Activation as a stepping stone to participation ?

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

2. “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) The active welfare state paradigm

3. Part 1 Ambiguities of the concept

4. 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

5. Root 2 (neo-liberalism): the ‘making work pay’ obsession Four 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

6. 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

7. 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 capabilities employment income security

8. 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

9. Part 2 The W ² perspective(work * well-being)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. More sustainable employment careers Skills development Lower debts Family formation Positive return on investment Long-term effects of employment in SE …thoughnotequally in allsocialenterprises: especiallythoseinvesting more in training and guidance

14. 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 2004though with stricter rules regarding • Premiums • Exemption from job search • Extension to other groups than social assistance recipients (disabled, homeless, etc.)

15. 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

16. 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

17. Profile of participants

18. 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

19. Overall conclusion

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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’ !