Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:12:48.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating State-promoted Civic Engagement and Participation of Vulnerable Groups: The Paradoxical Policies of the Social Support Act in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2012

VASCO LUB  and
MATTHIJS UYTERLINDE
VASCO LUB*
Affiliation:
Bureau for Social Argumentation, Noordsingel 54D, 3032 BG, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
MATTHIJS UYTERLINDE
Affiliation:
Regioplan Policy Research, Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 35, 1012 RD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands email: [email protected]
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on the effects of the Social Support Act (Wmo) in the Netherlands, implemented in 2007. The Dutch Act resembles the current European political interpretation of citizenship: stressing self-responsibility in one's personal life, fighting against elements of the welfare state that are believed to be invasive and implying a shared responsibility of government and civil society for the care of socially vulnerable groups. Data were collected on the basis of two surveys evaluating the effects of the Wmo for voluntary organisations and professional non-profit institutions in social care and welfare (2007: N = 383 and 2009–10: N = 389). In addition, in-depth interviews with stakeholders and qualitative case studies were carried out. The study yields several paradoxical policy outcomes. Contrary to the objectives of the Social Support Act, a ‘revitalisation’ of the Dutch civil society – in terms of a greater contribution to social goals and policies – remains problematic, whilst professional entities thrive under the new governmental élan. Other paradoxical outcomes stem from a too-dogmatic approach to the social participation of people with severe mental disabilities. Instigating the socialisation of these groups through mandatory measures can in practice increase their isolation. To reduce unintended effects, the Social Support Act should take into account the divergent capacities of vulnerable groups and prioritise the psychological safety of clients over political and administrative policy objectives.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 373 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Bauman, Z. (2004), Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Boston, J. M., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P. (1996), Public Management: The New Zealand Model, Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culham, A. and Nind, M. (2003), ‘Deconstructing normalisation: clearing the way for inclusion’, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28: 1, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deakin, N. (1996), ‘The devils in the detail: some reflections on contracting for social care by voluntary organizations’, Social Policy and Administration, 30: 1, 20–38.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48: 2, 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher-Morgan, P. C. and Leyland, K. (2010), ‘Making people more responsible: the Blair governments programme for changing citizens’ behaviour’, Political Studies, 58: 427–49.Google Scholar
Hall, E. (2004), ‘Social geographies of learning disability: narratives of exclusion and inclusion’, Area, 36: 3, 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hortulanus, R. (2004), Het belang van de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning, Utrecht: MOgroep.Google Scholar
Kwekkeboom, M. H. and Koops, H. (2005), Socialization of Care, The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Kunneman, H. P. (2000), ‘Levenskunst en burgerschap in een technopolis’, Humanistiek, 1: 66–83.Google Scholar
Linders, L. (2010), ‘What has neighbourhood cohesion to do with informal care?’, ESPAnet Social Policy Research Day 2010, University of Amsterdam: UvA.Google Scholar
Lub, V., Sprinkhuizen, A. and Alblas, M. (2008), Trendrapport: de uitvoering van de Wmo in beeld, Utrecht: MOVISIEGoogle Scholar
Marrinetto, M. (2003), ‘Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement’, Sociology, 37: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhedran, S. (2011), ‘Disability and community life: does regional living enhance social participation?’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20: 5, 1–15.Google Scholar
Metz, J. (2010), ‘Ervaring in Dordrecht: professionals verdringen burgers’, Tijdschrift voor sociale vraagstukken, 1/2: 12–15.Google Scholar
Milner, P. and Kelly, B. (2009), ‘Community participation and inclusion: people with disabilities defining their place’, Disability and Society, 24: 1, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOgroep (2007), ‘Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning een brede participatiewet’, Brief aan de informateur, 24 January 2007, Mogroep.Google Scholar
Morris, J. (1991), Pride against Prejudice, London: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Muir, K., Fisher, K. R., Abello, D. and Dadich, N. (2010), ‘“I didn't like just sittin” around all day’: facilitating social and community participation among people with mental illness and high levels of psychiatric disability’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 3, 375–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nirje, B. (1969), ‘The normalization principle and its human management implications’, in Kugel, R. and Wolfensberger, W. (eds.), Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded, Washington, DC: Presidential Committee on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Prior, D. and Barnes, M. (2009), ‘Subversion and the analysis of public policy’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Services, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000), ‘Crowding out citizenship’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 23: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, A. and Dornette, J. (2009), ‘Equal rights and equal duties? Activating labour market policy and the participation of long-term unemployed people with disabilities after the reform of the German welfare state’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 53–70.Google Scholar
Roche, M. (2002), ‘Social citizenship: grounds of social change’, in Isin, E. and Turner, B. (eds.), Handbook of Citizenship Studies, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schout, G. H. (2007), Zorgvermijding en zorgverlamming: Een onderzoek naar competentieontwikkeling in de Openbare Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg (proefschrift), Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Tonkens, E. (2010), Tussen onderschatten en overvragen: Actief burgerschap en activerende organisaties in de wijk, Amsterdam: SUN.Google Scholar
Van Ewijk, H. (2010), European Social Policy and Social Work: Citizenship-based Social Work, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Marissing, E. and Meere, F. de (2009), ‘Afwachtende gemeenten: Wmo is nog geen stimulans om sociale contacten te bevorderen’, Tijdschrift voor sociale vraagstukken, 10/11: 18–21.Google Scholar
Van Rooijen, M. (2004), Gemeenten hebben geen benul van psychiatrie, www.psy.nl, nr. 7.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, I. and Ham, M. (2010), ‘De overheid op zoek naar brave burgers’, in Verhoeven, I. and Ham, M. (eds.), Brave burgers gezocht: De grenzen van de activerende overhead, Amsterdam: Van Gennip.Google Scholar
Verplanke, L. and Duyvendak, J. W. (2010), Onder de mensen? Over het zelfstandig wonen van psychiatrische patiënten en mensen met een verstandelijke beperking, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
VNG (2008), De toekomst van de Wmo: VNG-visie op de toekomst van de Wmo in relatie tot de AWBZ, Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten.Google Scholar
Yates, S., Dyson, S. and Hiles, D. (2008), ‘Beyond normalization and impairment: theorizing subjectivity in learning difficulties – theory and practice’, Disability and Society, 23: 3, 246–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar