Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:18:45.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering ‘What Works’ in Welfare-to-Work with the Vulnerable Unemployed: The Potential of Relational Causality as an Alternative Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

Tanja Dall  and
Sophie Danneris
Tanja Dall
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University E-mail: [email protected]
Sophie Danneris*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is growing interest in research that informs more effective practices in employment services across Europe, Australia and the USA. However, despite the ever-expanding amount of research on the implementation and efficacy of various policy programmes in practice, the knowledge on how to bring unemployed individuals closer to the labour market remains ambiguous and inconclusive. This is especially so in the context of the more vulnerable unemployed, who face physical, mental and social challenges in addition to unemployment. In this article, we examine the existing literature in terms of its potential to inform (the development of) effective employment policies. On this basis, we outline an alternative approach based on the concept of relational causality, and discuss the implications of such an approach for applied policy research.

Keywords

Evidence based policyrelational causalitywelfare-to-workvulnerable unemployed
Type
Themed Section: Rethinking Welfare-to-Work for the Long-Term Unemployed
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 583 - 596
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Andersen, N., Caswell, D. and Larsen, F. (2017) ‘A new approach to helping the unemployed: the promise of developing new knowledge in an interactive and collaborative process’, European Journal of Social Policy, 19, 4, 335–52.Google Scholar
Behnke, S., Frölich, M. and Lochner, M. (2010) ‘Unemployed and their caseworkers: should they be friends or foes?’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 173, 1, 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010) ‘Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: from evidence-based education to value-based education’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 5, 491–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørnholt, B. and Larsen, F. (2014) ‘The politics of performance measurement: “Evaluation use as mediator for politics”, Evaluation, 20, 4, 400–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borland, J. (2014) ‘Dealing with unemployment: what should be the role of labour market programs?’, Evidence Base, 4, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Brady, M. and Cook, K. (2015) ‘The impact of welfare to work on parents and their children’, Evidence Base, 3, 1–23.Google Scholar
Bredgaard, T. (2015) ‘Evaluating what works for whom in active labour market policies’, European Journal of Social Security, 17, 4, 436–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredgaard, T. and Hansen, C. (2012) ‘Aktivering af unge kontanthjælpsmodtagere med problemer udover ledighed’, Samfundsoekonomen, 3, 31–7.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2011) ‘Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 253–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013) ‘Street-level organizations and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (ed.) Work and the Welfare State. Street-level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 17–34.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. and Larsen, F. (2013) ‘Changing boundaries: the policies of workfare in the U.S. and Europe’, Poverty and Public Policy, 5, 1, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.) (2013) Work and the Welfare State. Street-level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, M., Thomson, H., Fenton, C. and Gibson, M. (2016) ‘Lone parents, health, wellbeing and welfare to work: a systematic review of qualitative studies’, BMC Public Health, 16, 188, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Card, D., Kluve, J. and Weber, A. (2015) What Works? A Meta-Analysis of Recent Active Labour Market Program Evaluations, IZA DP No. 9236, http://ftp.iza.org/dp9236.pdf [accessed 01.02.2016].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, E. and Whitworth, A. (2015) ‘Creaming and parking in quasi-marketised welfare-to-work schemes: designed out of or designed in to the UK Work Programme?’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 2, 277–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caswell, D., Eskelinen, L. and Olesen, S. P. (2011) ‘Identity work and client resistance underneath the canopy of active employment policy’, Qualitative Social Work, 12, 1, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, D., Kupka, P., Larsen, F. and van Berkel, R. (2017) ‘The frontline delivery of welfare-to-work in context’, in van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (eds.), Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe: Activating the Unemployed, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caswell, D., Larsen, J. E. and Sieling-Monas, S. M. (2015) ‘Cash benefit recipients – vulnerable or villains?’, in Bengtsson, T. T., Frederiksen, M. and Larsen, J. E. (eds.), The Danish Welfare State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 217–31.Google Scholar
Considine, M., Lewis, J., O’sullivan, S. and Sol, E. (2015) Getting Welfare to Work: Street- Level Governance in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R. and Fletcher, D. (2008) A Comparative Review of Workfare Programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia, London: Department for Work and Pensions, http://www.splunderousnoog.com/rrep533.pdf [accessed 05.09.2018].Google Scholar
Dall, T. (2018) ‘Social work professionals’ management of institutional and professional responsibilities at the micro-level of welfare-to-work’, European Journal of Social Work, 1-13, doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1476330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall, T. and Sarangi, S. (2018) ‘Ways of ‘appealing to the institution’ in interprofessional rehabilitation team decision-making’, Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 102–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneris, S. (2016) ‘One size doesn’t fit all: diversifying research on active labor market policies’, Journal of Social Work and Society, 14, 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
Danneris, S. and Caswell, D. (2019) ‘Exploring the ingredients of success: studying trajectories of the vulnerable unemployed who have entered work or education in Denmark’, Social Policy and Society, doi: 10.1017/S1474746419000198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneris, S. and Dall, T. (2017) ‘Expressing and responding to self-efficacy in meetings between clients and social work professionals’, Nordic Social Work Research, 7, 2, 115–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneris, S. and Nielsen, M. H. (2018) ‘Bringing the client back in: a comparison between political rationality and the experiences of the unemployed’, Social Policy and Administration, 52, 7, 1441–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P. (2012) ‘The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in policy formation’, National Institute Economic Review, 129, 1, R41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dépelteau, F. (2018) ‘Relational thinking in sociology: relevance, concurrence and dissonance’, in Depéltheau, F. (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, C. and Drewery, S. (2016) ‘A critical assessment of evidence-based policy and practice in social work’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13, 4, 425–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diefenbach, T. (2009) ‘New public management in public sector organizations– the dark sides of managerialistic “enlightenment”’, Public Administration: An International Quarterly, 87, 4, 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., Toerien, M., Irvine, A. and Sainsbury, R. (2010) A Study of Language and Communication between Advisers and Claimants in Work Focused Interviews, (Research report no. 633), Norwich: Department of Work and Pensions, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130314010810/http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep633.pdf [accessed 05.09.2018].Google Scholar
Dubois, V. (2010) The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Eskelinen, L. and Olesen, S. P. (2010) Beskæftigelsesindsatsen Og Dens Virkninger set fra Kontanthjælpsmodtagernes Perspektiv, København: AKF.Google Scholar
Graversen, B. K. and van Ours, J. C. (2009) ‘How a mandatory activation program reduces unemployment durations: the effects of distance’, SSRN Working Paper Series, Copenhagen: Danish National Centre for Social Research (SFI); Tilburg University - Department of Economics: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Griggs, J. and Evans, M. (2010) Sanctions within Conditional Benefit Systems. A Review of Evidence, New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/conditional-benefit-systems-full.pdf [accessed 05.09.18].Google Scholar
Hall, C. and White, S. (2005) ‘Looking inside professional practice: discourse, narrative and ethnographic approaches to social work and counselling’, Qualitative Social Work, 4, 4, 379–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, H. and Natland, S. (2017) ‘The working relationship between social worker and service user in an activation policy context’, Nordic Social Work Research, 7, 2, 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B. W. (2010) ‘Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges’, Policy and Society, 29, 2, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, C. J. and Marschke, G. (2010) ‘Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 1, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herz, M. and Lalander, P. (2016) ‘Neoliberal management of social work in Sweden’, in Kamali, M. and Jönsson, J. H. (eds.), Neoliberalism, Nordic Welfare States and Social Work. Current and Future Challenges, London: Routledge, 57–66.Google Scholar
Hood, C. and Dixon, R. (2015) ‘What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: higher costs, more complaints’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 28, 3, 265–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, A., Sainsbury, R., Drew, P. and Toerien, M. (2010) An Exploratory Comparison of the Interactions between Advisers and Younger and Older Clients during Work Focused Interviews, Research Report no 634, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, S., Jennings, B., Laurier, E., Cree, V. and Whyte, B. (2014) ‘Towards an interactional approach to reflective practice in social work’, European Journal of Social Work, 19, 3–4, 484–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, J. (2007) ‘What evidence base? Steps towards the relational evaluation of social interventions’, Evidence and Policy, 3, 4, 527–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lauri, N. (2016) Narratives of Governing: Rationalization, Responsibility and Resistance in Social Work, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Political Science and Umeå Centre for Gender Studies, Graduate School for Gender Studies, Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C. and Houston, D. (2013) ‘Fit for work? Representations and explanations of the disability benefit ‘crisis’ in the UK and beyond’, in Lindsay, C. and Houston, D. (eds.), Disability Benefits, Welfare Reform and Employment Policy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Maibom, J., Rosholm, M. and Svarer, M. (2016) ‘Experimental evidence on the effects of early meetings and activation’, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 119, 3, 541–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkitalo, M. (2014) ‘Categorization’, in Hall, C., Juhila, K., Matarese, M. and van Nijnatten, C. (eds.), Analysing Social Work Communication. Discourse in Practice, New York: Routledge, 25–43.Google Scholar
Mäkitalo, M. and Säljö, R. (2002a) ‘Invisible people: institutional reasoning and reflexivity in the production of services and “social facts” in public employment agencies’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 3, 160–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkitalo, M. and Säljö, R. (2002b) ‘Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: categories as situated practices’, Text, 22, 1, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg-Heimonen, I. E. (2015) ‘Social workers’ training evaluated by a cluster- randomized study: Reemployment for welfare recipients?’, Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 6, 643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg-Heimonen, I. E. and Vuori, J. (2005) ‘Activation or discouragement– the effect of enforced participation on the success of job-search training, European Journal of Social Work, 8, 4, 451–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, G. and Watts, R. (2003) ‘Tampering with the evidence: a critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3, 3, 143–63.Google Scholar
Martin, J. P. (2015) ‘Activation and active labour market policies in OECD countries: stylised facts and evidence on their effectiveness’, IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4, 4, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matarese, M. and Caswell, D. (2018) ‘I’m gonna ask you about yourself so I can put it on paper: analysing street level bureaucracy through form-related talk in social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 48, 3, 714–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2008) ‘Motivating the unemployed? Attitudes at the front line’, Australian Social Work, 61, 4, 315–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, I. and Wright, S. (2018) ‘Exploring what the notion of lived experiences might offer for social policy analysis’, Journal of Social Policy, 1–19, doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000570.Google Scholar
McNeese, C. A. and Thyer, B. A. (2004) ‘Evidence-based practice and social work’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 1, 1, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, M. Ø., Andersen, V. N. and Iversen, K. (2016) Review af resultatbaseret styring: Resultatbaseret styring på grundskole-, beskæftigelses- og socialområdet, København: KORA.Google Scholar
Møller, M. Ø. and Stone, D. (2013) ‘Disciplining disability under Danish active labour market policy’, Social Policy and Administration, 47, 5, 586–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, H. and Wolf, S. (2015) Democracy and the Public Service, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevo, I. and Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011) ‘The myth of evidence-based practice: towards evidence-informed practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1176–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (2017) ‘Deconstructing the debate over evidence-based policy’, Critical Policy Studies, 11, 2, 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M. H. (2015) ‘Det aktive menneskes triumf?– en analyse af de omfattende forandringer af kategoriseringen af kontanthjælpsmodtageren’, Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 17, 1, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nothdurfter, U. (2016) ‘The street-level delivery of activation policies: constraints and possibilities for a practice of citizenship’, European Journal of Social Work, 19, 3–4, 420–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okpych, N. J. and Yu, J. L-H. (2014) ‘A historical analysis of evidence-based practice in social work: the unfinished journey toward an empirically grounded profession’, Social Service Review, 88, 1, 3–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, S. P. and Eskelinen, L. (2011) ‘Short narratives as a qualitative approach to effects of social work interventions’, Nordic Social Work Research, 1, 1, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersén, A. C. and Olsson, J. I. (2015) ‘Calling evidence-based practice into question: acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1581–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porpora, D. V. (2018) ‘Critical realism as relational sociology’, in Dépeltheau, F. (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 413–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffass, T. (2017) ‘Demanding activation’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 2, 349–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehwald, K., Rosholm, M. and Svarer, M. (2017) ‘Do public or private providers of employment services matter for employment? Evidence for a randomized experiment’, Labour Economics, 45, 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, S., Flyvbjerg, B. and Landman, T. (2013) ‘ Political political science: a phronetic approach’, New Political Science, 35, 3, 359–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shortall, S. (2012) ‘The role of subjectivity and knowledge power struggles in the formation of public policy’, Sociology, 47, 6, 1088–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smedslund, G., Dalsbo, T. K., Hagen, K. B., Johme, T., Rud, M. G. and Steiro, A. (2006) ‘Work programmes for welfare recipients: a systematic review’, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2, 1–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, J. (2011a) ‘Accepted and resisted: the client’s responsibility for making proposals in activation encounters’, Text and Talk, 31, 6, 733–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, J. (2011b) ‘Activation encounters: dilemmas of accountability in construction clients as ‘knowledgeable’’, Qualitative Social Work, 10, 3, 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, J. (2014) Defensive Accountings. An Ethnomethodological Study of Clients’ Resistance Practices in Vocational Rehabilitation Encounters, PhD Dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway, Department of Sociology and Human Geography.Google Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. C. and Schram, S. F. (2011) Disciplining the Poor. Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toerien, M., Sainsbury, R., Drew, P. and Irvine, A. (2015) ‘Understanding interactions between social security claimants and frontline employment advisers– public and private provision in the UK’, Social Work and Society, 13, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Triantafillou, P. (2015) ‘The political implications of performance management and evidence-based policymaking’, American Review of Public Administration, 45, 2, 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. (2017) ‘State of the art in frontline studies of welfare-to-work. A literature review’, in van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P., and Larsen, F. (eds.), Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe: Activating the Unemployed, New York: Routledge, 12–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P., and Larsen, F. (eds.) (2017) Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe: Activating the Unemployed, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. and Knies, E. (2016) ‘Performance management, caseloads and the frontline provision of social services’, Social Policy and Administration, 50, 1, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. and van der Aa, P. (2012) ‘Activation work: policy programme administration or professional service provision?’, Journal of Social Policy, 41, 3, 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar