Constraints and creativity. Social ties in monetary transfers to the poor Open Access

Minimum income money aims to improve the living conditions of people in poverty by ensuring “a life in dignity at all stages of life” (Council of the European Union, 2023). Nevertheless, although this money is intended to reduce inequalities, it can also reinforce them by virtue of the constraints attached to its use.

In this article, I investigate the constraints of a minimum income and the strategies through which beneficiaries can overcome such limitations. I concentrate on a specific anti-poverty measure: the former Italian minimum income scheme known as Citizenship Income.

Under this scheme, monthly payments were issued by the National Social Security Institute via a prepaid card collected at a post office and registered to the applicant. The funds had to be spent within the month, with unused balances forfeited, and only one monthly bank transfer was allowed. Spending was restricted to specific categories and stores, excluding certain goods and online purchases. Cash withdrawals were capped at 100 euros per month for single-person households and limited to post office ATMs.

Considering these constraints, I pose three empirical research questions:

1. What significance do the constraints on monetary transfers hold for both beneficiaries and operators?

2. How do these constraints shape beneficiaries' use of the funds?

3. How do beneficiaries and operators interpret the strategies adopted to navigate these limitations?

The importance of this topic extends beyond minimum income policies and the Italian context. Financial constraints apply to many kinds of monetary transfers. Important examples include the money disbursed to asylum seekers in France through the Allocation pour demandeur d'asile (ADA) Card (Jacobsen et al., 2022) and in Germany following a 2024 reform, which introduced considerable new constraints on the use of such money (Federal Republic of Germany, 2024). Moreover, in the United States, programmes designed to aid the poor, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, disburse Electronic Benefit Transfers (Desmond, 2023; Halpern-Meekin et al., 2015), often with constraints attached to the money. Examining the Italian case therefore offers broader analytical leverage for understanding how constraints operate across different welfare settings and how they shape recipients' everyday financial practices. It also helps distinguish constraints embedded in the use of money itself from the behavioural conditionalities typically associated with European minimum income programmes (Coady et al., 2021; Lodemel and Moreira, 2014) and with conditional cash transfer programmes in Latin America (Antía et al., 2024; Ramírez and Velázquez Leyer, 2023).

The article is structured as follows. The next section develops a theoretical perspective on welfare money. Section 3 elaborates on the fundamental policy elements that help frame this analysis. Section 4 presents the research methods. Section 5 discusses the research results, examining how the interviewees understood the relevant constraints and strategies. Section 6 concludes by framing the constraints, strategies, and meanings related to this money within the developed theoretical model, and by discussing their broader implications for the study of welfare money and inequality.

Economists define money in practical terms: it functions as a means of storing value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account (Carruthers and Ariovich, 2010). From a sociological perspective, however, money is understood to be constituted through social relations (Ingham, 2004). Simmel, in his critique of modernity, identifies the form of the monetary economy as a distinctive feature of his time. Money is described as a universal equivalent “which reduces all quality and individuality to a purely quantitative level” (Simmel, 2010, p. 334). Therefore, money facilitates the shift from a qualitative to a quantitative logic.

Economic sociology's most significant contribution to establishing this reconciliation between quality and quantity in recent decades stems from Zelizer's fundamental work on the social meanings of money (Zelizer, 1994), and from her and her colleagues' development of the relational work framework to describe economic transactions (Bandelj et al., 2017). Before exploring the implications of this framework for the analysis, it is essential to outline its key features.

For Zelizer, economic activities cannot be reduced to mere transactions understood as social activities or practices meant to facilitate the exchange of goods or services. Alongside these features, other elements are present. Zelizer identifies four distinctive components of every economic activity: distinctive social ties between the individuals or groups involved in the activity; a particular set of transactions, which varies depending on the situation; one or more specific media for those transactions – referring here to the concrete means through which the transaction is carried out (such as cash or electronic payments); and, finally, the meanings attributed to all these elements, which are continually renegotiated during and through the economic transaction. Zelizer defines the connections between these elements as relational packages (Zelizer, 2012), highlighting how these connections are created through relational work (Zelizer, 2005, 2012). Such work involves establishing viable correspondences between the relationships, transactions, media, and meanings involved.

The idea of relational work is fundamental because it enables the meanings that individuals or groups attribute to an economic activity to be linked with the sphere of action within which people actively use money (Bandelj, 2023).

While relational work has typically been theorised in interpersonal contexts – such as families or market exchanges – this paper extends it to the state–citizen relations mediated by welfare programmes, seeking the four elements of relational work identified by Zelizer – social ties, transactions, media of exchange, and meanings. Even without face-to-face interactions, relational work may unfold through symbolic and institutional processes, where mismatches are interpreted and managed in recipients' daily actions.

This article focuses on the two main types of economic transactions in which minimum income money is involved: (1) the disbursement of money from the state to the beneficiaries, and (2) the subsequent use of that money by the beneficiaries themselves in their daily lives.

To analyse these two flows of money an additional key concept must be introduced: the earmarking of money. The notion of earmarking was explored in anthropology by Douglas, who noted how “individuals living in a modern monetary economy try to restrict the free flow of money by earmarking, blocking, and hoarding” (Douglas, 1967, p. 140). In this context, Douglas's definition of earmarking closely aligns with Thaler's concept of “mental accounting” (Thaler, 1990). This describes the cognitive process by which individuals categorize, evaluate, and track their financial activities focusing on how people manage money at the individual level. Zelizer builds on the concept of earmarking, underscoring its distinctly relational dimension and illustrating how these diverse forms of labelling money arise in direct contrast to the traditional economic approach, which strives to standardize currencies into a singular, homogeneous form (Dodd, 2005).

As a contrast to this idea, Zelizer argues that during the progressive standardization and dematerialization of money, individuals continuously mark it, either materially or mentally, while participating in economic activities. This is because of the relational work inherent in each transaction. Within the framework of relational work's four distinctive elements, earmarking is specifically linked to the media of exchange used during economic transactions.

In reference to monetary transfers, Zelizer emphasizes “how certain forms of currency enforce the dependency of discriminated or subservient populations” and that “to further explore the issue of social agency, we need among other things to differentiate between top-down forms of monetary earmarking, such as those instituted by the state or other powerful agencies, and bottom-up differentiations created by people's everyday relations” (Zelizer, 2012, p. 163). In the Italian context, a recent study highlighted how the meanings that beneficiaries attribute to minimum income schemes are complex and transcend the purposes the money was intended to fulfil upon disbursement (Bertoluzza et al., 2024). However, these meanings, which are crucial for understanding how money impacts beneficiaries' lives, must be coupled with the concrete actions that occur around these monetary transfers in the two directions previously outlined.

This article therefore examines how the constraints placed on minimum income funds comprise a form of top-down earmarking that defines a particular relationship between the poor and society at large. Conversely, it analyses how individuals' strategies in using this money form a countervailing, bottom-up form of earmarking, highlighting the complexity of negotiating the distinctive ties present within these relationships. By examining these two movements together within a single case study, I seek to clarify “the role of power and relational work's consequences for inequality in the economy” (Bandelj, 2021, p. 3).

Minimum income policy is the primary tool used by European nations to combat poverty. Its objective is to ensure dignity for people living in poverty throughout all stages of life (Council of the European Union, 2023). This goal is pursued in two ways: First, applicants are provided with monetary support intended to alleviate their poverty; at the same time, access to this support is made conditional upon the fulfilment of activation requirements that must be met in order for the benefit to be received (Coady et al., 2021; Lodemel and Moreira, 2014).

Monetary transfers are typically evaluated in terms of their adequacy for recipients. While there is growing recognition that this adequacy should extend beyond cash income to consider broader individual and societal circumstances (Cittadini, 2024; Penne et al., 2020), the generosity of such benefits is often benchmarked against poverty thresholds (Figari et al., 2013). Furthermore, adequacy cannot be determined solely based on recipients' needs, as structural economic limitations also play a critical role in shaping benefit levels (Cantillon et al., 2018). However, the determination of the monetary amount to be allocated offers little insight into the qualitative differences that have a crucial influence on how such measures are used and their ultimate impact.

Minimum income schemes in Italy exhibit specific qualitative features compared to other forms of monetary transfers, such as the recently reformed child allowances (Saraceno, 2022), or disability pensions. As outlined in Section 1, unlike these transfers, minimum income is disbursed under specific constraints set by law. Italy has been consistent in implementing these constraints. From the first experiments with minimum income measures at the national level to the disbursement of money through an electronic prepaid card today, this money has always been subject to purchase limits (Busso et al., 2018). This is particularly surprising given the evolution of these measures over time, which encompasses variations in funding levels, coverage, adequacy, pathways to social and professional inclusion, and conditionality requirements. Despite these changes, the constraints imposed on the use of the transfers have largely gone unnoticed, both in policy analyses and in discussions of their practical and theoretical implications.

