References

• Anderson, S. (2001). Welfare recipient views about caseworker performance: Lessons for developing TANF case management practices. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 82(2), 165–174. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, H., Hill, C., & Riccio, J. (2003). Linking program implementation and effectiveness: Lessons from a pooled sample of welfare-to-work experiments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 551–575. doi: 10.1002/pam.10154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghi, V., & van Berkel, R. (2007). Individualised service provision in an era of activation and new governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(9/10), 413–424. doi: 10.1108/01443330710822101
   Google Scholar
• Darab, S., & Hartman, Y. (2011). Psychic wounds and the social structure: An empirical investigation. Current Sociology, 59, 787–804. doi: 10.1177/0011392111419751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Divosa. (2010). Divosa-monitor 2010 deel 3: Sociale diensten en vakmanschap. Groningen: CAB.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, P. (2000). Welfare rights and responsibilities: Contesting social citizenship. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, S., Kershaw, P., & Pulkingham, J. (2008). ‘Constructing “active citizenship”: single mothers, welfare, and the logics of voluntarism’. Citizenship Studies, 12(2), 157–176. doi: 10.1080/13621020801900119
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (2002). Structures of mutual obligation. Journal of Social Policy, 31(4), 579–596. doi: 10.1017/S004727940200675X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, G., Boddy, J., Chenoweth, L., & Davie, K. (2012). Mutual benefits: Developing relational service approaches within Centrelink. Australian Social Work, 65, 87–103. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.594956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handler, J. F., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2006). Blame welfare, ignore poverty and inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hauss, G. (2014). Generating productive citizens or supporting the weak? Ambivalences and contradictions in working with young welfare recipients. European Journal of Social Work, 17, 656–671. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2014.954239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, N. (2009). Dignity violation in health care. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1536–1547. doi: 10.1177/1049732309349809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampen, T. (2014). Verplicht vrijwilligerswerk: De ervaringen van bijstandscliënten met een tegenprestatie voor hun uitkering. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
   Google Scholar
• Kampen, T., Elshout, J., & Tonkens, E. (2013). The fragility of self-respect: Emotional labour of workfare volunteering. Social Policy and Society, 12, 427–438. doi: 10.1017/S1474746413000067
   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, 381–398. doi: 10.1080/13691450500314459
   Google Scholar
• Krinsky, J. (2008). Free labor: Workfare and the contested language of neoliberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, F., & Mailand, M. (2007). Danish activation policy: The role of the normative foundation, the institutional set-up and other drivers. In A. S. Pascual, & L. Magnusson (Eds.), Reshaping welfare states and activation regimes in Europe (Vol. 54) (pp. 99–127). Brussels: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Marston, G. (2005). The active subjects of welfare reform: A street-level comparison of employment services in Australia and Denmark. Social Work & Society, 3, 141–157.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C., & Marston, G. (2005). Workfare as welfare: Governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state. Critical Social Policy, 25, 374–401. doi: 10.1177/0261018305054077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, L. (2008). Beyond entitlement. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Muehlebach, A. (2012). The moral neoliberal: Welfare and citizenship in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J., & Tonkens, E. (2011). Participation, responsibility and choice: Summoning the active citizen in western European welfare states. 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, 420–440. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1137869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior, D., & Barnes, M. (2011). Subverting social policy on the front line: Agencies of resistance in the delivery of services. Social Policy & Administration, 45(3), 264–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00768.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provencher, Y., & Richard, M. C. (2010). Public employment policy professionals in industrialized countries: Different contexts and similar practices. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 63/64, 50–62.
   Google Scholar
• Soldatic, K., & Meekosha, H. (2012). The place of disgust: Disability, class and gender in spaces of workfare. Societies, 2 (3), 139–156. doi: 10.3390/soc2030139
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkel, R., & Van der Aa, P. (2012). Activation work: Policy programme administration or professional service provision? Journal of Social Policy, 41, 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, 447–463. doi: 10.1080/13691451003603455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warburton, J., & Smith, J. (2003). Out of the generosity of your heart: Are we creating active citizens through compulsory volunteer programmes for young people in Australia? Social Policy and Administration, 37, 772–786. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9515.2003.00371.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2013). On ‘activation workers’ perceptions’: A reply to Dunn (2). Journal of Social Policy, 42, 829–837. doi: 10.1017/S0047279413000494
   Google Scholar