All of this evolves from the principle that those who are able to work should work which is also stated in the phrase: ‘work for those who can, security forthose who cannot’ (DSS, 1998b).Jessop (2000, p. 181) suggests that if the shift to the ‘Schumpeterian workfarepost-national regime’ is made, it will lead to more emphasis on the integrationof the young unemployed and single parents into the labour market‘than on the retired or long term cares of the disabled or elderly’ that means there will be more emphasis on decreasing the public costs of caring for the disabledor retired’?
We would expect this to be true as far as the disabled or retired are seenas an ‘unproductive’ drain on the public purse, and yet New Labourpolicy has laid emphasis on the need to draw disabled people into work (DSS, 1998). Social services have been given instructions for taking lead in drawing up joint investment plans on welfare to work people in combination with health authorities and education and employment agencies.
An application of the concepts in this article of new labor policies should help us to conclude that they have changed the benefit system into means of commodification, drawing to labor market those who were previously exempted from it due to of parenthood or disability. Along with long term unemployed
In-work benefits were appeared as an innovative means in order to remove the ‘unemployment trap’ and the increase the differences between employment income and benefit income. However, as the benefits are removed, possibilities of creation of new trap is huge that can lead to a disincentive move to the higher-waged employment from low-waged employment.In support of the market, active state intervention can be reconfigured for further interventions and thus prove to be inherently contradictory.