• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Yuri Kazepov
 

Yuri Kazepov

on

  • 729 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
729
Views on SlideShare
729
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Yuri Kazepov Yuri Kazepov Presentation Transcript

    • Social Assistance in Belgium The droit à l’integration sociale (DIS) in a European perspective Based on the peer review held in Brussels on November 7-8 th , 2005 adapted for the V@W! workshop organised by the ILO STEP Programme Yuri Kazepov (University of Urbino) With the collaboration of Stefania Sabatinelli (Sciences-Po, Paris)
    • Aims and issues 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Aim of this presentation is to discuss the main features of the Belgian DIS law in the wider context of the European development of activation policies and provide some inputs for discussion on social assistance schemes in Europe. We will address the three following issues: 1 The context of European welfare systems 3 The DIS law and its relevant features Weaknesses, mutual learning and transferability 2
    • 1. The development of minimum income policies in Europe
      • There is ambivalent converging path dependency going on in Europe:
      • particular narratives and institutions like (contractuality, activation, conditionality) are converging;
      • differentiation among and within countries is increasing.
      2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Hypothesis
      • 1) Why social assistance schemes are becoming more and more important in Europe and in particular those coupled with activation measures?
      • 2) What are the main features of the welfare systems within which social assistance policies are embedded?
      • 3) What are the characteristics of the Belgian DIS which are relevant in a comparative perspective?
      • 4)   What is the impact of the changes in Belgium and what are the critical issues emerging?
      • 5) What can we learn from the comparison?
      1. The development of minimum income policies in Europe 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Within this framework of analysis, we will ask the following questions:
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
      • Liberal
      • (UK, IR)
      • Social-democratic
      • (DK, SE, FIN, NO)
      • Corporatist
      • (Belgium, DE, LU, F, .. )
      • Familist
      • (IT, ES, PT, GR,…)
      • Transitional
      • (SI, PL, SLO, RO, BG, MT, …)
      • Residual, market is the prevailing integration mechanism;
      • Pervasive state welfare, universalistic measures;
      • Meritocratic state welfare, family is the prevailing social agency, strong active subsidiarity;
      • Meritocratic and fragmented state welfare, passive subsidiarity, family overload;
      • Deep structural change after 1989, different reforms, possibly different results.
      welfare systems 1. Minimum income policies in European welfare systems Main characteristics
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net y x Redistributive Institutions Reciprocity networks High Low High Low South European Countrie (e.g. IT, ES) UK Continental European Countries (e.g. DE, BE) US Scandinavian Countries (e.g. DK, FI) Family (Market) State Central And East-EU Countries (BG RO) (PL) (CZ, SLO) Anglo-Saxon countries Highly fragmented institutions, practices and activation measures. Important role of the family. Homogeneous institutions diversified local activation measures. Moderately fragmented Institutions and practices. Highly diversified activation measures. Highly individua-lised market relations. Homogenous institutions, moderately differentiated practices and diversified local activation measures. Heterogeneous cluster ranging from fragmented Institutions and activation measures with an important role of the family, to indivi-dualised market relations or highly homogenous and redistributive institutions. 1. European Welfare systems and the role of social assistance schemes
    • Fig.1. Cross-country Correlations between net social assistance benefits of various Households types expressed as a % of the 60% median poverty risk threshold
    • 1. Why are social assistance schemes becoming more important in Europe? 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
      • growth of unemployment from end of the ’70s;
      • persistence of un- employment and long- term unemployment;
      • flexibility and spread of atypical jobs;
      • weakening of family ties
      • growing precarity and poverty
      • growing number of social assistance applicants
      Macro changes Effects
    • 1. The development of minimum income in Europe 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Causes
      • more social assistance applicants;
      • scant public resources;
      Aims
      • get people off the payrolls;
      • prevent dependency and poverty traps.
      New tools
      • more means-tested measures;
      • empowerment approach;
      • “ not passive anymore ” rhetoric;
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
      • Liberal
      • Social-democratic
      • Corporatist
      • (Belgium)
      • Familist
      • Transitional
      • Strong accent on workfare in the ’80s and early ’90s; tailored compulsory programs for risk groups (New Deal)
      • Long tradition in active labour policies;
      • ’ 90s: more importance of social assistance and more activating elements to contain high expenses;
      • Balance of punitive and empowering elements (French RMI, 1989); local variation and financial pressure (D); Minimex reform (Belgium,1993)
      • Active last resort measures, though with wide local differentiation (ES) or low replacement rates (PT);
      • only a test in Italy (1998-2002), nothing in Greece.
      • Old systems still partly persist, social assistance not top priority, categorical measures, low replacement rates.
      Activation development in the different welfare systems 1. The European development of minimum income policies
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Decentralised/ discretionary Centralised/ codified Source: own calculation, inspired by L ø demel and Trickey (2001). Selected European countries according to main features of their activation policies Human resource development Labour market attachment FR UK NL DK DE NO US IT BE
    • 2. Belgian social policy in a European context
      • good risk prevention capacity;
      • higher expenditure share on labour policies and active labour policies;
      • good redistributive capacity;
      • good replacement rates;
      • recent reforms  important activating features.
      2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Main outcomes of the Belgian welfare model
