National case studies

(copyright: INPART research project, TSER contract no. SOE2-CT97-3043)

In the following, recommendations are presented regarding social policies aimed at social inclusion on the basis of the findings of the INPART research project. First, we will make some general comments with respect to social inclusion policies. Then, we will present more specific recommendations aiming at decreasing exclusion risks and strengthening inclusion opportunities of social inclusion programmes. Finally, we will make some remarks with respect to the institutional context of social inclusion policies.

1 Social inclusion policies: general comments

Heterogeneity and policy differentiation

Social policies aiming at social inclusion are directed at target groups which are very heterogeneous. ‘The unemployed’ or ‘the poor’ may be adequate categories to indicate the socio-economic status of these target groups, their life-situation in terms of inclusion and exclusion are very different, also within national borders. Of course, generally speaking unemployed and/or poor people run higher risks of social exclusion than socio-economic groups that are participating on the labour market. However, the degree to which unemployed and/or poor people are able to avoid these risks varies considerably. This is true for both ways in which we have conceptualised the concept of exclusion in our research: the ‘objective’ approach, focusing attention on inclusion in, and exclusion from domains of participation; and the ‘subjective’ way, focusing on the degree to which people are able to satisfy material and immaterial needs. Unemployed people’s access to resources such as informal social networks for material and immaterial support, welfare-state arrangements, types of work providing them a respected social role and social networks et cetera, is different, partly related to their qualifications and competence, age, health, household composition et cetera. The degree to which they do or do not have access to such resources may influence their situation in terms of inclusion and exclusion significantly. Thus, the problems social inclusion policies set themselves to solve, can be quite different for different groups of unemployed and/or poor people. In other words, social policy interventions should be based on the assumption that the starting point of social intervention can differ considerably.

Heterogeneity not only refers to people’s life situation, but also to the life-projects they are involved in, the needs they have and the aims they set themselves. From this point, we have been criticising current activating social policies from being too one-sided in their approach: most of the time activating social policies recognise one objective only, that is economic independence through labour-market participation. We will return to this issue later. Here, we would like to point out that this objective may be attractive to a lot of unemployed and/or poor people, but not to all and it certainly is not feasible for all. In other words, social policies aimed at inclusion should not only differentiate with respect to the problems they set themselves to solve, but also with respect to their objectives.

In sum, the heterogeneity among the group of unemployed and poor people who are the target groups of social policies aiming at inclusion, implies a differentiation of both the problems that these social policies address and of the solutions they provide.

Objectives of social policies aimed at inclusion: jobs or participation?

As we mentioned above, most current inclusion policies or activating social policies are, in fact, employment policies, aiming to increase people’s employability and stimulate their labour-market integration. Increasing economic independence and decreasing social benefits dependency, rather than promoting social inclusion in a wider sense, seem to be the main objectives of these policies. Apart from the issue whether the objective of employment is feasible and desirable for all unemployed and poor people, our research shows that there are also substantial arguments for being critical about social inclusion policies that are restricted to labour-market participation. When the objective of social inclusion policies is to combat social exclusion, and to enable people to become more involved in social and societal participation, there is no reason to focus on labour-market participation only: other types of work and participation have an inclusionary potential as well. This does not mean that these types of work and participation are equal to (regular) labour-market participation. Compared to regular labour-market participation, other types of participation offer fewer resources for income generation and, to a lesser extent, for status and respect. Nevertheless, these other types of work and participation do offer resources that may be important for people’s social integration. And in some respects and for certain groups of people, they may be even more attractive than regular labour-market participation, which may involve exclusion risks as well.

In other words, when the objective of social inclusion policies is to increase participation in a wider sense rather than in the narrow meaning of labour-market participation, these policies should be based on a broader concept of participation than most of them are now. In more general terms, activating social policies should be based on an engagement concept of society rather than an employment concept.

Matching people’s needs and social inclusion strategies

In the above, we have formulated two conclusions with respect to social inclusion policies. First, we stated that people’s needs with respect to social inclusion are different. Secondly, we stated that other types of work and participation besides (regular) jobs also have an inclusionary potential, without neglecting that this inclusionary potential may be different (though not necessarily less) from what regular jobs have to offer. Combining these two conclusions, we should be aware of the fact that different forms of participation may meet people’s needs in different ways. When people formulate their most important needs in terms of economic dependence and income improvement, neither unpaid work nor secondary labour-market participation will be very attractive to them. However, when they want to extend their social networks and be engaged in useful activities, these types of work may be more interesting to them. In other words, social inclusion policies that recognise the heterogeneity of needs on the one hand, and the different inclusion opportunities of various types of participation on the other, should pay attention to matching people’s needs to inclusion opportunities of types of participation.

