Paradoxes of Universalism: The Case of the Swiss Disability Insurance

Abstract

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.

Universalism in Social Policies: A Multidimensional Concept, Policy Idea or Process

“…These processes of universalization were not necessarily driven by the idea of universalism. However, here again, terms such as universalization and de-universalization are misleading or fuzzy as they refer to a variety of developments (for some examples see Blomqvist & Palme, 2020;Rosenstein & Bonvin, 2020).…”

“…Others insist that governments must define and supervise standards to be respected by all providers, but that it does not matter whether providers are public, private for profit or nonprofit (see in this issue the discussion of universality by Béland et al, 2020; see also Budowski, 2020). Besides questions of quality, providers also matter when implementing services and transfers (see Mehrara, 2020;Rosenstein & Bonvin 2020;Tschanz & Powell, 2020), as, for example, the selection of 'legitimate beneficiaries' may have exclusionary effects.…”

Activation, Non-Take-Up, and the Sense of Entitlement: A Swiss Case Study of Disability Policy Reforms

“…However, the literature also addresses important critics to this "win-win" interpretation, considering activation as a shift from solidarity towards selectivity (van Oorschot 1998) -or from social welfare to individual responsibility (Goodin 1998) -where economic orthodoxy prevails over individuals' interests and needs. We have shown elsewhere (Rosenstein 2018) that selectivity is twofold: first, it results from restrictive eligibility criteria, implemented and interpreted by street-level bureaucrats who select what they perceive as legitimate beneficiaries (Rosenstein and Bonvin 2020); second, activation may also produce selectivity via self-selection and non-take-up (NTU). The aim of this paper is to further develop the second side of activation, by putting into light the underlying mechanisms of self-selection.…”

“…Following OECD recommendations towards activation, the Federal Law on DI was amended three times in a row between 2004 and 2012 in order to increase the outflow. This resulted in a major decrease in the number of pensions delivered by DI, far beyond official objectives (Rosenstein and Bonvin 2020). The so-called "5 th revision", implemented in 2008, is the cornerstone of the active turn in DI.…”

Real distributive and emancipatory dilemmas within disability policy regimes : comparative perspectives with a focus on Switzerland

“…However, while in the benefit system major reforms and a shift towards activation took place in the last two decades (e.g. Rosenstein & Bonvin, 2020), and after a reform of the federal fiscal equalisation, the role of the funding actors majorly changed (e.g. , the level of redistribution for disability care remained remarkably stable (Appendix).…”