A capability approach to social inclusion: investing in the poor

1. A capability approach to social inclusion: investing in the poor Ides Nicaise, HIVA / Dept. Ed. Sc. (KU Leuven)

2. Towards a new paradigm ? Redistribution of income Activation Kennissamenleving Socialinvestment © I. Nicaise

3. Family life work Capabilities / functionings Cultural part. housing Social part. Healthy life Social investment Socialinvestment Social / culturalcapital Humancapital materialcapital

4. Part 1 Investing in education

5. Poverty risks by level of education © I. Nicaise

6. Literacy as a collective asset Hanushek & Woessmann (2010) for OECD: • Obvious link between (il)literacy and risk of poverty • “A modest goal of having all OECD countries boost their average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years (…) implies an aggregate gain of OECD GDP of USD 115 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010.”

7. Earlychildhoodintervention Head Start (USA)Early Start (Ireland)Sure Start / SSLP (UK)Opstap, Piramide, Kaleïdoscoop (NL) © I. Nicaise

8. Head Start (US) Characteristics • Selective(most deprived neighbourhoods) • Holistic(psychomotor development, health, motivation, cognitive development...) • Maximum possible parent participation © I. Nicaise

9. Head Start - evaluation Effects of Head Start • ‘IQ-boost’ (temporary ?) • Health, self-esteem, motivation • Less referrals to special education, less grade repetition, later outflow, more diplomas (although gap with average youth was never bridged) • After school-leaving: more employment, less delinquency, less teenage pregnancy • Each invested dollar yields a return of $7 (or more !) © I. Nicaise

10. Parent-school-community liaison: investing in parents Four views on parents: • Parents as obstacle (see Coleman Report, 1966 => boarding schools) • Parents as assistant-educators(see early intervention programmes) • Parents as clients(see marketisation of education) • Parents as partners(see home-school liaison projects) © I. Nicaise

11. Parent-school-community liaison: effects(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler 1995/97; Hargreaves 2001) • Greater teacher effectiveness: • identifying together the potential and problems of children; working out learning routes together • Bridging cultural differences => overcoming prejudice • Experience-based education (e.g. music, motor-cycles, pet animals...) • Emotional support from parents © I. Nicaise

12. Parent-school-community liaison: Why partners ? (continued) • More effective parenting: • Improving parents’ knowledge and skills w.r.t. schooling of children • Emotional support from teachers • Parents’ participation in school policy • Parents’ social capital • Democratic decision-making in schools (‘community schools’)

13. Part 2 Investing in activeinclusion

14. 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

15. 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

16. 1996-2002 (later mainstreamedthoughlessgeneroous) Content: Voluntarywork in associations Othersociallyusefulactivities Work trial placements Continuededucation and training Care (debt management, drugs, mental health care…) (oftencombinations) Example 2: social activation experiments in The Netherlands

17. Social activation experiments (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 Participants: Programme successfully reached the most disadvantaged among minimum income beneficiaries

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. Part 3 Investing in social protection

20. Theoryreduce uncertainty → raise welfareBUT: ‘moral hazard’ problem→ making work pay reduce benefits sanctions duration limits tax-benefit reforms (in-work benefits, reduced taxes on low wages etc.) Evidence (unempl.) modest effect at macro-level dilemma between work incentives and income security More competition in lowest segments of labour market => erosion of wages and working conditions Social security policies- insurance approach Conclusion: ‘making work pay’ boosts employment… …and poverty ?

21. Theoryinvest in individual’s employability (telephone, internet, car, social participation…) Evidence OECD / EC: generous benefits are ‘harmless’ if combined with ALMP Groenez & Nicaise:positive effects of higher benefits and longer duration of benefits on aggregate mobility Social security policies- capability approach

22. 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)