Keywords
Citation
Steinert, H. (2005), "Welfare from below?", European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2005.05417dab.004
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2005, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Welfare from below?
Welfare from below?
Purpose – To provide a constructive critique of the present system of welfare benefits in Europe and present options for reform.Design/methodology/approach – Analyses existing practices of and attitudes towards welfare provision in Europe, their benefits and their pitfalls. Assumes a multi-disciplinary approach, combining economic and sociological analysis. Makes a practical summary of the options involved in reforming the welfare state.Findings – The reform of the welfare state is not, as politicians and economists sometimes claim, a straightforward choice between market mechanisms and expanded state provision. It involves a judicious blend of public and private provision, including basic or citizens’ income schemes. There is also a third sector that involves voluntary associations, which is often overlooked by policy makers.Originality/value – This article provides a valuable resource for students and policy makers in the field of welfare reform.
Keywords: Benefits, Government policy, Disadvantaged groups, Europe
“Social exclusion” as a dynamic and contested process
In recent years a tendency to conceptualise precarious and disadvantaged positions in society in terms of “social exclusion” has gained acceptance in political as well as theoretical discourse. The terminology is still largely used to describe groups and positions that are more or less permanently marginalized. Concepts such as “underclass” or “the superfluous” have this strong connotation. On the other hand, empirical evidence shows the episodic character of poverty in many cases. A phenomenology of social exclusion quickly demonstrates that it has different dimensions including political exclusion (via citizenship), economic exclusion (through lack of means), social exclusion (through isolation) and cultural exclusion (through deficits in education). In many instances these dimensions can be viewed as independent: people are excluded on one of the dimensions only and can compensate this by mobilising other resources they still have. The conceptual and theoretical consequence is to see a stabilized situation of being excluded completely and on all dimensions as the limiting case that comes about under specific and extreme conditions. The “normal” model of being excluded is the dynamic, contested, episodic threat of exclusion that the person can fight against and often compensate.
Situations of possible social exclusion can either be escalated or ameliorated. It is possible to understand “social exclusion” as a dynamic and multi-dimensional process rather than as an all-or-nothing event and status. The process and the variety of dimensions can be broken down into an array of situations of (possible) exclusion to be described in their mutual relations of positive or negative feedback. “Social exclusion” can thus be understood as a continuous, gradual and contested process of exclusion from full participation in the social, including material as well as symbolic, resources produced, supplied and exploited in a society for making a living, organizing a life and taking part in the development of a (hopefully better) future.
Narratives about struggles against exclusion
The empirical research on which my book, Welfare Policy from Below, is based accordingly aims to identify examples of real-life forms of coping with exclusion and to analyse the conditions under which they spring up and the resources needed for them to be successful. The design allows for a comparative perspective focussing on coping strategies and politics on the local and sub-cultural level as well as that of different (national) welfare state regimes and the resources supplied and used[1].
Significant results were derived from analyses of the form of presentation of episodes of social exclusion in the narratives collected. “Indignation” and “acceptance” (down to resignation) is the first important distinction here. This includes references to the principles of legitimation that people employ for their claims to obtain and be able to use social and, in particular, welfare-state resources in situations of social exclusion. The three most general such principles are: having “earned” support; being a “member”; and deserving “solidarity”.
In contrast to this there are “normalized” forms of exclusion, i.e. types of non-participation that are just mentioned in passing but not elaborated on. People live with them and take them more or less for granted. This again points to claims people could have, but do not feel entitled to assert. There are social norms of non-participation and non-entitlement, e.g. status inferiority, defined by state regulations (“migrant”, “criminal”), market (achievement, demand) and fate or bad luck.
The main block of results concerns “coping and its resources”: from utilising the welfare state in different forms, through family as a resource and the meaning of work, to the striking absence of “community” in many locations and the effectiveness of “networks of association”. Finally there are analyses of housing as (a gap in) infrastructure, and situations in which the legal status (foreigner, illegal immigrant) is the source of exclusion and in which a multiplicity of resources has to be mobilised. One of these refers specifically to the aggregate problems of “foreign” women.
Some of the results were to be expected:, e.g. there are downward cycles of poverty or long-term situations of poverty, especially when housing problems are involved, often in cases of family break-down, sometimes connected to an overwhelming multiplicity of problems. There are, on the other hand, numerous instances where social exclusion is neutralised: people take it for granted or have abandoned any higher ambitions. There are also coping strategies that can remedy a situation of social exclusion on an individual and household level. A wide range of such coping strategies are described for different fields of resources.
The role of the welfare state and of other resources
Types of welfare orientations in Europe range between the taken-for-granted assumption that people “own” the welfare state and are entitled to support in situations of social exclusion (Sweden, The Netherlands) through to reduced expectations, lower levels of reproduction, and reliance on family and an “entrepreneurial” income mix (the “southern pattern”). In all cases there is a preference for the relative autonomy of being in a position to make a living through wage labour, but the awareness that the labour market will not supply this, even after the acquisition of “better” qualifications, is spreading and gaining acceptance. People adapt, but they resent this turn of politics.
There are fields (like labour market or housing supply) which are mostly determined by structural influences, where individual coping means no more than finding “make-do” solutions. There are other instances where, in the same field, coping strategies, for example squatting or institutional programs can initiate something approaching long-term solutions. Private welfare organisations prove to be of special importance in cases where the problem is created by state discrimination in the first place. Networks of association in communities and neighbourhoods are a particularly powerful instrument for multi-purpose coping, but they require institutional support for stability. The most successful coping strategies involve entrepreneurial activities in putting together an income mix from all sources: welfare benefits, some wage labour, family, networks, if necessary some black market activities too.
Seen from the “user” perspective the welfare state is not only a resource but equally, if not more often the source of exclusion in the first place and an obstacle to effective coping. It limits access to social resources to those who have “full citizenship”, discriminates against “foreigners” and excludes “illegal immigrants”. It also regulates access to all sources of income from wage labour to entrepreneurial activities. Traditionally, it makes benefits dependent on prior insurance payments connected to wage labour. Wage-labour dependent welfare has always been selective and has, with the increase of irregular employment, become more so. Social assistance has always been associated with insufficient help, administrative harassment and stigma. Complaints about arbitrary and opaque criteria can be heard all over Europe, independent of the respective welfare-state model.
Everywhere, therefore, since the regular economy is one of licensed, privileged and often over-worked participants only, the “informal economy” plays an important part. The most obvious situation is that of illegal immigrants, for whom “black” markets form the only opportunity; but it is also the young “labour-power entrepreneur” or the welfare client relying on an “income-mix”, who welcomes additional free-market resources.
This would pose very few problems, at least for a limited time, as long as secondary resources like health services, family and other social allowances are not reserved for (at least former) participants of the first and formal economy or for complete abstainers from informal economic activities. For a specific social position, mostly for young, active men with no family to support on the one hand, persons in difficult situations and little prospect in today’s demanding labour market on the other, the informal economy (with all its insecurities) can be an attractive (and unavoidable) field in which to make a living – for a time. (Often the tax and the social security payments evaded would not be worth the trouble of collecting, but could rather be seen as re-socialisation support given by the state.) Since income from the informal economy tends to be insufficient and irregular, and since there is no security net – for example in the case of illness – private charity networks and resources are needed to make participation in the informal economy personally viable.
The orientation towards diversity that can be derived from this research would mean an organisation of social security that is open to changes and developments in the person’s situation. It would avoid long-term fixations and allow for the possibility of early “mistakes” that should not backfire many years later. It would not prevent the use of precarious and (from a “higher” or long-term point of view) undesirable resources, but see to it that this is a temporary solution only. It would open up possibilities instead of restricting the field of options.
Principles of a welfare system that supports social participation
It is obvious that traditional welfare based on principles of insurance, wage labour and citizenship entitlement is in crisis all over Europe. A European Union that is open for the movement not only of capital and goods, but also of people, will need a new type of social security and welfare organisation. The research presented here gives a number of guidelines for how to think about and develop such a new form of infrastructure for participation. We can indicate the general direction and overall perspective that could better orient welfare reforms towards the strategies people actually use to cope with social exclusion:
- 1.
People do not accept charity easily. They do not want to be dependent. They would rather have a chance to “earn” a decent living – not necessarily by wage labour (or forced work for the community), but by work (like household work in the family or in networks of association) they see as needed and meaningful.
- 2.
Family is a resource in difficult situations, but quite often it is also the source of difficulties. Unless it is based in strong patriarchal/matriarchal ideologies (which have and make problems of their own and cannot be re-instated after they have lost their material basis anyway) and when it turns into another exchange relation instead, its character as resource becomes precarious. Its solidarity gets confined to short-time emergency support.
- 3.
Welfare compensations of situations of social exclusion are made difficult by their “conditionality” in three forms:
- 4.
- •
The insurance principle constitutes a selectivity of benefits according to regular, full-time and life-long wage labour. Those who do not fit this pattern are excluded and relegated to social assistance. With the latest economic developments (flexibility, labour-power entrepreneur) an increasingly greater proportion of the labour force will not be in a position to meet these criteria;
- •
Following a principle of economising, welfare benefits, which have always been made scarce and hard to get, are reduced and made conditional to means-testing and other forms of (bureaucratic) eligibility; and
- •
According to a principle of multi-functionality welfare resources are organised under the assumption that they could at the same time function as regulators of the labour market, i.e. as incentives to accept wage labour. A clear separation of these functions might make things more manageable.
- •
- 5.
Situations of social exclusion are best coped with by using a multiplicity of resources. Rules by which such combinations of sources of income (wage, welfare, family) are hindered are dysfunctional.
The principles above can most easily be met by programmes of a minimum income, of a basic income, a “citizenship income” or some similar unconditional provision of basic material resources for all:
- •
There is a lot of taking for granted of situations of exclusion. This is often accompanied by indignation over resources denied in accordance with (assumed) norms of what is due to a person and what are legitimate rights and claims. But the more difficult the life situation is, the more people are forced into make-do solutions.
- •
Often, this acceptance of exclusion seems to be connected with situations of weak health. Medical problems (particularly chronic ones) could be made an occasion for community-work types of social intervention more systematically than they are today.
- •
Non-state welfare organizations and their provisions of resources are indispensable and the only hope where exclusion is organised by the state (for example in the cases of non-nationals or criminals). In view of this importance, ideas should be developed on how private charity could be dispensed in other ways than as individual “gifts”. This could either be as provision of infrastructure to be used by all or in relations of mutuality (like funds, even credit, to set up a business or to finance some other self-sufficiency project).
- •
Networks of association are a useful and powerful multi-purpose resource. To provide infrastructure for them might be a wise investment. This can be generalized as the principle of providing resources for local centres and networks (instead of individuals) and for their development by participants.
Data were collected in community studies conducted by research teams (directed by Elena Larrauri Pijoan, Dario Melossi, Arno Pilgrim, Helga Cremer-Schaefer, Georg Vobruba, Willem de Haan, Ian Taylor, Henrik Tham) in eight European cities: Barcelona, Bologna, Vienna, Frankfurt/Main, Leipzig, Groningen, Leeds, Stockholm. (Heinz Steinert and Arno Pilgrim did the over-all co-ordination. There are 17 researchers who have – in changing combinations – contributed chapters to this book.) Data consist in (over 3,000) episodes of social exclusion reported in narratives, derived from respondent-centred interviews in two communities in each of these cities. Analysis followed interpretative methodologies. The qualitative approach makes this research different from most other research on poverty and other forms of social exclusion. The concentration on events and their history also makes it different from other qualitative research that mostly uses the person or the family/the household and their biographies as the unit of analysis. Instead, this research concentrated on episodes of (impending) social exclusion and the narratives surrounding this key event.
Heinz Steinert, DPhilInstitut für Gesellschafts und Politikanalyse, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyProfessor of Sociology at J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. He is the author (with Arno Pilgrim) of Welfare Policy from Below: Struggles against Social Exclusion in Europe (Ashgate, 2003). E-mail: steinert@soz.uni-frankfurt.de