Citizenship Income, introduced in 2019, was the most generously funded minimum income scheme in the history of such measures in Italy (Gori, 2023). Access to the scheme was based on the principle of selective universalism. In 2021, the year of its highest uptake, Citizenship Income supported over 1.7 million households across the country (INPS, 2025). From its introduction, however, the programme was the subject of intense political and public debate. Critics argued that the benefit weakened incentives to take up employment, while political actors portrayed it as a passive form of assistance fostering dependency. In 2024, following a change of government, the Inclusion Allowance was introduced – a reformed and more restrictive minimum income scheme that reintroduced categorical eligibility criteria, thereby limiting its reach to a smaller number of households (around 750,000 in 2024). While many changes were made during the reform, the structure of constraints on money was largely retained, maintaining continuity with those examined in this article.

The material analysed in this paper is part of a broader research project that took place between 2020 and 2023 in four Northern Italian regions: Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, and Emilia-Romagna. The project involved conducting 209 semi-structured interviews across the four regions, including 73 with social and employment service operators and 136 with minimum income beneficiaries. A research protocol was established, and approval was obtained from the relevant ethics committee. All interviewees provided informed consent to participate in the study.

Regarding the operators, who were interviewed in 2021, the sample selection was guided by the intent to investigate professional figures (36 social workers and 37 employment centre operators) involved in direct relationships with users in both metropolitan and inland area contexts. The selections were made following an institutional agreement between the involved universities and local social services and employment centres, ensuring structured collaboration and access to key professionals. Where possible, interviews were conducted with operators who held coordination roles (9 out of 73). As for the minimum income beneficiaries, they were primarily contacted through the social workers and operators interviewed, who acted as intermediaries. The identification of interviewees by social workers and operators introduced a well-documented risk of creaming – a tendency, particularly in contexts of power imbalance, to select individuals who reflect more favourable outcomes or exemplary cases (Lipsky, 1980). When these intermediaries had difficulty finding enough minimum income recipients who were available for interviews, Caritas, which has a widespread presence across Italy, was asked to refer some individuals (6 out of 136).

The selection of beneficiaries was designed to reflect the main characteristics of the Italian poverty model (Saraceno et al., 2020), ensuring a balance between households with minors (64) and those without (72). Among the families with minors, 34 were single-parent households (all single mothers, with one exception). Households without minors were primarily single-person units, with only five cases involving childless couples. In determining the composition of the beneficiary sample for interviews, careful attention was paid to ensuring the presence of both women (86 out of 136) and men (50 out of 136). The presence of young adults was also ensured, with 21 out of 136 interviewees being under 35 years old, as was the potential migratory backgrounds of the interviewees, with 34 out of 136 households being non-native Italians.

The beneficiaries were approached not only as subjects of the measures but also as experts, and we asked for their opinions and evaluations based on their lived experiences. Securing participants' trust and safeguarding their privacy represented key challenges in the research process.

All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analysed using NVivo, a software for qualitative analysis, ensuring that all participants' anonymity was preserved throughout the process. All names quoted in the Findings section are fictitious.

Qualitative data analysis (Bazeley, 2021) was used to understand the subjective meanings attributed by the beneficiaries and operators to the monetary constraints and strategies. The empirical material was analysed in accordance with the fundamental steps of reflexive thematic analysis: familiarizing with the dataset, coding the data, generating initial themes, developing and reviewing themes, and refining, defining, and naming them (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The conceptual model presented in the discussion was created through a process of interpreting codes and themes (Naeem et al., 2023) and then integrating these findings with relational work theory (Zelizer, 2012).

To explore the meanings of the constraints attached to money, I first examine how the interviewees described them, following the order laid out in Section 1. One major concern noted by the interviewees was the requirement to spend all funds within a month, which many interviewees found frustrating, as the inability to retain savings made it difficult to manage annual or unexpected expenses, such as car insurance or dental visits. The restriction to only one bank transfer per month further complicated financial planning, particularly for essential payments, such as rent, utilities, and school meals.

While interviews highlighted several advantages of the prepaid card, such as its practicality, alignment with digital payment trends, and reduced risk compared to handling cash, its limitations were a significant source of dissatisfaction. Beneficiaries criticized the restrictions on where the card could be used and what could be purchased. In areas outside major cities, not all shops accept electronic payments, and the inability to make purchases online – where goods are often cheaper – created additional challenges for those on tight budgets. The option to withdraw a limited amount of cash was highly valued, as it offered flexibility for making small payments, debt settlements, and unrestricted purchases.

Given the numerous complications that constraints introduce into the economic lives of beneficiaries, exploring how people interpret these restrictions is crucial. All beneficiaries and operators questioned on this topic agreed on one point: The constraints are designed to control spending. There were varying interpretations regarding why it is necessary to control the spending of minimum income money. Four main reasons, always intertwined in their discourses, were identified as justifications for this control.

The first reason relates to the public nature of the funds. Since this money originates from taxpayers, there is an inherent obligation for the state to oversee its expenditure. Carla was a 58-year-old Italian woman with a disability. She lost her job in 2014 and faced eviction the following year. Six years later, she was finally able to secure public housing in Bologna. With the support of social services, she was, at the time of her interview, employed in a work placement programme. She offered the following feedback:

The second reason reflects her belief that money must be controlled to prevent immoral spending on vices or luxury goods. Both beneficiaries and operators often relied on expressions steeped in negative stereotypes when discussing poverty, saying things such as, “We have a lot of crazy people who use cocaine”, or “[With this money,] you cannot buy a holiday in Hawaii”, or even, “If I go to Vuitton and buy a 700-euro wallet, maybe there should be a limit”. Such behaviours are seen as violating the moral framework underpinning welfare and social assistance programmes (Romano, 2019).

However, Gianpaolo, an expert social worker from Milan, was the only interviewee who recounted knowing a person who used the Citizenship Income to purchase a car in instalments. Apart from him, these examples were vague and referred to hypothetical “undeserving” others.

The third rationale for justifying control over spending complements the second and is tied to the narrative of survival. Here, the focus shifts from preventing waste on immoral purchases to ensuring that the money is explicitly allocated to fulfilling basic needs. Benedetta, 52, was a single mother of two independent children who had been separated for 20 years and lived in a village in Piedmont. She had a history of unstable seasonal work and caregiving, and she also faced ongoing health challenges after cervical cancer surgery. Despite relying on Citizenship Income and unemployment benefits to get by, she struggled to fully cover her expenses but avoided seeking help from social services due to her strong sense of pride and independence. When discussing control over money, she stated,

However, this argument becomes contradictory when viewed alongside reports from others who claimed that the constraints actually make survival more difficult. A striking example was Michela, a 61-year-old woman who was unable to use the minimum income to pay for a room she sublet – a restriction that risked leaving her homeless.

The fourth reason interviewees used to justify control was the perceived need for the financial education of beneficiaries. Constraints were seen as necessary to ensure that the money is spent rationally due to the assumption that the recipients lack the adequate competencies to manage their finances. This perspective was usually directed at other beneficiaries, but it was occasionally acknowledged by recipients in reference to themselves, as they saw constraints as a helpful tool for their own financial education. Such was the case with Maria, a 50-year-old single mother of two with a migrant background, who worked for low pay at a restaurant in Venice. Maria, describing herself as a spendthrift, considered the constraints helpful for focusing her spending on essential items:

Having outlined the various reasons interviewees gave for justifying control over spending, it is crucial to note that many also reported feeling diminished, punished, and infantilized by these restrictions. Marco was a 42-year-old man living alone. Originally from Naples, he had lived in Lombardy since 2002. After a stable start in Milan, his life was disrupted by the 2008 economic crisis, leading to precarious work and financial instability. He had taken various small jobs, such as gardening, and pursued training courses to improve his employability. He shared,

Lucia, who moved to Italy from Morocco at 18 and was 41 when interviewed, was married with two children. She shared how she felt controlled and punished after using the card to buy an €80 rain guard for her door to keep water out during storms. She explained, “The next month, I found out they deducted the exact amount I spent because, according to them, it wasn't a necessity”. While this may only be a hypothesis for the reduction of her minimum income, it highlights how people perceive and experience such controls.

More broadly, beneficiaries perceived the constraints as evidence of their marginalized position in society, which fostered a widespread sense of stigmatization. This stigma was symbolized by the distinctive yellow colour of the prepaid card, which was easily recognizable to others. The feeling of being stigmatized was particularly acute at the post office, when collecting the card, and in shops, when using it for payments. Francesca, a 50-year-old woman who lived with her ex in a flat near the Garda Lake, worked in a shop for many years before becoming “too old” to be employed in the field:

I have shown how constraints on spending are associated with control. Interviewees explained that, while there are valid aspects of this control, it also has negative consequences. Among the beneficiaries, a feeling of stigmatization was prominent, reflecting the specific social relationship that tied them to state-provided assistance.

Beneficiaries do not passively surrender to the limits imposed on their money. Instead, they react in multiple ways. Leaving aside other strategies, like carefully selecting the shops where certain goods are buyable, I focus here on creativity with money. First, since it was forbidden to save on their postal account, people autonomously saved withdrawn cash.

This strategy was well documented in many interviews. A meaningful example of it was expressed by Laura, a 27-year-old woman from Bologna, who had recently graduated in law. Coming from a family of restaurateurs who faced hardship during the pandemic, she lived in a rented apartment with two roommates. Laura shared how and why she saved the cash portion of her minimum income, anticipating the expenses she would face upon graduating:

Moreover, to overcome the limit to one bank transfer per month, some beneficiaries explained that they sometimes used this transfer to move all the money from their postal account into another, unrestricted account. They then used the money freely. Other people reported making more than one transfer per month by paying a third person in cash and asking them to make the transaction in their name.

When beneficiaries have additional income sources, such as wages, disability pensions, or child benefits, they often allocate minimum income funds for essential expenses such as groceries and bills while relying on other income sources for comforts, leisure spending, or social activities. Since these individuals do not depend entirely on the minimum income, they are less affected by spending restrictions and generally do not perceive these constraints as a problem.

Cristina was a 63-year-old woman who had returned to Italy from Germany following the end of her 36-year marriage. Unable to work due to age and serious health issues, she applied for minimum income support to maintain her independence and avoid relying solely on her family for help: “For me, the card isn't a problem. I use it to pay bills, at the pharmacy, or for rent. For everything else, I have another bank card – the one with the money my husband sends me. Or, sometimes, my daughter sends me some money from Germany”.

However, beneficiaries for whom the minimum income is their only source of money must find other ways to overcome the limitations. This mainly entails finding different ways to have more cash than allowed – that is, earmarking the money as “unrestricted money” rather than “survival money”. For example, beneficiaries may pay with the card and ask for cash back. Although this practice is prohibited with the minimum income prepaid card and generally uncommon in Italy (European Central Bank, 2022), it was well known among the beneficiaries. People may know a shop owner or, more frequently, be willing to pay a fee. Mariangela hinted at the size of the commission. She was a 50-year-old woman, originally from Turin, and a single mother. She had faced severe health issues and financial difficulties, relying on family support to raise her 13-year-old son:

This strategy led to people withdrawing all the money in cash at once. The payment of a heavy fee (8% in Mariangela's example) not only shows how deeply beneficiaries need unbound rather than constrained money – it also makes clear how expensive it can be to countermark the minimum income money.

Another strategy reported by beneficiaries was to buy groceries and exchange them for cash, typically by lending the card out or going shopping with a friend and paying for them. In other cases, people bought groceries with the card and used them to barter for other services. Fernanda dropped some clues about this. She was a transgender woman in her fifties with a migratory background who had worked as a singer and entertainer for many years. She had to stop both her job and her transition journey after a severe illness left her blind in one eye.

Finally, one more specification must be added. When interviewees were asked how they justified these strategies, the only narrative that emerged was – once again – survival. This was indicated by Michela, a social worker in Turin with over 20 years of experience. She specialized in first-access services, assessing individuals' needs and guiding intervention strategies.

This idea – that the survival instinct is at the base of such strategies – was echoed by many recipients when describing their actions. However, this narrative appears counterintuitive in light of my findings. Basic survival needs are already addressed by the constrained funds, eliminating the need for additional efforts to survive. Instead, the motivation behind these strategies may be better understood through the detailed accounts of how the beneficiaries used the money, rather than their general explanations. Creativity is not necessarily rooted in the survival instinct but may stem from a desire to embrace life more fully. Beneficiaries used the funds not just for necessities but, where possible, with some flexibility, allowing for a more balanced and meaningful existence.

The above analysis revealed the negotiation of meanings and social ties involved in the economic actions tied to Citizenship Income. This negotiation was evident in the two forms of earmarking considered.

The first occurred when money was disbursed to beneficiaries via prepaid cards that came with significant constraints. These restrictions profoundly impacted beneficiaries' lives by controlling how the disbursed funds were used. My findings indicated four main narratives justifying this control over spending: preventing the waste of public funds, discouraging immoral behaviours, directing spending towards essential needs, and educating families on financial management. All these narratives steered the use of the money towards covering basic needs or ensuring mere survival. Within the relational work framework, these elements illuminate the distinctive social ties established when this money was provided to beneficiaries. This relationship positioned minimum income recipients at the margins of society, offering them merely the ability to sustain themselves with a “pulled brake” until they found alternative paths out of poverty, typically through employment. Until then, they were permitted to survive – but not to fully participate in society. These dynamics indicate that spending constraints function as a mechanism of inequality by qualitatively differentiating welfare money from other forms of income and situating beneficiaries in a structurally subordinate social and moral position.

The second form of earmarking was evident in the creativity of beneficiaries as they devised strategies for navigating the constraints imposed on their economic transactions. As shown above, many such strategies centred on increasing the amount of disposable cash, often by withdrawing more than officially allowed. Beneficiaries then used this cash for manifold purposes, including treats, savings, debt repayment, or investments in long-term projects. In relational work theory, such bottom-up earmarking practices represent an effort to transform the meaning of money, which is no longer bound to survival but instead signifies freedom – a freedom transcending specific purchases and functional purposes. Such actions allow beneficiaries to challenge their marginal societal position, asserting instead their right to be full members capable of expressing themselves freely – just like individuals with other sources of income.

From this perspective, the dominant narrative surrounding minimum income money can be reinterpreted. While such monetary transfers are often framed as tools for meeting basic needs, I argue that the most fundamental need beneficiaries seek to fulfil is the freedom to shape their lives in a meaningful way, or what Sen calls the freedom to achieve (Sen, 1992). Researchers have noted similar dynamics in which monetary transfers empower recipients to pursue their dreams (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2015) and create “the conditions for a profound change in the emotional structure of the grantees” (Pinzani and Rego, 2019, p. 120). These tensions are equally evident in the countermarking practices observed here.

These findings are significant, as they present an integrated framework for relational work within the context studied. The four dimensions of relational work of Zelizer's theory are all present here. They reveal the connections between various social ties, the meanings attributed to money, and the earmarking involved in economic transactions (Figure 1).

This conceptualization provides a clear overview of the system of relationships negotiated around minimum income. As demonstrated, relational work in this context does not occur through direct interaction between actors, but rather through ongoing negotiations expressed in the ways money is earmarked and reinterpreted.

At this point, a critical question arises: If constraints are frequently bypassed in the daily lives of beneficiaries, why implement them in the first place? What drives the increasing use of such constraints across diverse social policies with different targets and objectives (see Section 1)? Understanding the reasons for the proliferation of these mechanisms is essential to evaluating their implications for policy design and implementation. Three main, interconnected reasons are proposed.

The first reason concerns the financialization of everyday life (Van Der Zwan, 2014), or financial oikonomization, understood as the process by which financial logics, practices, and norms penetrate and reshape non-financial domains of society, including households. In the framework proposed by Ossandón et al. (2022), different operations of financial oikonomization – budgeting and juggling at the household level, and educating at the institutional level – converge in shaping the economic transactions experienced by beneficiaries in this context. Additionally, the process of infrastructuring, which involves the development of technical and institutional ties between households and the financial industry, plays a critical role. Financial technologies are actively promoted by industry to states for the administration of monetary transfers, including enhanced control over spending. If the digitalization of money and the replacement of cash harbour considerable potential to aggravate social inequalities (Brandl et al., 2024), this is particularly true when this digitalization accentuates the contradictions within the finance–welfare state nexus (Dodaro and Bifulco, 2023).

The second reason pertains to the significant rise of paternalism within social policy, “according to which the conduct of dispossessed and dependent citizens must be closely supervised and, whenever necessary, corrected through rigorous protocols of surveillance, deterrence, and sanction” (Wacquant, 2009, p. 59). A paternalistic approach often shapes activation measures through conditionality (Horn et al., 2023; Soss et al., 2011). However, paternalism may also underlie restrictions on monetary use, particularly when moral reasoning becomes evident, as in cases (noted in the Findings) of spending being controlled to prevent “immoral” uses. In the digital welfare state, technological tools increasingly translate paternalistic logics into concrete practices of monitoring and control directed at disadvantaged populations (Eubanks, 2019). Therefore, constraints can be seen as part of the wider paternalistic underpinnings of social reforms, which can be extended to the disbursement of money through the development of technology and digitalization. There is a clear tension between paternalism's sacrifice of people's autonomy and dignity to the imposed interests of others (White, 2024) and the declared aim of distributing a minimum income to ensure the dignity of the poor.

The third reason concerns the integration of economic policies into welfare policies (Lazarus, 2022). Many of the constraints examined make sense not from the beneficiary's perspective but when viewed in terms of their economic effects. For instance, the prohibition on saving money, which seemed counterintuitive to both the recipients and the operators supporting them, effectively stimulated consumption. Similarly, the restriction on using the card for online purchases – despite being more convenient for beneficiaries – made sense as a measure for promoting local spending and countering large tech firms. This integration of welfare and economic policies becomes less surprising once we discard the assumption that the two inhabit “hostile worlds” (Zelizer, 2005).

These three reasons can be read as operating on different dimensions of state–beneficiary relational work, shaping the meanings attributed to welfare money, the social ties, and the very structure of the economic transactions through which transfers are delivered.

The analysis presented in this study has several limitations. As explained in the Methods section, a significant effort was made to include diverse geographical contexts across Northern Italy, including both metropolitan areas and inner territories. Additionally, care was taken to recruit a balanced sample of both beneficiaries and operators to capture the complexity of institutions, actors, and their perspectives on the constraints and creativity surrounding minimum income funds. However, variables such as urban–rural differences, gender, age, household composition, operators' roles within services, and their career trajectories were not fully considered when exploring the differing meanings and impacts that emerged across subgroups. This omission is critical, as it limited our understanding of how constraints affect different subgroups and may either exacerbate or ameliorate socio-spatial inequalities.

Another key limitation lies in the methods chosen for the research. When exploring a personal topic, such as money, interviews may not fully capture the nuances of actions and practices connected to its use. Participants often rely on narratives shaped by both their lived experiences and the public discourse surrounding the topic. In the present study, this dynamic resulted in mixed attitudes towards control mechanisms among the beneficiaries. Furthermore, the operator's perspective was only partially developed, as their interviews did not specifically focus on the meanings of money. As a result, it was not possible to fully juxtapose the viewpoints of beneficiaries and operators, nor to systematically highlight potential divergences in interpretive frameworks or instances of negotiation and conflict. A deeper exploration of these and other roles, particularly those of operators in tax assistance services should be prioritized in future research.

Addressing these gaps will be essential for further research. Additionally, two other critical directions for future studies warrant attention. First, a comparative analysis of minimum income policies across different countries, as well as a closer examination of regional variations within national contexts – such as the North–South divide in Italy – could refine these findings and help uncover the underlying drivers of constraints across different welfare systems. Second, other forms of creativity and strategies beyond the household level should be examined. This study focused primarily on household-level strategies, but collective strategies could also address limitations or challenge restrictions on money use. For example, in Germany, some associations convert restricted money provided to asylum seekers into unrestricted funds by exchanging it for gift cards (Offen kampagne, 2024). Such collective strategies are particularly important, as they can draw greater political attention to otherwise overlooked issues.

This paper benefited from discussions within the CoPInG project research group. I am grateful to Cristiano Gori for trusting me at a very early stage. I especially thank Antonella Meo for her support throughout the research and writing process and Ester Gubert and Arianna Lovera for their careful reading and valuable suggestions. I thank my supervisor, Chiara Brambilla, for her guidance and continued trust during my time at the University of Bergamo. I also thank Thomas Van de Putte for discussions that helped clarify key aspects of the micro–macro link. I also thank Kathryn Edin for hosting me at Princeton University and for the stimulating discussions during my visit and Viviana Zelizer for the intellectual inspiration provided by her work and for her support. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2024 SISEC Conference and the 16th ESA Conference. I also thank the Journal Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and insightful comments and suggestions.