Activation Policies, New Modes of Governance and the Issue of Responsibility

Most activation policies are based on a simplistic conception of responsibility: behaving responsibly coincides with quickly reintegrating the labour market. Local welfare agents are called to push beneficiaries to actively endorse this goal. But the issue of responsibility is much more complex. Drawing on Sen's capability approach, this article suggests that responsibilisation of recipients requires both empowerment and granting them more real freedom of choice on the labour market. Against the present trend toward hypertrophying individual responsibility, it calls for a more equilibrated balance between individual and social responsibility. The objective is not to define an impracticable ideal of responsibility, but to provide a yardstick for assessing activation programme

Social Opportunities and Individual Responsibility: The Capability Approach and the Third Way

The fashionable widespreading of Sen’s ideas coincides with a new mood in the shaping of public policies in affluent societies. In Europe indeed, an “opportunity”-based approach to social security has been implemented through the European Employment Strategy. Public action tends to rely on a procedural concern with individual opportunities or potentialities in the labour market. The underlying ethics is that individuals are then responsible to use these background opportunities in order to lead the kind of life they value most. More broadly, the discourse and practice of the so-called “Third Way” shares with the capability approach an appeal for a procedural and enabling depiction of the role of the State. The paper intends to clarify the relation between procedural and opportunity-based approaches to social justice, among them the capability approach, and these new patterns of public action. Our vision goes in the way of a yet renewed, but deeper action of the welfare state, where social agency is envisaged as the very condition of individual agency. Drawing on the various critics of mainstream equality of opportunity, two opposed approaches to responsibility are identified: on the one hand, responsibility is conceived of as i) a “luck vs. choice” fixed starting point, ii) a backward-looking conception and iii) a highly individualistic framework. On the other hand, responsibility is envisaged as i) an outcome of public policies rather than a starting point, ii) a forward-looking conception, and iii) a combined institutional-individual framework. We situate here Sen’s capability approach, as well as critics of the luck egalitarianism path. The Third Way rhetoric is assessed against both these perspectives. The issue eventually boils down to an ethical reflection on the articulation of responsibilities, and to a pragmatic and substantial concern for the content of what providing security should mean in practice

Paradoxes of Universalism: The Case of the Swiss Disability Insurance

Social policies rely on specific expectations vis-a-vis their beneficiaries, who have to abide by certain eligibility criteria or behavioral standards to access the benefits or services provided. As such, they draw boundaries between the deserving and undeserving, which results in the following paradox: While social policies claim to be universal, they actually exclude potential beneficiaries by imposing on them the compliance with these eligibility criteria and behavioral standards. In other words, purportedly universal social policies may have exclusionary effects, in the form either of selectivity (street-level bureaucrats select what they perceive as legitimate beneficiaries) or of self-exclusion and non-take-up (people entitled do not claim benefits or services). Based on the case of the Swiss disability insurance, this article explores the extent of, and the reasons underlying, the paradoxes of universalism within active social policies. It relies on a mixed-methods research design, combining sequence analysis (showing the selectivity of active reforms regarding people’s access to disability benefits) and in-depth interviews. The conclusion of this article suggests that not all forms of universalism are equally exposed to such paradoxes and proposes a hypothesis to be explored in further research: The more requiring and precise in terms of eligibility criteria and behavioral standards social policies and activation strategies are (hard universalism), the higher the risk that they lead to selective practices in contradiction with their universal ambition. By contrast, fuzzier eligibility or behavioral criteria (soft universalism), which allow for adjustment to individual circumstances, may lead to more genuinely universal and inclusive social policies

Le non-recours aux prestations sociales et sanitaires : quelles implications pour la citoyenneté sociale?

