Sense and Sensibility. Relational Dynamics between Minimum Income Beneficiaries and Social Workers

This study explores the complex interplay between rationalities and emotion in the context of minimum income schemes, focusing on the relational dynamics between beneficiaries and social workers. Based on an empirical study examining the implementation of the minimum income scheme in Northern Italy, our research highlights the significant role of emotions in shaping experiences of poverty and interactions with social services.

Our findings show that beneficiaries navigate a complex emotional landscape, often experiencing shame and stigma while accessing benefits. This is part of the process of becoming socially recognized as “poor” people. At the same time, they engage in identity negotiations and use emotional repertoires to maintain dignity. Social workers, in turn, grapple with the tension between empathic engagement and bureaucratic constraints, often resulting in ambivalent categorisations of beneficiaries.

The study shows that the boundary between rational and emotional action is blurred in welfare provision, with emotions playing a crucial role in organisational dynamics. We argue that welfare policies and programmes act as 'emotional mediators', capable of both mitigating and exacerbating beneficiaries' negative emotional experiences (Gubrium et al., 2013).

Our research contributes to the growing literature on the emotional dimensions of poverty and welfare provision (Walker et al., 2013). It highlights the need for welfare policies that recognise the importance of emotional experiences while balancing empowerment initiatives with practical support. The study also raises important questions about the intersectionality of emotional expression, the gendered nature of care work in social services, and the impact of local poverty regimes on policy implementation.

These findings have important implications for policy design and service delivery, suggesting the need for approaches that integrate emotional awareness with organisational efficiency in welfare provision (Penz et al., 2017).