Disappointing poverty trends: is the social investment state to blame?

Abstract

Should we explain the disappointing outcomes of the Open Method of Co-ordination on Inclusion by methodological weaknesses or by substantive contradictions in the ‘social investment’ paradigm? To clarify the underlying concepts, we first revisit the original ‘Lisbon inspiration’ and then relate it to the idea of the ‘new welfare state’, as proposed in the literature on new risks in post-industrial societies. We then discuss two explanations for disappointing poverty trends, suggested by critical accounts of the ‘social investment state’: ‘resource competition’ and a ‘re-commodification’. We do not find these explanations convincing per se and conclude that the jury is still out on the ‘social investment state’. However, policy-makers cannot ignore the failure of employment policies to reduce the proportion of children and working-age adults living in jobless households in the EU, and they should not deny the reality of a ‘trilemma of activation’. Finally, we identify policy conditions that may facilitate the complementarity of social investment and social inclusion.

The Welfare State and Antipoverty Policy in Rich Countries

“…The notion of 'social investment' has come to play a major part in debates about the role of social spending and the future of welfare states in the rich countries, particularly in Europe where the language of social investment has become embedded in European Union discourse since the adoption of the Lisbon Agenda in 2000. A number of important recent contributions have highlighted its potential as a new perspective on or paradigm for social policy in the context of the economic crisis and to the demand of the knowledge-based economy more broadly, as an alternative to neoliberal responses focusing on retrenchment in social spending, and as a key ingredient in responding to the macroeconomic/Euro crisis (see for example the contributions to Morel, Palier and Palme, 2011, Vandenbroucke, Hemerijck and Palier, 2011, and Hemerijck and Vandenbroucke, 2012 Others have sought to assess the extent to which recent directions in social policies and spending patterns could be characterised as moving towards a social investment strategy, and whether disappointing outcomes in terms of poverty can be seen as a failure of such a strategy (Cantillon, 2011;Vandenbroucke and Vleminckx, 2011;Van Kersbergen and Hemerijck, 2012). The EU is paying serious attention to this debate, as evidenced by the establishment by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of an expert group on Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion in autumn 2012 as input to a major initiative envisaged in the area of social policies.…”

Futures of European welfare models and policies: seeking actual research questions, and new problem-solving arsenal for European welfare states

“…And last but not least, the global economic crisis and the drive to turn from spending to investment have overshadowed the growing impact of some other global concerns such as climate change and the environmental impact of the welfare state. Relatively few of the following issues are currently addressed in research literature, such as how resources needed to mitigate climate change will affect conventional welfare state policies [65] and how traditional models of redistribution can cope with the end of continuous economic growth [66] and de-growth challenge [67,68]. Environmental problems are echoed in the concept of the ecostate [69] and in a revised perception of well being [70].…”

Social Inequalities in Europe The Challenge of Convergence and Cohesion

“…Although the term allows for different interpretations (Vandenbroucke and Vleminckx 2011), the 'social investment state' can be understood as a concept in which the state tries to foster adaptability, flexibility, security and employability. It has many roots, including the activation policies already prominent in Sweden from as early as the 1930s and the notion of social protection as a productive factor that became prominent in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in the 1990s.…”