Activation as a stepping stone to participation ? Ides Nicaise, HIVA / Dept. Ed. Sc. (KU Leuven)

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’ !