References

• Blomberg, H., Kroll, C., Kallio, J., & Erola, J. (2013). Social workers’ perceptions of the causes of poverty in the Nordic countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 23(1), 68–82. doi: 10.1177/0958928712456575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E., & Marston, G. (Eds.) (2013). Work and the welfare state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eikenaar, T., De Rijk, A., & Meershoek, A. (2015). What’s in a frame? How professionals assess clients in Dutch work reintegration practice. Social Policy & Administration. doi:10.1111/spol.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, I. (2012). Personalisation, social justice and social work: A reply to Simon Duffy. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(1), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2011.623771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, D. (2011). Welfare reform, Jobcentre plus and the street-level bureaucracy: Towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups? Social Policy and Society, 10(4), 445–458. doi: 10.1017/S1474746411000200
   Google Scholar
• Hasenfeld, Y. (2010). Organizational responses to social policy: The case of welfare reform. Administration in Social Work, 34(2), 148–167. doi: 10.1080/03643101003608976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, C. (2006). Casework job design and client outcomes in welfare-to-work offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 263–288. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.) (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jessen, T., & Tufte, P. (2014). Discretionary decision-making in a changing context of activation policies and welfare reforms. Journal of Social Policy, 43(2), 269–288. doi: 10.1017/S0047279413000998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jewell, C. (2007). Assessing need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden: The organization of welfare case work and the potential for responsiveness in the ‘three worlds’. Law & Policy, 29(3), 380–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00260.x
   Google Scholar
• Jewell, C., & Glaser, B. (2006). Toward a general analytic framework: Organizational settings, policy goals, and street-level behavior. Administration & Society, 38(3), 335–364. doi: 10.1177/0095399706288581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallio, J., & Kouvo, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucrats’ and the general public’s deservingness perceptions of social assistance recipients in Finland. Social Policy & Administration, 49(3), 316–334. doi: 10.1111/spol.12094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjørstad, M. (2005). Between professional ethics and bureaucratic rationality: The challenging ethical position of social workers who are faced with implementing a workfare policy. European Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 381–398. doi: 10.1080/13691450500314459
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, F. (2013). Active labor-market reform in Denmark: The role of governance in policy change. In E. Brodkin & G. Marston (Eds.), Work and the welfare state (pp. 103–125). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liljegren, A. (2012). Pragmatic professionalism: Micro-level discourse in social work. European Journal of Social Work, 15(3), 295–312. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2010.543888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lymbery, M. (2012). Social work and personalisation. British Journal of Social Work, 42(4), 783–792. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marston, G., Larsen, J., & McDonald, C. (2005). The active subjects of welfare reform: A street-level comparison of employment services in Australia and Denmark. Social Work & Society, 3(2), 141–158.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C., & Chenoweth, L. (2009). (Re)shaping social work: An Australian case study. British Journal of Social Work, 39(1), 144–160. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, C., & Marston, G. (2008). Motivating the unemployed? Attitudes at the front line. Australian Social Work, 61(4), 315–326. doi: 10.1080/03124070802428167
   Google Scholar
• Noordegraaf, M., & Stijn, B. (Eds.) (2013). Professionals under pressure. The reconfiguration of professional work in changing public services. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nothdurfter, U. (2016). The street-level delivery of activation policies: Constraints and possibilities for a practice of citizenship. European Journal of Social Work, 19(3/4), 420–440. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1137869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, J., Mladenov, T., & Cribb, A. (2016). What justice, what autonomy? The ethical constraints upon personalisation. Ethics and Social Welfare. doi:10.1080/17496535.2016.1234631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Røysum, A. (2013). The reform of the welfare services in Norway: One office – One way of thinking? European Journal of Social Work, 16(5), 708–723. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2012.722982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sainsbury, R. (2008). Administrative justice, discretion and the ‘welfare to work’ project. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 30(4), 323–338. doi: 10.1080/09649060802580995
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–58. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024341
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (1965). Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 65–81. doi: 10.2307/2391650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scrivener, S., & Walter, J. (2001). Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs and three-years impact of the Columbus welfare-to-work program. New York, NY: MDRC.
   Google Scholar
• Tabin, J.-P., & Perriard, A. (2016). Active social policies revisited by social workers. European Journal of Social Work, 19(3/4), 441–454. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1131147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, S., & Marston, G. (2009). Who to serve? The ethical dilemma of employment consultants in nonprofit disability employment network organisations. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 73–89. doi: 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00131.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toerien, M., Sainsbury, R., Drew, P., & Irvine, A. (2013). Putting personalisation into practice: Work-focused interviews in Jobcentre plus. Journal of Social Policy, 42(2), 309–327. doi: 10.1017/S0047279412000980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muu056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P., & Larsen, F. (Eds.) (in press). Frontline delivery of welfare-to-work policies in Europe: Activating the unemployed. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkel, R., & Van der Aa, P. (2012). Activation work: Policy programme administration or professional service provision? Journal of Social Policy, 41(3), 493–510. doi: 10.1017/S0047279412000062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkel, R., Van der Aa, P., & Van Gestel, N. (2010). Professionals without a profession? Redesigning case management in Dutch local welfare agencies. European Journal of Social Work, 13(4), 447–463. doi: 10.1080/13691451003603455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Ewijk, H. (2009). Citizenship-based social work. International Social Work, 52(2), 167–179. doi: 10.1177/0020872808099728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar