Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:53:02.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active inclusion as an organisational challenge: integrated anti-poverty policies in three European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Martin Heidenreich ,
Norbert Petzold ,
Marcello Natili  and
Alexandru Panican
Martin Heidenreich*
Affiliation:
Department for Social Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstr. 114–118, OldenburgD-26121, Germany
Norbert Petzold
Affiliation:
Department for Social Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstr. 114–118, OldenburgD-26121, Germany
Marcello Natili
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Alexandru Panican
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. Email: martin.heidenreich@uni-oldenburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Active inclusion aims at the reduction of poverty by strengthening the agency of excluded persons by the provision of a minimum income, activation and social services. The contribution to poverty alleviation is determined by expenditure levels and the organisation of these three policy fields. This can be shown by three examples: The comprehensive Swedish regime is characterised by high expenditures; the redistributive German regime is characterised by lower service levels and in Italy, all three dimensions are least developed. In addition, the organisation of services differs: Decentralised and discretionary system for the provision of services in Sweden, “creaming and parking” effects in Germany and fragmented providers in Italy. As a result of different expenditure levels and organisational patterns, the selectivity of active inclusion strategies is low in Sweden, medium in Germany and high in Italy. Both the financial and organisational dimensions of active inclusion therefore are decisive for poverty alleviation.

Keywords

concepts of povertyminimum income provisionactivationsocial servicescoordination
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 180 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, A. B., & Marlier, E. (2010). Income and living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Bahle, T., Huble, V., & Pfeifer, M. (2011). The last safety net: A handbook of minimum income protection in Europe. Chicago, IL: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M. (2014). Towards standby-ability: Swedish and Danish activation policies in flux. International Journal of Social Welfare. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmark, Å., & Minas, R. (2010). Actors and governance arrangements in the field of social assistance. In Kazepov, Y. (Ed.), Rescaling social policies: Towards multilevel governance in Europe (pp. 241–274). Vienna: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Billquist, L. (1999). Rummet, mötet och ritualerna. En studie av socialbyrån, klientarbetet och klientskapet. Göteborg: Institutionen för socialt arbete.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2010). The political economy of active labor-market policy. Politics & Society, 38, 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G., & Natali, D. (2011). The politics of the new welfare states in Western Europe (EUI Working Papers RSCAS 17/2011). San Domenico di Fiesole: EUI.Google Scholar
Borghi, V., & Van Berkel, R. (2007). New modes of governance in Italy and the Netherlands: The case of activation policies. Public Administration, 85, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byberg, I. (2002). Kontroll eller handlingsfrihet? En studie av organiseringens betydelse i socialbidragsarbetet. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
Cantillon, B. (2011). The paradox of the social investment state: Growth, employment and poverty in the Lisbon era. Journal of European Social Policy, 21, 432–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, D. (2013). Dynamics and varieties of active inclusion: A five-country comparison (Working Paper Written in the Context of the FP7 Project “Combating Poverty in Europe”). Retrieved from http://www.cope-research.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/D5.6_Comparative_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Coser, L. A. (1965). The sociology of poverty: To the memory of Georg Simmel. Social Problems, 13, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2011). Deutschland: Dualisierung und Flexibilisierung als residuale Aktivierungspolitik. In Glaeske, G., Gotschall, K., Leibfried, S., Manow, P., Nullmeier, F., Obinger, H., … Rothgang, H. (Eds.), Der aktivierende Wohlfahrtsstaat. Governance der Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Dänemark, Großbritannien und Deutschland, Der aktivierende Wohlfahrtsstaat. Governance der Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Dänemark, Großbritannien und Deutschland (pp. 283–333). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Drøpping, J. A., Hvinden, B., & Vik, K. (1999). Activation policies in the Nordic countries. In Heikkilä, M., Hvinden, B., Kautto, M., Marklund, S., & Ploug, N. (Eds.), Nordic social policy: Changing welfare states (pp. 133–158). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W., Grienberger-Zingerle, M., & Konle-Seidl, R. (2008). Activation policies in Germany: From status protection to basic income support. In Eichhorst, W., Kaufmann, O., & Konle-Seidl, R. (Eds.), Bringing the jobless into work? Experiences with activation schemes in Europe and the US (pp. 17–67). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2006). Concerning a consultation on action at EU level to promote active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market. COM (2006) 44 final (February 2), Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2008). Commission recommendation of 3rd October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the Labour Market. Recommendation 2008/867/EC (November 18), Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2013). Towards social investment for growth and cohesion – including implementing the European Social Fund 2014–2020. COM (2013) 83 final (February 20), Brussels.Google Scholar
Fouarge, D., & Muffels, R. (2000). Persistent poverty in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK: a model-based approach using panel data for the 1990s (Working Paper). OSA Institute for Labour Studies at Tilburg University. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13297/Google Scholar
Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2013). Assessment of the implementation of the European Commission recommendation on active inclusion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.Google Scholar
Goedemé, T., & Rottiers, S. (2011). Poverty in the enlarged European Union. A discussion about definitions and reference groups. Sociology Compass, 5, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, I., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Eardley, T., & Whiteford, P. (1997). Social assistance in OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 7, 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, P. R. (2012). Converging worlds of activation? Activation policies and governance in Europe and the role of the EU. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32, 312–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, B. (2002). Assessing non-use of social assistance. European Journal of Social Work, 5, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessoula, M., & Vesan, P. (2011). Italy: Limited adaptation of an atypical system. In Clasen, J. & Clegg, D. (Eds.), Regulating the risk of unemployment (pp. 142–163). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Johansson, H., & Hornemann Møller, I. (2009). Aktivering. Arbetsmarknadspolitik och socialt arbete i förändring. Liber: Malmö.Google Scholar
Kaltenborn, B. (2011). Arbeitsmarktpolitik: Instrumentenreform 2012. Bonn: WISO direkt.Google Scholar
Kautto, M. (2002). Investing in services in West European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 12, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødemel, I., & Trickey, H. (Eds.). (2001). A new contract for social assistance: An offer you can't refuse–workfare in international perspective. Bristol: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundin, M. (2011). Marknaden för arbetsmarknadspolitiken: om privata komplement till Arbetsförmedlingen (Rapport 2011:13). Uppsala: IFAU.Google Scholar
Lundin, M., & Thelander, J. (2012). Ner och upp. Decentralisering och centralisering inom svensk arbetsmarknadspolitik 1995–2010 (Rapport 2012:1). Uppsala: IFAU.Google Scholar
Marx, I., & Nelson, K. (2012). Minimum income protection in flux. HoundMills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386Google Scholar
Minas, R. (2005). Shifting the wheat from the chaff – the organization of telephone intake and the selection of social assistance inquirers in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 8, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minas, R., & Øverbye, E. (2010). The territorial organization of social assistance schemes in Europé. In Kazepov, Y. (Ed.), Rescaling social policies: Towards multilevel governance in Europe (pp. 203–240). Vienna: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Mood, C. (2004). Social influence effects on social assistance recipiency. Acta Sociologica, 47, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (2012). Beyond the welfare state as we know it? InMorel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (Eds.), Towards a social investment welfare state? (pp. 1–30). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Naldini, M. (2002). The family in the Mediterranean welfare states. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
National Board of Health & Welfare. (2013). Ekonomiskt bistånd – handbok för Socialtjänsten [Social assistance – handbook for social services]. Stockholm: Author.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (2013). Social assistance and EU poverty thresholds 1990–2008. Are European welfare systems providing just and fair protection against low income? European Sociological Review, 29, 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2011). Poverty and deprivation in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panican, A., Johansson, H., Koch, M., & Angelin, A. (2013). The local arena for combating poverty (Research Report Written in the Context of the FP7 Project “Combating Poverty in Europe”). Malmö. Retrieved from http://cope-research.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/COPE_WP6_Sweden_Malm%C3%B6.pdfGoogle Scholar
Puide, A. (2000). Socialbidrag i forskning och praktik. Stockholm: Gothia.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. (2007). Reshaping welfare states: Activation regimes in Europe. In Serrano Pascual, A. & Magnusson, L. (Eds.), Reshaping welfare states and activation regimes in Europe (pp. 11–34). Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1965). The poor (C. Jacobson, Trans.). Social Problems, 13, 118–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, A. H. (1999). Climbing out of poverty, falling back in. Measuring the persistence of poverty over multiple spells. The Journal of Human Resources, 34, 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorén, K. (2012). Kommunal arbetsmarknadspolitik – en kunskapsöversikt över åtgärder för arbetslösa socialbidragstagare. Rapporter från riksdagen 2011/12:RFR 14, Arbetsmarknadsutskottet AU, Del 2, Riksdagstryckeriet: Stockholm.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R., van de Graaf, W., & Sirovátka, T. (2012). Governance of the activation policies in Europe. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32, 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkel, R., & Valkenburg, B. (Eds.). (2007). Making it personal: Individualising activation services in the EU. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venn, D. (2012). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits: Quantitative indicators for OECD and EU countries (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 131).Google Scholar
Walker, R., Kyomuhendo, G. B., Chase, E., Choudhry, S., Gubrium, E. K., Nicola, J. Y., … Ming, Y. (2013). Poverty in global perspective: Is shame a common denominator? Journal of Social Policy, 42, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weishaupt, J. T. (2011). From the manpower revolution to the activation paradigm. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, A., Appel, A., Dittrich, C., Lange, C., Sittermann, B., Stallmann, F., & Kendall, J. (2009). Germany: On the social policy centrality of the Free Welfare Associations. In Kendall, J. (Ed.), Handbook on third sector policy in Europe (pp. 21–42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, K., Aurich, P., Graziano, P. R., & Fuertes, V. (2014). Local worlds of marketization – employment policies in Germany, Italy and the UK compared. Social Policy and Administration, 48, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar