Abstract
Since its introduction in 2008, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) has
been the subject of much criticism and concern that the mechanisms for assessing
claims are unjust. Some of this criticism has been backed up by the first independent
review of the assessment process. Thirty years ago Mashaw argued that models
of justice could be used to identify “those qualities of a decision process that
provide arguments for the acceptability of its decisions”.1 Based on a small piece
of empirical research amongst welfare rights advisers, this article uses Mashaw’s
framework to examine the groundswell of opinion that decision-making in ESA is
unacceptable.
been the subject of much criticism and concern that the mechanisms for assessing
claims are unjust. Some of this criticism has been backed up by the first independent
review of the assessment process. Thirty years ago Mashaw argued that models
of justice could be used to identify “those qualities of a decision process that
provide arguments for the acceptability of its decisions”.1 Based on a small piece
of empirical research amongst welfare rights advisers, this article uses Mashaw’s
framework to examine the groundswell of opinion that decision-making in ESA is
unacceptable.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 69-86 |
| Journal | Journal of Social Security Law |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |