Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:18:08.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Provision of Income Protection and Activation Services for the Unemployed in ‘Active’ Welfare States. An International Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2009

RIK VAN BERKEL
RIK VAN BERKEL*
Affiliation:
Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, 3511ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses reforms of the design of the organisational arena for policy implementation and service provision in European welfare states, focusing on the policy areas of income protection and activation. First, it discusses and compares recent reform programmes in four countries: the UK, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. The comparison shows that these reforms share some common characteristics: the establishment of one-stop agencies, decentralisation, the introduction of quasi-markets for the provision of activation services, a reduction of the role and influence of social partners and the use of new public management instruments in managing public agencies. Secondly, the article argues that these reforms are not merely reflecting new ways of thinking about organising the public sector and providing public services, but should also be interpreted as responses to policy administration and implementation problems arising in the process of making welfare states more activating.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 17 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Bifulco, L., Bricocoli, M. and Monteleone, R. (2008), ‘Activation and local welfare in Italy: trends and issues’, Social Policy and Administration, 42: 2, 143–59.Google Scholar
Bonvin, J.-M. (2008), ‘Activation policies, new modes of governance and the issue of responsibility’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvin, J.-M. and Moachon, E. (2007), ‘The impact of contractualism in social policies: the case of active labour market policies in Switzerland’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27: 9/10, 401–13.Google Scholar
Bredgaard, T. and Larsen, F. (2008), ‘Quasi-markets in employment policy: do they deliver on promises?’, Journal of Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 341–52.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2007), ‘Bureaucracy redux: management reformism and the welfare state’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17: 1, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmel, E. and Papadopoulos, T. (2003), ‘The new governance of social security in Britain’, in Millar, J. (ed.), Understanding Social Security: Issues for Social Policy and Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Caulfield, J. (2004), ‘Measuring autonomy in social security agencies: a four country comparison’, Public Administration and Development, 24: 2, 137–45.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997), The Managerial State, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (2007), ‘Distribution of responsibility for social security and labour market policy – Country Report: the United Kingdom’, AIAS working paper 2007–50, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Considine, M. (2001), Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2007), ‘Between work and enablement – the different paths to transformation of the welfare state: a comparative analysis of activating labour market policies’, European Journal of Political Research, 46: 6, 823–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. and Eichhorst, W. (2007), ‘Distribution of responsibility for social security and labour market policy – Country Report: Germany’, AIAS working paper 2007–52, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Finn, D. (2005), ‘The role of contracts and the private sector in delivering Britain's “Employment First” welfare state’, in Sol, E. and Westerveld, M. (eds.), Contractualism in Employment Services – A New Form of Welfare State Governance, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Finn, D., Knuth, M., Schweer, O. and Sommerville, W. (2005), Reinventing the Public Employment Service: The Changing Role of Employment Assistance in Britain and Germany, London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society.Google Scholar
Genova, A. (2008), ‘Integrated services in activation policies in Finland and Italy: a critical appraisal’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 379–92.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goul Andersen, J., Clasen, J., Van Oorschot, W. and Halvorsen, K. (2002), Europe's New State of Welfare: Unemployment, Employment Policies and Citizenship, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hendeliowitz, J. and Bastlund Woollhead, C. (2005), ‘Employment policy in Denmark – high levels of employment, flexibility and welfare security’, in Giguère, S. and Higuchi, Y. (eds.), Local Governance for Promoting Employment – Comparing the Performance of Japan and Seven Countries, Tokyo: Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training.Google Scholar
Hipp, L. and Warner, M. (2008), ‘Market forces for the unemployed? Training vouchers in Germany and the USA’, Social Policy and Administration, 42: 1, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, C. (2007), Agents of the Welfare State: How Caseworkers Respond to Need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Karagiannaki, E. (2007), ‘Exploring the effects of integrated benefit systems and active labour market policies: evidence from Jobcentre Plus in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 2, 177–95.Google Scholar
Konle-Seidl, R. (2005), ‘New delivery forms of employment services in Germany: a mixed public – private model?’, in Sol, E. and Westerveld, M. (eds.), Contractualism in Employment Services – A New Form of Welfare State Governance, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C. and McQuaid, R. (2008), ‘Inter-agency co-operation in activation: comparing experiences in three vanguard “active” welfare states’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 353–65.Google Scholar
Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H. (eds.) (2001), ‘An Offer You Can't Refuse’: Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. (2007), ‘Distribution of responsibility for social security and labour market policy – Country Report: Denmark’, AIAS working paper 2007–51, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E. (eds.) (2002), New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyers, M., Glaser, B. and Mac Donald, K. (1998), ‘On the front lines of welfare delivery: are workers implementing policy reforms?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17: 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
Mosley, H. (2005), ‘Job-Centers for local employment promotion in Germany’, in Giguère, S. and Higuchi, Y.. (eds.), Local Governance for Promoting Employment – Comparing the Performance of Japan and Seven Countries, Tokyo: Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2007), ‘The “double dynamics” of activation: institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27: 9/10, 364–76.Google Scholar
Pendleton, N. (2006), ‘Getting people back into work: the experience of Jobcentre Plus’, Social Policy and Society, 5: 4, 533–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. and Fleckenstein, T. (2007), ‘Discourse, learning and welfare state change: the case of German labour market reforms’, Social Policy and Administration, 41: 5, 427–48.Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. and Magnusson, L. (eds.) (2007), Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Turok, I. (2005), ‘Local employment measures in the UK: overview and assessment’, in Giguère, S. and Higuchi, Y.. (eds.), Local Governance for Promoting Employment – Comparing the Performance of Japan and Seven Countries, Tokyo: Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. (2006), ‘The decentralization of social assistance in the Netherlands’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26: 1/2, 20–32.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Van der Aa, P. (2005), ‘The marketization of activation services: a modern panacea? Some lessons from the Dutch experience’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15: 4, 329–49.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Valkenburg, B. (eds.) (2007), Making It Personal: Individualising Activation Policies in the EU, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Borghi, V. (2008), ‘Review article: the governance of activation’, Social Policy and Society, 7: 3, 393–402.Google Scholar
Van Der Veen, R. (2002), ‘From mutualities and factory funds to a comprehensive system of social insurance schemes’, in Berghman, J., Nagelkerke, A., Boos, K., Doeschot, R. and Vonk, G.. (eds.), Social Security in Transition, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar