Rechtvaardigheid van sancties in de sociale zekerheid. Verslag van een vignetonderzoek

Samenvatting

A tension exists between the right to social security and the obligation to work. In this article, it is first shown that - with respect to the unemployed - both principles are accepted by a large majority of the Dutch population. Next, using a factorial survey approach, we analyse judgements concerning the fairness of sanctioning unemployed people by cutting their benefits, when they decline a job offering. This analysis results in four major conclusions. (1) The sanctioning of those who fail to meet the obligation to work, when offered an opportunity, receives wide support. (2) The problem is judged from a perspective of social inequality rather than a perspective of social order. (3) Harsh sanctions are judged less fair when those concerned are more overqualified for the jobs offered, when lower incomes are offered (especially incomes below the level of one's unemployment benefit), and when older unemployed people, who have worked for a longer period, are involved. (4) Harsh sanctions are also judged less fair when married unemployed people are involved - especially when they have children -, since otherwise the partner (and the children) might be harmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Mens en Maatschappij is the property of Amsterdam University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)