Since the 1960s, a specific stream of literature in the field of social welfare has been concerned with the phenomenon of non-take-up, i.e. people who are entitled to social benefits but do not receive them. This issue of non-take-up is becoming increasingly salient and reaching policy agendas, including in Switzerland. It questions both the conditions of access to social benefits and their adequacy or even legitimacy when some people prefer not to claim their rights. What does non-take-up say about the aims of social policies and the way they are perceived by concerned people? What does it say about the underlying norms of those policies and the ways these norms are incorporated or contested by (potential) beneficiaries? What does it say about the public service and its capacity to reach its communities and support them? This special issue starts with an introduction to the topic of non-take-up of health and social benefits, focusing more specifically on the case of Switzerland. Building on this state of the art, the agenda is further developed to explore what non-take-up of social benefits says about the reconfiguration of the relationship between citizens and the state. The five authors of the special issues contribute to this new research agenda in three different ways: by emphasizing the temporal dimension of non-take-up; by supporting a view of recipients as capable and critical actors; and by arguing for a systemic and relational approach to non-take-up.Seit den 1960er Jahren befasst sich eine spezifische Literaturströmung der Soziologie des Wohlfahrtsstaates mit dem Phänomen des Nichtbezuges, d.h. mit Menschen, die Anspruch auf Sozialleistungen haben, diese aber nicht erhalten. In den letzten Jahren gewann diese Thematik zunehmend an Aufmerksamkeit und erreicht die politische Agenda, auch in der Schweiz. Wenn einige Menschen es vorziehen, ihre Rechte nicht in Anspruch zu nehmen, stellt es sowohl die Bedingungen für den Zugang zu Sozialleistungen als auch deren angemessene Ausgestaltung oder gar deren Legitimität in Frage. Was sagt der Nichtbezug über die vorherrschende Sozialpolitik aus? Können wir daraus etwas über die zugrunde liegenden Normen dieser Politik lernen? Wie kann der Nichtbezug aus der Perspektive von Betroffenen verstanden werden? Übernehmen die (potenziell) Anspruchsberechtigten die vorherrschenden Normen oder ist er ein Ausdruck des Widerstandes? Können öffentliche Dienste ihren Auftrag der Grundversorgung von vulnerablen Gruppen überhaupt erfüllen, wenn diese den Angeboten fernbleiben? Diese Sonderausgabe beginnt mit einer Einführung in das Thema des Nichtbezuges von Gesundheits- und Sozialleistungen und konzentriert sich dabei besonders auf den Forschungsstand in der Schweiz. Auf dieser Auslegeordnung aufbauend wird das Thema anschliessend analytisch weiterentwickelt. Damit wird eine Einordnung des Nichtbezuges möglich, die zur Analyse der Beziehung von BürgerInnen und Wohlfahrtsstaat genutzt werden kann. Die fünf Autoren des Sonderhefts tragen auf drei verschiedene Arten zu dieser neuen Forschungsagenda bei: indem sie die zeitliche Dimension des Nichtbezuges betonen; indem sie eine Sichtweise der Betroffenen als fähige und kritische Akteure unterstützen; und indem sie für einen systemischen und relationalen Ansatz des Nichtbezuges plädieren.Que nous apprend le non-recours sur les objectifs des politiques sociales et la manière dont ceux-ci sont perçus par les populations concernées ? Que nous dit-il des normes qui sous-tendent ces politiques, de leur approbation ou de leur rejet par les publics concernés? Que nous apprend-il sur le fonctionnement des services publics et leur capacité à atteindre et soutenir les populations précarisées ? Ce numéro spécial s'ouvre sur une introduction à la question du non-recours aux prestations sociales et de santé. Celle-ci dresse un bref état des savoirs, y compris en Suisse; sur cette base, elle propose de mobiliser l'analyse du non-recours pour éclairer la reconfiguration des relations entre l'Etat et les citoyen.e.s. Les cinq contributions qui suivent participent à ce nouvel agenda de recherche de trois manières: en mettant en évidence la dimension temporelle du non-recours; en considérant les publics des politiques sociales en tant qu'acteurs capables et critiques et en plaidant pour une approche systémique et relationnelle du non-recours

La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise à l’aune des restructurations : une étude de cas dans l’industrie des machines suisses

Le contexte contemporain, marqué par la globalisation de l’économie, coïncide avec un affaiblissement des modes traditionnels de régulation du marché du travail. Que ce soit par présomption d’impuissance ou par conviction, nombreux sont ceux qui s’en remettent au sens de la responsabilité des acteurs entrepreneuriaux. Dans la droite ligne du concept de « responsabilité sociale des entreprises », l’entreprise est alors considérée comme la mieux placée pour relever les défis écologiques et sociaux. Ce papier vise à tester l’impact effectif de ces discours appelant à la responsabilité sociale des entreprises dans le cas du processus de restructuration de l’usine Tornos dans le Jura suisse. La première partie rappelle le contexte légal helvétique et les ressources qu’il fournit, tandis que la deuxième analyse la manière dont ces instruments ont été mobilisés par les syndicats et les représentants des salariés dans le cas Tornos. La conclusion tire les principaux enseignements de cette étude de cas.The contemporary context of economic globalisation coincides with a weakening of the traditional top-down modes of regulating the labour market. Be it because of a presumed powerlessness or through genuine conviction, it is believed that corporate social responsibility (CSR) may be a valid substitute to the conventional regulatory mechanisms. In line with such a view, the firm is considered as adequately equipped in order to take up ecological and social challenges. This paper analyses the actual impact of such CSR rhetorics in restructuring processes. It is based on the case study of a Swiss company from the metalworking sector, Tornos. Part 1 lists the legal and conventional resources available in Switzerland, while part 2 analyses how these tools were mobilised by trade unions and workers’representatives in the case of Tornos. The conclusion summarises the main lessons with regard to the impact and relevance of CSR in the Swiss context

Déchiffrer deux indicateurs européens de flexicurité à l’aune de l’approche par les capacités

Depuis 2007, la question de l’équilibre entre flexibilité et sécurité sur le marché du travail est devenue une des priorités de l’agenda de l’Union européenne. Les efforts des États-Membres en la matière sont notamment évalués au moyen des deux seuls indicateurs dynamiques qui mesurent la sécurité de l’emploi et le progrès des qualifications. Cet article vise à clarifier les fondements normatifs de ces instruments de mesure. Se basant sur l’approche par les capacités d’Amartya Sen, il discute les limites de ces fondements normatifs qui privilégient flexibilité plutôt que liberté réelle des travailleurs, employabilité plutôt que capacité et capital humain plutôt que développement professionnel. Il propose une conception alternative de la sécurité de l’emploi et du rôle qu’est susceptible d’y jouer la formation. Il conclut en présentant quelques repères afin d’élaborer des indicateurs davantage inspirés par l’approche par les capacités.Since 2007, the question of the balance between flexibility and security in the employment market has become one of the priorities on the European Union’s agenda. The efforts made by Member States in this area are usually evaluated by means of the only two dynamic indicators, which measure job security and progress with qualifications. This article aims to clarify the ideological bases of these instruments of measurement. Using Amartya Sen’s capability approach, it discusses the limitations of these ideological bases, which prioritise flexibility over true freedom for workers, employability over capability, and human capital over professional development. It puts forward an alternative conception of job security and the role training could play in this. It concludes by presenting a few signposts for developing indicators inspired more by the capability approach.Seit 2007 steht die Frage der Ausgewogenheit zwischen Flexibilität und Sicherheit auf dem Arbeitsmarkt prioritär auf der Agenda der Europäischen Union. Die diesbezüglichen Bemühungen der Mitgliedstaaten werden insbesondere mit nur zwei dynamischen Indikatoren gemessen, die die Sicherheit des Arbeitsplatzes und den Fortschritt der Qualifizierungen erfassen. In diesem Artikel sollen die maßgebenden Grundlagen der Messinstrumente beleuchtet werden. Ausgehend vom Capability Approach von Amartya Sen werden die Grenzen dieser Grundlagen diskutiert, bei denen Flexibilität vor reeller Freiheit der Arbeitnehmer steht, Beschäftigungsfähigkeit (Employability) vor Verwirklichungschance (Capability) und Humankapital vor beruflicher Entwicklung. Es wird ein alternatives Verständnis von Beschäftigungssicherheit und der Rolle vorgeschlagen, die die Ausbildung hier spielen kann. Der Artikel schließt mit einigen Orientierungsvorschlägen für die Ausarbeitung von Indikatoren ab, die sich mehr auf den Capability Approach stützen.Desde 2007 la cuestión del equilibrio entre flexibilidad y seguridad en el mercado de trabajo se ha convertido en una de las prioridades de la agenda de la Unión Europea. Los esfuerzos de los Estados miembros en la materia se evalúan sobre todo por medio de los únicos dos indicadores dinámicos que miden la seguridad del empleo y el progreso de las calificaciones. Este artículo apunta a aclarar los fundamentos normativos de estos instrumentos de medición. Basándose en el enfoque de las capacidades de Amartya Sen, discute los límites de estos fundamentos normativos que privilegian flexibilidad antes que libertad real de los trabajadores, empleabilidad más que capacidad y capital humano más que desarrollo profesional. Propone una concepción alternativa de la seguridad del empleo y del papel que puede desempeñar la formación. Concluye presentando algunas referencias para elaborar indicadores más inspirados por el enfoque de las capacidades

Can street-level bureaucrats be nudged to increase effectiveness in welfare policy?

This article investigates whether street-level bureaucrats can be incentivised to process information in ways that lead to more effective implementation decisions. It draws on the literatures on behavioural public policy (BPP) and street-level bureaucracy to analyse how civil servants implement disability insurance policy in Switzerland. We conducted a field experiment to assess whether a thought-provoking nudge improves the decisional effectiveness of street-level bureaucrats (SLBs). SLBs were assigned to either a ‘business-as-usual’ control condition, or to an experimental condition, where they were called to pay attention to vulnerability processes along the beneficiaries’ life course when making decisions. While we did not find that the thought-provoking nudge directly improved effectiveness, we found that it increased beneficiaries’ humanisation. In particular, there was some evidence for indirect positive effects of the thought-provoking nudge on effectiveness via humanisation. These findings encourage BPP researchers to consider additional dimensions such as humanisation to nudge SLBs into processing information in better ways

The Rise of Welfare Service States – Conceptual challenges of an ambiguous welfare settlement and the need for new policy research

Bonvin J-M, Otto H-U, Wohlfarth A, Ziegler H. The Rise of Welfare Service States – Conceptual challenges of an ambiguous welfare settlement and the need for new policy research. Social Work & Society. 2018;16(2).This paper sums up the reasoning for a Welfare Service State and offers an outline of conceptual challenges associated with a service-based welfare architecture