Upload
roland-nicholson
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
AMBIGUITIES OF THE CONCEPT Part 1
Citation preview
Activation as a stepping stone to participation ?
Ides Nicaise, HIVA / Dept. Ed. Sc. (KU Leuven)
The active welfare state paradigm
“Employment is a key factor for social inclusion, not only because it generates income but also because it can promote social participation and personal development and contributes to maintaining adequate living standards in old age through the accrual of entitlement to pension benefits.” (Joint Inclusion Report 2005)
AMBIGUITIES OF THE CONCEPTPart 1
Root 1 (social democracy): the new social question
Rosanvallon (1995): the new social question Solution to crisis of redistributing welfare state =
employment policy for disadvantaged groups (so as to break the vicious circle of exclusion and to create access to social insurance)
Social exclusion is more than a lack of income. Exclusion = non-participation => non-citizenship => lack of basic rights.Right to work is equally important as right to a minimum income
Root 2 (neo-liberalism): the ‘making work pay’ obsessionFour objectives in the common EU strategy for social
protection: sustainability of pensions, quality of health care, social inclusion, making work pay
based on ‘dependency’ view: replacement income reduces incentives for personal effort and keeps recipients in poverty
low benefits, behavioural conditions, sanctions, duration limits, ‘rights & responsibilities’ discourse…
Many benefits, and all guaranteed minimum income benefits remain (far) below national poverty thresholds
Macro-level effects of activation / social protection policies on social inclusion in the 1990s
Groenez & Nicaise (2004): Study of 13 EU countries between 1993 and 1997 exclusion defined as (aggregate) mobility into income
poverty; inclusion defined as mobility from poverty into (decent) work or (adequate) social benefits
=> Two ‘unorthodox’ key findings The more expenditure on activation, the more exclusion The more generous the (unemployment) insurance in terms
of level and duration of benefits, the more inclusion into work
The active welfare state: why such an ambiguous impact on social inclusion?
distribution of employment (job-rich vs jobless households) differences in quality of jobs (skills content, job security, working
hours, hourly wages etc.): 8% of EU-25 workers are poor ‘omitted variables’:
activation may have adverse effects on income security: poor quality / temporary jobs, sanctions, carousel / crowding out effects…
Activation = ‘supply side’ policy => downward pressure on bottom of labour market
Making work pay => erosion of social protection
income security
capabilitiesemployment
To sum up: is the active welfare state good or bad for social inclusion?
Depending on the balance between the two ‘roots’, the active welfare state will result in More employment Lower wages and more precarious working
conditions Lower social protection More – not less - poverty
THE W ² PERSPECTIVE (WORK * WELL-BEING)
Part 2
Investing in the resources of the poor
Human capital = education, skills, physical and mental healthe.g. learn & work centres (one-year programme): 75% of the participants are at work 7 years later
Social capital = family cohesion, integration in neighbourhood, membership of associations, access to collective servicese.g. access to quality child care lifts children and parents out of poverty
Investing in resources of the poor (ctd) Cultural capital = books, cultural events, holidays…
e.g. entrepreneurship building on ethnic networks Material capital = decent standard of living, including for
benefit recipientse.g. job seekers who have telephone, internet, private vehicle get back into work more easily
work will lift people out of poverty if it enhances their resources
In other words: work and well-being must go together
Example 1: Flemish social enterprises
Learn & work centres: temporary work experience (12-18 months) combined with training and guidance
‘social workshops’: permanently subsidised jobs for most vulnerable groups (+5 years inactivity, social stigma)
‘insertion enterprises’: degressively subsidised permanent jobs in ‘regular enterprises’
=> Longitudinal and multidimensional evaluation of long-term effects
Long-term effects of employment in SE
More sustainable employment careers
Skills development Lower debts
Family formation Positive return on investment
…though not equally in all social enterprises: especially those investing more in training and guidance
Example 2: social activation experiments in The Netherlands
SA Experiments 1996-2002: objectives Long-run pathways into work Social integration for those unable to work
Mainstreamed in 2004 though with stricter rules regarding Premiums Exemption from job search
Extension to other groups than social assistance recipients (disabled, homeless, etc.)
Content and organisation
Content: Voluntary work in associations Other socially useful activities Work trial placements Continued education and training Care (debt management, drugs,
mental health care…)often combinations of care with voluntary work or education
Content and organisation (ctd)
Individual pathways Group sessions alternating with individual work Outsourcing to - or partnership with specialised welfare
services (mental health centres, community centres, social enterprises, schools etc.)
Incentives Premiums for education / voluntary work Exemption from job search obligation
Profile of participantsMI SA
% women 58 68% share of age group
-30+40
1854
671
% single parents 29 24% non-nationals 13 26% less than lower sec educ 33% share by duration of MI
-2 years+6 years
1562
Effects on social inclusion
Social contacts Social recognition
/ citizenship Structuring of life Self-esteem Mental health High satisfaction (87%)
…= social and human capital effects
16% at work in 2001 19% actively looking for
work 50% long for paid jobobstacles: Education / training Health Child care
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The W² concept
Accessible to all vulnerable groups (including inactive as well as working individuals)
Active participation is more important than paid employment
Individual, flexible and tailor-made pathways (no doctrine, no time limits)
Integrated services (psychological guidance, health care, debt management, family support, social and cultural integration, legal advice…) => partnerships
What about EU policies ?
Active inclusion recommendation (2008) => 3 pillars Guaranteed minimum income Inclusive labour market programmes for those able to
work (emphasis on quality of activation) + alternative activities for those unable to work
Access to quality services (education & training, housing, health care etc.)
=> Need for implementation plan and monitoring (one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency)
Overall conclusion
Active welfare state / activation = very ambiguous concepts. Impact on employment = probably positive, impact on social inclusion depends…
Alternative paradigm: social investment approach => aim of activation measures should be to enhance the participants’ resources
Not even all ‘social’ employment measures produce the expected outcomes
At EU level, active inclusion recommendation is credit-worthy from SI point of view; beware of ‘making work pay’ !