    • 2. Belgian social policy in the EU context 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 2004 DK Universalistic BE Conservative IT Familistic UK Neoliberal EU-25 Old age index 22,3 26,0 26,9 23,7 24,1 % population aged > 65 14,9 17,1 19.2 17,1 16,5 Fertility rate 1,18 1,61 1,29 1,71 1,52 Births out of wedlock 44,8 29,5 10,8 43,1 30,2 Divorce 2,8 3,0 0,7 2,7 2,0 Unemployment male (15-64) 5,1 7,0 6,4 5,1 8,1 Unemployment Female(15-64) 5,6 8,8 10,5 4,2 10,2 Youth (15-24) 8,2 19,8 23,6 12,1 18,6 Long-term (15-64 22,9 50,8 49,4 20,2 n.a As % of GDP 29,5 27,5 25,6 27,2 n.a On labour policies 4,63 3,65 1,20 0,75 n.a On active labour policies 1,58 1,25 0,57 0,37 n.a Unemployed covered 63,8 85,5 4,4 26,2 n.a 60% median pre-transfers 32 29 22 (2001) 26 24 (2001) 60% median post-transfers 12 15 19 (2001) 18 15 (2001)
    • 2. Belgian social policy in the EU context 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Fig. 3. At-risk-of-poverty rate for 2003 before social transfers (top), after pensions (middle) and after all social transfers (bottom). Note: Data missing for the rate before social transfers (top) in PT. Source: Atkinson et al. (2005)
    • 2. Towards the DIS law: the relevant dates
      • 1974 : Minimex law – universal means-tested minimum income right
      • 1976 : law creating the CPAS – local public agencies for the implementation of social policies;
      • 1993 : reform of the Minimex with strong activation elements
      • 2003 : DIS law – right to minimum income and to social integration
      2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
    • 2. The DIS law: relevant features 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
      • Tailored individual insertion project;
      • Recipients have a right to participate in drawing the contract;
      • Attempt towards individualisation of rights;
      • Foreigners and Belgian nationals have equal rights;
      • Special attention towards young recipients, to prevent their fall into dependency
      Points of interest and progress
    • 3. The DIS law: critical issues 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
        • Age target (<25);
        • Time limit for accompanying path;
        • Step backwards on individualisation of rights;
        • Lack of equivalence scale to take into consideration number and age of children in the household;
        • Not enough resources to the CPAS in order to develop insertion projects for everyone;
        • Many activation projects directly in the public local administration: is it sustainable in the long term?
        • Smooth contractual concepts: what is a suitable job? What does availability to work mean?
      Main critical issues
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
        • Conditionality of the activation and suspension of benefit as a sanction;
        • Emphasis on the recipients’ responsibility;
        • Time limits or standards
        • Incentives for local agencies efficiency (DK)?
      • Unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view?
      • What is the alternative?
      • Only long-term accompanying?
      • What about the incapacity of the social system to:
        • offer adapted and decent jobs?
        • assure equal opportunities?
      • Though, time is a very important condition for the success of the program from the recipients’ view.
      Activation as condition for minimum income 3. Inputs for discussion
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
      • Is it only or mainly employment? Or also training, voluntary work, care work, cultural work?
      • Third sector includes agencies especially providing short-term working experiences and others that are part of the “primary” productive system (e.g. cooperatives). Still, can they host all the minimum income recipients?
      • How to favor better working conditions?
      3. Inputs for discussion
      • What is good activation?
      • Are activation experiences in the third sector to be considered as labour market experiences?
      • Employers should have a greater commitment for better jobs
      The problem of dependency can/cannot be solved primarily in the labour market
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 3. Inputs for discussion
        • Social integration through employment is not enough;
        • Unbalanced position of recipients in the social contract and discretional power of the social worker;
        • Short term cost efficiency balance.
        • Results depend much on the accompanying measures (training, looking for a job, health, childcare, debts, …)
        • In particular housing is increasingly a problem in all European countries
        • Split up the roles of of accompanying and controlling, in order to establish a confidence relationship between recipients and social workers;
        • More probability to enroll recipients that have more resources, most likely to get back to work.
      The potential risks of activation
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net
        • Territorial inequalities:
        • Activation cannot but be local in its implementation;
        • Claims for federal efficiency;
        • Age groups inequalities
      • How to reach a balance between
        • local adaptability
        • equal treatment for all citizens?
      • How to devote special attention to particular groups without disregarding the others?
      Inequality issues 3. Inputs for discussion
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 3. Inputs for discussion
        • New responsibilities of social workers;
        • Coordination among local actors;
        • Are they specially trained?
        • National institutional agreements and dispositions;
        • Links between social services and PES;
        • Coordination with social actors from the local design of the policies.
      Actors and coordination patterns
    • 4. Possible outcomes in mutual learning processes 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 1) A convergence-based divergence; 2) A divergence-based convergence (i.e the development of functional equivalent policies); 3) Orbits and creative implementations.
    • 4. Mutual learning and the need of creative management and implementation 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net National coping context Expected trajectory/goal Actual trajectory/goal Area of creative management and implementation The mentioned factors tell us that the relationship between the input (a foreign good practice) and its outcome is not a direct and straightforward process.
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 4. Inputs for discussion
        • Regular monitoring and follow up
        • Transparency
        • Involvement of social actors in the reform process
        • Although rather new, the DIS has been object of a number of evaluation reports, both from institutional and private actors;
        • A great amount of information are available to everyone on the web;
        • How to take seriously into consideration the point of view of social partners?
        • Which criteria of representativeness and of inclusion/exclusion should be foreseen for such an involvement?
      Transparency, evaluation and participation
    • 2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net Thank you for your attention [email_address]