlingson
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 08 December 2011 09:40
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
>> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via  www.oecd.org/
>> els/social/inequality
>>
>> There is also a 'Plan C' doing the rounds.  Polly Toynbee discussed
>> this in the Guardian recently ...
>>
>> 'So try plan C, from Glasgow University's Professor Greg Philo: a
>> one-off windfall taking 20% of the accrued wealth of the richest
>> 10% would solve the debt problem overnight. Graduated so the top 1%
>> pay most, taking a fifth of the £4tn they own would only push back
>> downwards the money hoovered upwards in the last decade. They can
>> pay it after death if they prefer. Yougov found 74% support for the
>> idea'
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/public-sector-
>> workers-plan-c
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Taylor-Gooby
>> Sent: 08 December 2011 09:26
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
>> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via www.oecd.org/
>> els/social/inequality
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Of course the real issue is devising a credible and progressive
>> response to this trend, something which Left parties haven't been
>> very successful at doing (so far).  The only attempt which tries to
>> include politics, economy and social issues I know of is Plan B
>> http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/
>> Compass_Plan_B_web.pdf
>> and that needs a lot of development.
>>
>> Is there anything else?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harriet Clarke
>> Sent: 07 December 2011 23:45
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
>> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via www.oecd.org/
>> els/social/inequality
>>
>> Indeed.
>> ... Though Inside Job did reiterate the who pays the piper point
>> somewhat!
>> Harriet
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 Dec 2011, at 20:31, "Stephen McKay" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> BBC2 is showing "Inside Job" at 9pm tonight, a film about the 2008
>>> global financial crisis. Not a ringing endorsement of free
>>> markets, nor of economics.
>>>
>>> SD McKay
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: 07 December 2011 20:07
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided
>>> We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
>>> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>>>
>>> Ad hominems -- way to go! Especially not for a Director of
>>> Postgraduate Studies.
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 7/12/11, BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
>>> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
>>> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Wednesday, 7 December, 2011, 16:39
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was particularly disgusted by BBC Radio Four  PM's coverage of
>>> this material. They put Michal Marmot, an academic of I am afraid
>>> at least on this instance mild disposition, up against a hack and
>>> lackey (who pays his wages?) from the Adam Smith institute. Taking
>>> that kind of hired gob of the rich seriously on such matters is
>>> not appropriate. He argued of course that increasing inequality is
>>> no bad thing. Perhaps we might consider the following statement:
>>>
>>> THE AFFLUENCE OF THE RICH SUPPOSES THE INDIGENCE OF THE MANY: ADAM
>>> SMITH!
>>>
>>> Can these clowns read and if so have they ever actually read Adam
>>> Smith?
>>>
>>> I doubt he would, if reincarnated, make water upon them were they
>>> spontaneously to ignite.
>>>
>>> Ire out of the way - who would be up for a formal social policy /
>>> statistics complaint to the BBC against taking opinion from think
>>> tanks which do not disclose their funding arrangements so we can
>>> see just who is paying the piper and thereby calling the tune.
>>>
>>> David Byrne
>
> Adrian Sinfield
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



----------------------
Dr Eldin Fahmy
School for Policy Studies
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road, Bristol  BS8 1TZ
T: +44(0)117 9546703