Date post: | 17-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | amie-walters |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Changing regimes?
Accounting for divergent convergence
International Symposium„Reforming Unemployment Policy in Europe“May 15-16 2009, Hamburg
Patrizia Aurich
Introduction
Aim:
• Compare changes in diversity under common frame of activation
Activation in different welfare states?• Differences in the degree of activation (Gilbert 2002, Hvinden 2003)
• Differences in nature of activation (Serrano-Pascual 2007, Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer 2004, Lødemel and Trickey 2001)
• „divergent convergence“ (Kitschelt 1999; Seeleib-Kaiser 2007)
Central Questions
• How can divergent convergence towards activation be compared?
• How have welfare states developed differently?• How can these differences in development be explained?
Structure of the presentation
I. Theoretical and methodological framework II. Findings of the comparative analysis of changeIII. Approach to explaining differences
Part I
Theoretical and methodological framework
Conceptualising welfare state change part I
• Retrenchment, re-commodification and re-calibration (Pierson 2001)
• Activation instead of income compensation: re-calibration
• Symbolical convergence (Serrano-Pascual 2007)
Definition of activation part I
Activation can be defined as a policy aimed at increasing activity levels of the unemployed.
It is:
• aimed directly at the benefit recipient …• … affecting rights and/or obligations during benefit receipt.
Conceptualising welfare state change part I
Comparative framework: scope for diversity?
• 2 perspectives on activation• Increase social inclusion of the unemployed by bringing
them into work and training activities (Giddens 1998)• Increase labour market participation by reducing
disincentives (Streeck and Heinze 1999, Murray 1994)
Conceptual framework
low
Coercion
Autonomy
high
Coercive Welfare Re-commodification
Enabling De-commodification
Construction of individual action situation
Active support
• Most active
• human resource development
• strict benefit regime
• Partly active
• strict benefit regime
• Partly active
• human resource development
• income compensation
• Least active
• income compensation
part I
Methodological approach part I
Three countries (DE, DK, UK) representing:• Different types of welfare regimes• Different reform dynamics
Different programmes:• Unemployment Insurance (UI)• Unemployment Assistance (UA)• Social Assistance (SA)
Data• Institutional regulation from 1990 - 2008• MISSOC, OECD Country Reports etc.
Methodological approach part I
• Input – ideas and discourse
• Legal output – institutional change in legislation
• Administrative output – practices, implementation
• Outcome – effects of policies in social settings
Methodological approach part I
Policy indicators
Income replacement
Range of activities encouraged
Transfer reduction rate
Definition of reasonable jobs
Sanctions
Code of conduct
Activities offered
Case managementactivity provision through state
Degree of active support
Indices
Social Rights
Balance of coercion and
autonomy
Conditionality
Part II
Findings of comparing activation in different welfare regimes
DK-SA-old
DK-UI-old
DE-SA-old
DE-UA-old
DE-UI-old
UK-SA-oldUK-UI-old
DK-SA-new
DK-UI-new
DE-SA-new
DE-UI-new
UK-SA-new
UK-UI-new
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
DK-SA-oldDK-UI-oldDE-SA-oldDE-UA-oldDE-UI-old UK-SA-oldUK-UI-oldDK-SA-newDK-UI-new DE-SA-newDE-UI-newUK-SA-newUK-UI-new-5-4-3-2-1012345-5-4-3-2-1012345
Policy trajectories in Denmark part II
Coercion
Autonomy
Active support
high
low
Coercive Welfare Re-commodification
Enabling De-commodification
Construction of individual action situation
DK-SA-old
DK-UI-old
DE-SA-old
DE-UA-old
DE-UI-old
UK-SA-oldUK-UI-old
DK-SA-new
DK-UI-new
DE-SA-new
DE-UI-new
UK-SA-new
UK-UI-new
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
DK-SA-oldDK-UI-oldDE-SA-oldDE-UA-oldDE-UI-old UK-SA-oldUK-UI-oldDK-SA-newDK-UI-new DE-SA-newDE-UI-newUK-SA-newUK-UI-new-5-4-3-2-1012345-5-4-3-2-1012345
Policy trajectories in the UK part II
Coercion
Autonomy
Active support
high
low
Coercive Welfare Re-commodification
Enabling De-commodification
Construction of individual action situation
DK-SA-old
DK-UI-old
DE-SA-old
DE-UA-old
DE-UI-old
UK-SA-oldUK-UI-old
DK-SA-new
DK-UI-new
DE-SA-new
DE-UI-new
UK-SA-new
UK-UI-new
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
DK-SA-oldDK-UI-oldDE-SA-oldDE-UA-oldDE-UI-old UK-SA-oldUK-UI-oldDK-SA-newDK-UI-new DE-SA-newDE-UI-newUK-SA-newUK-UI-new-5-4-3-2-1012345-5-4-3-2-1012345
Policy trajectories in Germany part II
Coercion
Autonomy
Active support
high
low
Coercive Welfare Re-commodification
Enabling De-commodification
Construction of individual action situation
Unravelling divergent convergence part II
Denmark United Kingdom Germany
Divergence in active support (intensity of ALMP and placement, range and quality of activities)
(++) right and obligation to participate in ALMP
(++) training, longterm education and job subsidies
(++) intensive placement and supervision (IAP after 9 months)
(++) right and obligation to participate in ALMP
(+) activity options (training included)
(+++) most intensive placement and supervision (IAP after 2 weeks, 13 weeks of gateway counselling)
(+) discretionary access
(+) low end activities (1-€-Jobs)
(+) increased case management
part III
An attempt of explanation
How can we explain similarities and differences?
Explanations? part III
Cases Explanation
Denmark Institutional corporatism (Larsen/Mailand 2007) Favourable labour market context (Andersen 2002)
UK Focus on social inclusion in New Labour discourse (Giddens, Layard)
Favourable labour market context
Germany Formerly quite active (access to “Arbeitsförderung”) High unemployment “Selective Activation” (Clegg 2007) Focus in discourse on disincentives (“no right to being lazy” Chancellor Gerhard Schröder)
Thank you for your attention!