Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Automating Universal Credit

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness. / Podoletz, Lena; Currie, Morgan.
In: First Monday, Vol. 29, No. 2, 05.02.2024.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Podoletz, L & Currie, M 2024, 'Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness', First Monday, vol. 29, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580

APA

Podoletz, L., & Currie, M. (2024). Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness. First Monday, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580

Vancouver

Podoletz L, Currie M. Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness. First Monday. 2024 Feb 5;29(2). doi: 10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580

Author

Podoletz, Lena ; Currie, Morgan. / Automating Universal Credit : A Case of Temporal Punitiveness. In: First Monday. 2024 ; Vol. 29, No. 2.

Bibtex

@article{5f5496c3c19543d895cc19858a5be778,
title = "Automating Universal Credit: A Case of Temporal Punitiveness",
abstract = "In this paper we study the dimension of time in social security, namely, the requirement of claimants to adopt a particular temporality in return for entitlements. We focus on the temporal rules and mandates of Universal Credit (UC), a unified benefit in the United Kingdom that delivers payment to claimants through a dynamic, automated means-testing system. UC imposes temporality through a monthly assessment period, a unit of time that UC has made infrastructural through an automated payment system. From our empirical study, we offer two sets of examples of how UC{\textquoteright}s particular temporality shapes claimant experience of the benefit. In these cases, the monthly assessment period conflicts with other temporalities that claimants must contend with — those set by employers through their employer payment cycle, in one, and the timeframes dictated by childcare providers and the practical needs of people with young children in the other. In both cases, a temporal mismatch leads to a loss of entitlement, a phenomenon we call temporal punitiveness.",
author = "Lena Podoletz and Morgan Currie",
year = "2024",
month = feb,
day = "5",
doi = "10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
journal = "First Monday",
issn = "1396-0466",
publisher = "First Monday",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automating Universal Credit

T2 - A Case of Temporal Punitiveness

AU - Podoletz, Lena

AU - Currie, Morgan

PY - 2024/2/5

Y1 - 2024/2/5

N2 - In this paper we study the dimension of time in social security, namely, the requirement of claimants to adopt a particular temporality in return for entitlements. We focus on the temporal rules and mandates of Universal Credit (UC), a unified benefit in the United Kingdom that delivers payment to claimants through a dynamic, automated means-testing system. UC imposes temporality through a monthly assessment period, a unit of time that UC has made infrastructural through an automated payment system. From our empirical study, we offer two sets of examples of how UC’s particular temporality shapes claimant experience of the benefit. In these cases, the monthly assessment period conflicts with other temporalities that claimants must contend with — those set by employers through their employer payment cycle, in one, and the timeframes dictated by childcare providers and the practical needs of people with young children in the other. In both cases, a temporal mismatch leads to a loss of entitlement, a phenomenon we call temporal punitiveness.

AB - In this paper we study the dimension of time in social security, namely, the requirement of claimants to adopt a particular temporality in return for entitlements. We focus on the temporal rules and mandates of Universal Credit (UC), a unified benefit in the United Kingdom that delivers payment to claimants through a dynamic, automated means-testing system. UC imposes temporality through a monthly assessment period, a unit of time that UC has made infrastructural through an automated payment system. From our empirical study, we offer two sets of examples of how UC’s particular temporality shapes claimant experience of the benefit. In these cases, the monthly assessment period conflicts with other temporalities that claimants must contend with — those set by employers through their employer payment cycle, in one, and the timeframes dictated by childcare providers and the practical needs of people with young children in the other. In both cases, a temporal mismatch leads to a loss of entitlement, a phenomenon we call temporal punitiveness.

U2 - 10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580

DO - 10.5210/fm.v29i2.13580

M3 - Journal article

VL - 29

JO - First Monday

JF - First Monday

SN - 1396-0466

IS - 2

ER -