L’article analyse les récents développements de l’accompagnement social à partir d’une étude approfondie du programme FORJAD (formation pour jeunes adultes en difficulté) permettant à de jeunes adultes inscrits à l’aide sociale suisse d’accéder à une formation professionnelle. À partir d’une étude comparant la nature et les modalités d’intervention de différentes figures professionnelles auprès de ces jeunes (assistants sociaux, professionnels des mesures d’insertion, coachs), nous questionnons la normativité de ces nouvelles formes d’accompagnement social et évaluons leur potentiel d’autonomisation réelle des bénéficiaires à l’aune de l’approche par les capacités développée par Amartya Sen.This paper examines recent developments in social support and guidance, focusing on an in-depth study of the FORJAD program, which helps troubled youth receiving Swiss social assistance gain access to vocational training. With reference to a study comparing the nature and methods of intervention of various professionals (social workers, reintegration professionals, coaches) who work with these young adults, we raise some questions about the normativity of these new forms of social support and, using Amartya Sen’s “capabilities approach,” assess their potential for helping beneficiaries to become truly independent

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of the current trend towards integrating employment policies against Amartya Sen's capability approach. By contrast with the conventional efficiency measures, it focuses on two main issues: to what extent does the integration of policies result in more performing programs when it comes to empowering the beneficiaries? What is the impact of integrated programs in terms of freedom to choose and capability for voice? These issues are investigated against a Swiss case study, i.e. the CII‐MAMAC project.Design/methodology/approachAn investigation relying on qualitative interviews conducted with 25 local agents and managers belonging to the various institutions engaged in the CII‐MAMAC project and an in‐depth documentary survey of the official texts (laws, directives, etc.).FindingsIntegrating employment policies is very ambivalent in terms of both empowerment and freedom to choose. On the one hand, it can certainly lead to an increased effort in terms of empowerment, while on the other hand, it may reinforce paternalistic views of the welfare state envisaging the beneficiary as an obedient subject, rather than an active citizen. All in all, integration cannot be seen as the panacea to problems of inefficiency and unfairness in social policies.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper focuses on one case study. Other in‐depth investigations are needed for issuing more general conclusions.Originality/valueThe paper demonstrates that using the capability approach to assess public policies opens new paths for evaluation research in this field.

The aim of this article is to lay down the foundations of a critical sociology of democracy and participation. Based on Amartya Sen's capability approach, we identify four major pitfalls of classical theories on justice and deliberative democracy: 1) an excessive emphasis on the procedural dimension of democracy at the expense of its substantial value; 2) an ideal of deliberation that does not sufficiently account for the inequalities that characterize actual participative practices; 3) an ideal approach to rationality which is inconsistent with the plurality of reasons to value and arguments that can be observed in social reality; and 4) a focus on official or institutionalized forms of deliberation that does not pay due attention to the many forms and dynamics of participation. We contend that, by contrast, Sen's epistemology may be fruitful for the development of a critical sociology of democracy and suggest an agenda for empirical research on participation and deliberative practices.

This article investigates whether street-level bureaucrats can be incentivised to process information in ways that lead to more effective implementation decisions. It draws on the literatures on behavioural public policy (BPP) and street-level bureaucracy to analyse how civil servants implement disability insurance policy in Switzerland. We conducted a field experiment to assess whether a thought-provoking nudge improves the decisional effectiveness of street-level bureaucrats (SLBs). SLBs were assigned to either a ‘business-as-usual’ control condition, or to an experimental condition, where they were called to pay attention to vulnerability processes along the beneficiaries’ life course when making decisions. While we did not find that the thought-provoking nudge directly improved effectiveness, we found that it increased beneficiaries’ humanisation. In particular, there was some evidence for indirect positive effects of the thought-provoking nudge on effectiveness via humanisation. These findings encourage BPP researchers to consider additional dimensions such as humanisation to nudge SLBs into processing information in better ways.

Social policies rely on specific expectations vis-a-vis their beneficiaries, who have to abide by certain eligibility criteria or behavioral standards to access the benefits or services provided. As such, they draw boundaries between the deserving and undeserving, which results in the following paradox: While social policies claim to be universal, they actually exclude potential beneficiaries by imposing on them the compliance with these eligibility criteria and behavioral standards. In other words, purportedly universal social policies may have exclusionary effects, in the form either of selectivity (street-level bureaucrats select what they perceive as legitimate beneficiaries) or of self-exclusion and non-take-up (people entitled do not claim benefits or services). Based on the case of the Swiss disability insurance, this article explores the extent of, and the reasons underlying, the paradoxes of universalism within active social policies. It relies on a mixed-methods research design, combining sequence analysis (showing the selectivity of active reforms regarding people’s access to disability benefits) and in-depth interviews. The conclusion of this article suggests that not all forms of universalism are equally exposed to such paradoxes and proposes a hypothesis to be explored in further research: The more requiring and precise in terms of eligibility criteria and behavioral standards social policies and activation strategies are (hard universalism), the higher the risk that they lead to selective practices in contradiction with their universal ambition. By contrast, fuzzier eligibility or behavioral criteria (soft universalism), which allow for adjustment to individual circumstances, may lead to more genuinely universal and inclusive social policies.