SOCIAL SECURITY, SOCIAL INEQUALITY 219
UK since 1997. These reforms, known as the Hartz reforms, combined a
number of measures designed to encourage the unemployed to seek work,
to foster the restructuring of the traditional labor administration system
according to the guidelines of “New Public Management,” and to make
decisive changes to benefi t legislation. Some of the measures intended
to reactivate the desire to fi nd work among the unemployed included
providing support to former recipients of social assistance who were now
required to actively seek employment, and stricter regulations about jobs
that people could reasonably be expected to accept. Both of these pol-
icies were intended to increase the motivation to fi nd a job among the
unemployed. Changes in benefi ts legislation, moreover, dictated that—
after a limited transitional period in which individuals would continue
to be paid income-based unemployment benefi ts—social assistance and
what used to be a de facto unlimited system of income-based unemploy-
ment benefi ts tied to the former standards of living were combined into
a second stage of unemployment benefi ts, known as Arbeitslosengeld II,
whose amount was the same across the board. Arbeitslosengeld II was
conceived as a way to ensure a basic minimum of existence; it was also
coupled with strict asset and needs assessments, little protection for
existing wealth and property, and tough rules that applied to domestic
partnerships.^65 This marked a far-reaching departure from some of the
key principles of the German welfare state in one of the main fi elds of
social policy. Prior to this point, income compensation as well as old age
pensions and unemployment benefi ts had been governed by the idea that
contributions and payouts should be equivalent, and, since the 1950s,
that the goal should be to ensure a consistent standard of living.
In the old system, the principle of equivalence in terms of social secu-
rity contributions and social benefi t claims and the rules that determined
what kind of job a person could reasonably be expected to accept took
into account the previous occupational status of job seekers. It guaran-
teed that members of the middle class could continue to live a similar
lifestyle over the long term, even if they lost their jobs. It is therefore mis-
leading to interpret the Hartz reforms as a poverty policy measure that
was mainly directed against the lower classes. In truth, the big losers
were the members of the middle classes, who used to be particularly well
protected by social policy, but now found themselves faced with a larger
chance of falling down the social ladder if they lost their jobs. Many peo-
ple who had been reliant on social assistance, on the other hand, now
received support in trying to fi nd work on the job market for the fi rst time.
If only the issue of unemployment is taken into account, the Hartz
reforms were indeed a success. Bolstered by an economic upswing, Ger-
many has experienced a strong reduction in unemployment since 2006