Cited by 46Social Policy and Reform StudiesPublic Policy and Administration ResearchSocial Policies and Family

The implosion of the Dutch surveillance welfare state

Open access
Fenger, Menno, Simonse, Robin·2024·Social Policy & Administration

Abstract

From the 1990s onwards, fraud detection has become an increasingly important focus in the design and implementation of a variety of welfare schemes, including unemployment benefits, social assistance benefits, pensions, and personal care budgets. This culminated in the 2014 Fraud Act, which introduced a system of high sanction in all cases of benefit fraud, even if they were causes by administrative errors. In 2020 a parliamentary investigation committee concluded that the Dutch government had violated the foundational principles of the rule of law through the way suspected fraudsters with childcare allowances had been treated. This so‐called Childcare allowances affair undermined the support for the harsh approach to fraud and led to a series of proposals to reform the Dutch ‘surveillance welfare state’. The Dutch Childcare allowances affair is an interesting case of a social policy crisis because its origins are not external events but lie in the regular implementation of policies that have been approved and supported rather widely by politicians, policymakers and street‐level bureaucrats. In this article, we define and apply the concept ‘institutional implosion’ to analyse the Childcare allowances affair and its consequences. Moreover, we argue that the implosion in this affair follows from an extension of the target group from ‘non‐deserving’ to ‘deserving’ citizens. Whereas the Fraud Act primarily was aimed towards recipients of unemployment, disability and social assistance benefits, a change in the system of childcare allowances extended the scope of the Fraud Act to an almost universal group of parents that use childcare facilities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/spol.12998

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cases such as the Robodebt scheme, the UK Post Office Horizon scandal, and the Dutch SyRI system show that highly automated and data-driven screening mechanisms deployed at the population level generate extremely harmful mass effects and make it difficult for individuals to obtain adequate redress and compensation.

    “These cases show how highly automated and data-driven screening mechanisms deployed at the population level generate extremely harmful levels of mass effects and how difficult it is for individuals to obtain adequate redress and compensation.”

    From Resh(AI)ping Good Administration: Addressing the Mass Effects of Public Sector Digitalisation (2024) · cites this paper as Fenger and Simonse 2024

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Adler, M. (2016). A new leviathan: Benefit sanctions in the twenty-first century. Journal of Law and Society, 43(2), 195-227.
  2. Altreiter, C., & Leibetseder, B. (2015). Constructing inequality: Deserving and undeserving clients in Austrian social assis- tance offices. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1), 127-145.
  3. Ansell, C., Boin, A., & Kuipers, S. (2016). Institutional crisis and the policy agenda. In Handbook of public policy agenda setting (pp. 415-432).
  4. Ansell, C., & Vogel, D. (2006). What's the beef? The contested governance of European food safety. MIT press.
  5. Boin, A., & 't Hart, P. (2000). Institutional crises and reforms in policy sectors. In H. Wagenaar (Ed.), Government institutions: Effects, changes and normative foundations (pp. 9-31). Kluwer Academic.
  6. Bozeman, B. (2011). Toward a theory of organizational implosion. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 119- 140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010381781 · DOI
  7. Dee, M. (2013). Welfare surveillance, income management and new paternalism in Australia. Surveillance & Society, 11(3), 272-286.
  8. Dornan, P., & Hudson, J. (2003). Welfare governance in the surveillance society: A positive-realistic Cybercriticalist view. Social Policy and Administration, 37(5), 468-482.
  9. Dubois, V. (2019). Welfare fraud inspectors between standardization and discretion. In S. Van de Walle & N. Raaphorst (Eds.), Inspectors and eforcement at the front line of government. Springer.
  10. Fletcher, D. R., & Wright, S. (2018). A hand up or a slap down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain via strategies of sur- veillance, sanctions and deterrence. Critical Social Policy, 38(2), 323-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317726622 · DOI
  11. Gilliom, J. (2001). Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. University of Chicago Press.
  12. Hardy, J. (2021). The rise of the modern intelligence state. In A. Henschke, et al. (Eds.), Counter-terrorism, ethics and technol- ogy. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications.
  13. Headworth, S. (2021). Policing welfare: Punitive adversarialism in public assistance. University of Chicago Press.
  14. Henman, P., & Marston, G. (2008). The social division of welfare surveillance. Journal of Social Policy, 37(2), 187-205.
  15. Howard, C. (2006). The new governance of Australian welfare: Street-level contingencies. In P. Henman & M. Fenger (Eds.), Administering welfare reform: International transformations in welfare governance. The Policy Press.
  16. Streng maar onrechtvaardig. In Streng maar onrechtvaardig. De bijstand gewogen (pp. 243-260).
  17. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2009). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1-37). Cambridge University Press.
  18. Nijhuis, D. O. (2018). Religion, class, and the postwar development of the Dutch welfare state. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv69tgf6 · DOI
  19. Schmidt, A., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Management strategies in response to an institutional crisis: The case of earthquakes in The Netherlands. Public Administration, 96(3), 513-527.
  20. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.
  21. Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.
  22. Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.
  23. Wacquant, L. (2014). Class, race and hyper-incarceration in revanchist America. Socialism and Democracy, 28(3), 35-56.

Authors
Fenger, M., & Simonse, R.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Fenger, Menno
Venue
Social Policy & Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-07
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
264-276
ISSN
  • 0144-5596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9515
OpenAlex
W4390656160
Cited by
46
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
71.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Policy and Administration (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Policies and Family
Keywords
benefit fraud, rule of law, childcare allowance, unemployment benefits, social assistance benefits, street-level bureaucrats, welfare state reform

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review