Participation and income

In transforming social policies from passive into active, we have witnessed not only an increasing emphasis on the importance of participation but also decreasing attention for the issue of income improvement. Activating social policies often claim, that labour-market participation is the ‘royal road’ towards income improvement. Even though this may be true in general, some critical remarks should be made here. Especially in the more developed welfare states, the combined effect of developments on the labour market and the introduction of secondary labour-market schemes on the one hand, and the labour-market opportunities of long-term, often low-qualified unemployed people on the other, result in a situation, in which re-entering the labour market may lead to economic independence, but is hardly or not at all accompanied by income improvement.

Although activating social policies are based upon the correct assumption that problems of exclusion and poverty cannot be reduced to lack of income only, the reverse is true as well: they cannot be reduced to lack of participation either. For many unemployed and poor people, lack of income and economic independence is an important source of experiences of exclusion. In highly monetarised societies such as ours, income is an important and often necessary resource for participation, especially in the domains of consumption, social networks and culture/leisure.

Against this background, access to income improvement is an important determinant of the inclusionary potential of types of work/participation. However, access to income improvement, economic independence and purchasing power can also be organised in other ways than by regular jobs. For example, so-called ‘Time Currency’ and ‘LETS’ systems reward involvement in unpaid and reciprocal activities by converting the contribution people make into a form of currency that can be used to acquire goods and services that one needs or desires. A more ‘monetary’ and radical approach is put forward by adherents of Basic Income or Citizens’ Income schemes, who advocate a situation in which access to income and economic independence is less exclusively tied to labour-market participation. A less radical approach might be the Active Citizen Credit scheme, entitling people to an income not as a general citizens’ right but as a reward for participation and contributing to society, whatever form that contribution takes. The most moderate solution to this problem would be rewarding participants in unpaid activities with some kind of financial bonus or incentive.

These schemes reveal, that what we have called ‘enabling’ social policies, which stimulate people’s participation and pay attention to their income situation, could open up alternative roads to income improvement. Applying these schemes as part of social policies would certainly increase the inclusionary potential of types of work and participation outside the labour market.

Recognising and supporting informal inclusion strategies

Acknowledging that unemployed and/or poor people are sometimes able to develop informal strategies to counter exclusion and stimulate their inclusion and participation, should encourage social policies aiming at inclusion to recognise and support these strategies. Nowadays, these informal strategies are often neglected or counter-acted, the latter because they are considered fraudulent or because they are seen as diminishing people’s labour-market availability. Thus, a paradoxical situation may be created in which activating social policies are making people passive, or in which people see themselves forced to hide their activities from social policy officials. This official attitude towards informal inclusion strategies may be understandable from the point of view of social policies aiming at labour-market participation only, but from a broader perspective on social inclusion there is enough reason to investigate the degree to which these informal strategies actually meet people’s needs and how their inclusionary potential can be improved.

In several EU countries, there is increasing awareness that social exclusion must be tackled through bottom-up, community-based initiatives. Nevertheless, based on the ‘traditional’ social policy assumptions that employment equals social inclusion, and unemployment equals social exclusion, these initiatives are often promoted to create employment or to help citizens into employment. In our case studies, for example, we saw these kinds of initiatives in the context of the Belgian third system organisations’ efforts in combating exclusion. However, we would argue that these bottom-up initiatives rooted in people’s own attempts to ‘make something of their lives’ should be encouraged not only due to their employment-creating potential, but also –from a broader inclusion perspective- due to their ability to enable people to help themselves.

2 Social inclusion programmes: 
decreasing exclusion risks and increasing inclusion opportunities

In this section, we will have a closer look at social inclusion programmes. Based on our research into some of these programmes, which involved secondary labour-market participation, unpaid work, and education and training, we will formulate some conditions that may strengthen the inclusionary potential of these programmes and decrease exclusion risks.

Mixing participation, learning and support

From several of our case studies we have learned, that promoting inclusion by participation involves more than offering people participation opportunities only. For inclusion through participation to be successful, people should be equipped with skills, competence and other resources necessary to carry out the activities adequately. Furthermore, they should be enabled to cope with potential obstacles to successful participation (for example, debt problems, physical or mental health problems, social problems, the economic sustainability of their companies, et cetera). Research into social exclusion has stressed time and again that exclusion is characterised by its multidimensionality. Recognising this also implies, that inclusion policies should be characterised by a multidimensional approach. Thus, these policies should be able to offer a mix of participation, learning and support. At the same time, this mix needs to be flexible so that it can be adjusted to individual circumstances and needs.

Avoiding participation traps and strengthening career prospects

The same mix of participation, learning and support should also tackle another problem social inclusion policies are often confronted with: that is, a lack of prospects. This may be true for both temporary and permanent participation schemes. In the case of temporary schemes, we have seen that they often do not manage to bring about more permanent inclusion. After participating in the schemes, many participants end up being unemployed again, and the best social policies can offer them is semi-permanent participation in temporary schemes that are designed to get them into paid work but do not manage to succeed. In the case of permanent schemes, often targeted at long-term, low-skilled and often older unemployed people, a more lasting form of participation is realised but with high risks of marginalisation, for example due to a lack of income improvement opportunities or due to the absence of possibilities to become involved in more interesting and challenging work.

This points to the necessity for social policy programmes to invest more in human resources or ‘human capital’ by supporting people in developing themselves and by offering opportunities to meet newly arisen needs. Strengthening career prospects and career opportunities may avoid a situation in which people feel trapped in their participation. Solutions to participation traps may be sought either in the context of the schemes (especially in the case of permanent schemes) or by supporting people in finding other types of participation. Of course, taking measures to avoid participation traps is not only the responsibility of social policy institutions. It is also a responsibility of employers that hire subsidised workers, trainees, et cetera. Investing in people’s employability in the context of company policies should not be restricted to ‘regular’ workers but should also involve participants in activating social policies.

Income improvement and access to employment rights/benefits

Lack of opportunities for income improvement, and of access to employment rights/benefits, are important examples of a lack of career prospects related to participation in social inclusion schemes. In our case studies, this issue seemed to be specifically urgent in the context of more permanent secondary labour-market schemes, even though it is not necessarily limited to these schemes, as the British case study into part-time work revealed. Since these schemes often operate income ceilings, income improvement opportunities simply vanish at some point. Tackling this problem asks for either of two possible solutions: raising or abolishing income ceilings on the one hand, or offering guidance and support in finding and entering regular labour-market jobs on the other. More generally, removing differences in access to employment rights and benefits, which we witnessed in secondary labour-market schemes but also in flexible and/or part-time jobs on the regular labour market, will increase the inclusionary potential of these types of work.

Another issue in this context relates to the inclusionary potential of unpaid types of work, that may contribute to increasing participation but at the same time offer few opportunities for income improvement. In the former section we already pointed to non-labour-market or non-monetary solutions to this problem. Whatever solution one supports, it is quite evident that improving the income situation of people contributing to society by their involvement in unpaid activities will increase the inclusionary potential and, thus, the attractiveness of this ‘road to inclusion’ considerably; even though one should not neglect the immaterial gains participation in unpaid activities may have for people.

Flexibility

Another element that increases the inclusionary potential of social inclusion programmes is their flexibility. In general one might say that the more flexible programmes are, the more they can be accommodated to people’s situation and needs, the less creaming-off effects will be and the more they will be able to contribute to the social inclusion of poor and unemployed people. For creating possibilities for a flexible application of social inclusion programmes will offer policy deliverers more opportunities to deliver tailor-made trajectories that fit with people’s abilities and desires. Flexibility may refer to separate programmes and to combinations of various programmes. As far as the first is concerned, secondary labour-market programmes that demand fulltime involvement, or are restricted to low-skilled and low-productivity jobs, will not be able to meet the needs of various categories of unemployed people: people with health problems that are not able to work fulltime but would like to work part-time; people who have been unemployed for a long time and would like to be able to gradually increase the number of working hours; people who have caring responsibilities, either for children or sick relatives; highly educated people; people looking for career and development prospects in the context of secondary labour-market programmes. Opportunities for combining several programmes may increase participation in these programmes of people who are confronted with complex problem situations, the solution of which asks for multidimensional interventions rather than interventions in the domain of participation only.

Minimising failure risks and failure effects

Participation in social inclusion programmes will never be successful for everyone. People may not be able to continue participation, they may decide that participation does not meet their needs, or, as in the case of people starting their own companies, they may not be able to make their company profitable. In order to minimise failure risks and failure effects, which may have far-reaching consequences for people who are in a vulnerable position anyway, both preventive and curative measures can be taken. Preventive measures relate, for example, to careful placement procedures: these can contribute to an optimal matching of people’s abilities and needs and conditions of participation. Preventive measures can also involve training, consultancy et cetera. Curative measures relate to regulating the consequences in cases that failure turns out to be unavoidable. Moderating the risks of failure, both in terms of income rights such as entitlement to social benefits and in terms of activation rights such as entitlement to participate in –other- activation programmes, is most likely to stimulate people to enter social inclusion programmes.

3 Institutional issues

In the final section of this chapter we will pay attention to some institutional issues related to social inclusion policies. Transforming passive into active social policies in general, and dealing with the issues we have discussed in this chapter in particular, will also have consequences for the institutions and agencies involved in delivering these policies and measures.

An integrating approach

Adequate social inclusion policies, as we argued above and has been argued by others as well, require an approach in which social services are provided in an integrated and co-ordinated way. In many countries we can observe that against the background of the emphasis on activation, and of processes of marketisation and privatisation, an increasing variety of institutions and organisations are involved in delivering activating social policies: public institutions, private organisations, NGOs et cetera. Often, institutional interests and differences in the ways these institutions operate, hinder co-ordination and co-operation, which may have negative consequences for the activation process of programme participants. Thus, developing and implementing successful activation policies not only asks for adequate and effective programmes, but for a process of institutional activation as well.

Combining bottom-up initiatives and top-down policies

Traditionally, social policies are characterised by a top-down approach. Policy makers define the problems that these policies have to solve, and the direction in which solutions to these problems should be found. Little room is given to the strategies unemployed and poor people themselves use to cope with problems of exclusion, and to local, community-based initiatives with a similar objective.

In the above we have been arguing in favour of a broader approach of policies aiming at inclusion through participation. From this perspective, these individual and community-based initiatives should not (at least, not always) be treated as threats to the targets and objectives policy makers set themselves, but as sources for finding new approaches to tackling problems of social exclusion. Complementing these ‘bottom-up’ initiatives with ‘top-down’ support and facilities will most likely increase their inclusionary potential.

The dialogical approach and the position of clients

The traditional top-down approach of social policies also effects the position of clients in the activation process. They are the ‘object’ of activation policies, that have to adjust to and fit into programmes and schemes; if they cannot adjust, they will drop out, and if they do not want to adjust, they risk sanctions. In the above, we have been arguing that to a large extent, the success of activation programmes depends on the degree to which these programmes meet people’s needs. From this perspective, activation processes should not start with ascribing or prescribing people certain needs, but with an assessment of their needs. This asks for a transformation of the setting of client-consultant interactions from a paternalistic into a dialogical approach. As we argued in the former chapter, this implies that defining the objectives of activation trajectories involves a process of negotiation. It goes without saying, that designing policy delivery in this way cannot be without consequences for the distribution of power and resources in client-consultant interactions. Furthermore, explicit attention should be paid to the means and conditions necessary to make this dialogical approach successful.

Compulsion

Without entering into an extensive debate here on compulsion in activating social policies, some remarks can be made in the context of this chapter. It is quite clear that elements of compulsion and workfare are entering social policies more and more. It is also quite clear, that compulsion fits into a social policy design, in which not clients but policy makers and deliverers determine the objectives of inclusion policies: it is sometimes considered necessary when people are expected to get engaged in types of participation that do not meet their needs or, in other words, when they have to develop forms of participation that, in their perception, do not contribute to their social inclusion. From the perspective we have been developing here, in which social inclusion policies aim at creating participation opportunities that match people’s needs, using compulsion is far less evident. In our view, compulsion is not necessary to stimulate people to contribute to society and to get them involved into meaningful and useful activities. Most people want to be socially included and want to contribute to society themselves. In sum, the use of compulsion in activation policies seems to serve other purposes than helping unemployed and poor people to solve problems of exclusion: either, they are aimed at satisfying the tax and social contribution payers, or they are aimed at enforcing needs on people who apparently do not recognise them as their own.

One might also wonder to what degree compulsion is used to activate social policy agencies rather than the unemployed. Given the high workloads of these agencies, they deal with a shortage of resources by concentrating their efforts on those who have a work obligation, leaving those who do not to their own devices. In other words, extending the work test and increasing the obligatory character of activation may well be intended to stimulate social policy deliverers to widen their scope of operation to groups that are normally excluded from their services.

Decentralisation

Activating social policies are often delivered in a decentralised policy context. Even in the presence of national legislation, these regulations leave regional or local authorities and policy agencies quite some discretion in the design and/or delivery of activation policies. Discretion is indeed necessary to be able to adjust policies to local circumstances and to individual needs. In other words, tailor-made processes of activation require discretion in the design of activation policies. At the same time, decentralisation makes policies potentially subject to processes of inequality of justice (clients have different rights and obligations in different local contexts or are treated differently by different consultants), and arbitrariness. Safeguarding the position of clients in national regulations and empowering them in their interactions with consultants may be tools in counter-acting the potentially negative consequences of policy decentralisation.

Monitoring

The transformation of social policies from passive into active measures has resulted into a large number of schemes and initiatives. In order to gain insight into the degree to which these schemes and initiatives are successful, monitoring them and comparing results of various programmes is highly necessary. In designing these monitor studies, the following issues should be taken into account. First of all, they should not be directed at participants of programmes only, but also at drop-outs and at people that have, for whatever reason, been excluded from participation. Thus, insight may be gained into the conditions that make schemes successful for some groups of people but unsuccessful for others. Secondly, our remarks with respect to the objectives of policies aimed at social inclusion also influence the criteria deployed in assessing the success of these policies. From a narrow perspective on social inclusion, success will be measured in terms of outflow to paid jobs only. From a broader perspective, other indicators of social inclusion may gain importance as well.