Activation for what purpose? Lessons from Denmark

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper evaluates why activation programmes are still an important and core component of most European countries' social-and labour market policies when it has become increasingly clear that the employment effects are most often either unknown or very small. Design/methodology/approach -To answer this issue, an in-depth investigation of the evolution of activation programmes in the specific national context of Denmark is investigated. Findings -Charting in detail the evolution of labour market activation (or workfare) programmes in Denmark, this paper displays the ongoing intensification of activation policies and ways in which this has reduced the living standards of marginalised groups and explains this to be the result of a power block that has a wider intent of disciplining the whole workforce, not least by encouraging more people to work harder and for longer hours, and rarely with overtime compensation. Research limitations/implications -This paper explains the reasons for the continuing use of labour market insertion programmes when there is a lack of evidence that they are effective in achieving their goal of inserting people into employment. Originality/value -This paper uses the notion of a power block to understand the reasons for advanced economies persisting with labour market activation programmes.

Dialogued‐based activation – a new “dispositif”?

“…Research, however, also shows that promises and expectations have not been fulfilled. From a ''learning-to-labour'' perspective the purpose of IAPs and activation has been questioned, as IAPs and activation has not been able to fulfil the goal of inserting people into employment (Lind and Møller, 2006). It has furthermore been argued that the IAP has collapsed from within because social policy discourses on responsibility and obligation seems to undermine tailor-made empowerment (Borghi and van Berkel, 2007: p. 422); or IAPs have failed because of inadequate implementation conditions (Sirovátka et al, 2007); or because case managers have yet not internalised the new conditions (Sol and Westerveld, 2007); or because IAPs only benefit the most qualified beneficiaries (Bovin and Moachon, 2007).…”

Leaving the Nordic Path? The Changing Role of Danish Trade Unions in the Welfare Reform Process

“…On the one hand, labour market partners influenced social policy reforms, they were part of labour market commissions that prepared reforms and, besides which, they always played a significant role in the implementation process of these reforms (Jørgensen 2003). One central element of explanation is the Ghent system, the special unemployment scheme that combines unemployment insurance and trade union membership (Lind and Møller 2006: 10). Consequently, unions played an important role in employment politics.…”

“…The Parliament ‘Folketing’ passed the first activation reform in 1993 with a sweeping majority (Bogedan 2005: 17). The new social democratic led government wanted to reduce unemployment and increase the willingness of people to take up employment and the possibilities to do that (Goul Andersen and Pedersen 2007: 12; Larsen 2005: 123–4; Lind and Møller 2006: 7). The law limited unemployment benefit to seven years and divided it into two periods: a passive time (four years) and an active time (three years).…”

“…The third and fourth activation reforms became effective in 1999. The third labour market reform specified a reduction of the unemployment benefit duration to four years and strengthened incentives for early retirement (Lind and Møller 2006: 8; Goul Andersen and Pedersen 2007: 13). The unemployment figures were falling rapidly and new jobs were being created.…”

Nytteaktiveringens retfærdiggørelse. Et pragmatisk sociologisk blik på aktivering af arbejdsløse

“…En tredje gruppe beskaeftiger sig med de aktiverende velfaerdsinstitutioner og undersøger, hvordan saerlige former for rationalitet skabes og saetter sig igennem i institutionerne (fx Brodkin 2011;Carstens 1998;Jarvinen & Mik-Meyer 2003;Mik-Meyer 2004;Olesen & Eskelinen 2011;Triantafillou 2012). En fjerde analyserer aktivering fra et klientperspektiv med fokus på medborgerskab og viser, hvordan forskellige former for aktivering leder til brud med de idealer, som er forankrede i medborgerskabstanken (fx Gilbert 2002;Høilund 2006;Juul & Høilund 2005;Lind & Møller 2006;Loftager 2002). Frem for at angribe aktivering fra et regime-, policy-, institutions-eller medborgerskabsperspektiv er det artiklens formål at skitsere og demonstrere et retfaerdiggørelsesper-spektiv, der behandler spørgsmål om, hvordan aktiveringspolitikkers moralske vaerdi fastsaettes af politiske aktører, når aktivering er genstand for offentlig italesaettelse og bedømmelse.…”