FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG IMPROVING SOCIAL PROTECTION IN ROMANIA Table 3 Forms of adverse inclusion in the main means-tested income support benefits Regulation Period Underlying idea of “deservingness” Guaranteed Minimum Income Law 416/2002 Informal day­labour imputed as a source of income 2002-2015 The most needy, those unable to work, should receive the benefits Bureaucratic rationale Cost-containment Amount of the benefit does not depend on housing situation or home ownership 2002­present Obligation to present a monthly certificate from the county labour office 2002­present Owing or renting a house is seen as an individual“merit” Willingness to work and maintain “employability” through vocational training Social housing is a distinct programme under the responsibility of local governments Labour force activation Discipline beneficiaries Eligibility conditioned by no unpaid public taxes or penalisations 2010-2014 Obligation to perform community work(exception applies to those caring for children or other dependent family members) 2002­present Obligation to accept the first job offer 2018­present Rights must be balanced by responsibilities& duties Rights must be balanced by responsibilities& duties Maintain morals and “employability” Willingness to work Cost-containment Using the labour power of GMI beneficiaries Discipline beneficiaries Labour force activation Means-tested family allowance, Law 177/2010(initially O.U.G. 105/2003 Regulation Period Underlying notion of “deservingness” Bureaucratic rationale Regular school attendance 2010­present Rights must be met by responsibilities& duties Discipline parents Effects Seasonal variation in the number of beneficiaries Roma in rural areas suspended from receiving the benefit during the months of seasonal work Very limited poverty­reduction effect in the case of those suffering from housing deprivation, which include Roma As labour offices are located only in the larger cities, beneficiaries from rural areas are supposed to pay transportation costs and those from remote areas face very difficult access Criminalisation of poverty Persons who are de facto unable to undertake community work (poor health, spatial marginalisation, etc.) lose the benefit Persons who are de facto unable to accept the job (poor health, distance from job, family obligations, etc.) lose the benefit Effects Families living in severely impoverished and spatially marginalised areas do not have the resources to comply and lose the benefit Source: Authors' own synthesis. 12