The (changing) consideration of social investment in the design of welfare benefits: The case of poverty relief in Austria

Abstract

The social investment perspective has become a prominent topic in both social policy discussions and theoretical considerations regarding welfare state change. Empirical evidence on how this perspective has affected welfare state provision is much scarcer—and sometimes contradictory. This article aims to assess whether welfare state benefits increasingly have incorporated elements of social investment, and what has triggered the reforms made to the benefits. To achieve these aims, we examined two poverty relief benefits in Austria, namely, unemployment assistance and social assistance. We scrutinized changes made to these benefits from 2000 onwards. To identify their (potentially changing) contributions towards social investment, we applied a framework that considers the economic aims of the paradigm (while neglecting other aims). According to this framework, a social investment benefit intends to improve the human capital of its recipients, enhance their employability, and/or enhance their employment integration. The findings suggest that the three elements of social investment were particularly relevant in reforming social assistance. However, the changes implemented were incoherent and do not support the hypothesis of an ever‐increasing significance of social investment. The main triggers for reform were the political ideologies of (changing) governments. These ideologies determined the direction of changes made to both social assistance and unemployment assistance. If social investment thus ought to be more than just a theoretical concept or a nonbinding policy recommendation, modifications made to welfare state benefits would need to follow a more coherent path. Regarding poor relief benefits, Austria has not pursued such a track (yet).

How administrative reforms influence the capacity for implementing the social investment state

“…Hemerijck highlights how the function of raising and maintaining stock requires ‘capacitating social services’, while the prime examples of a policy instrument easing the flow of labour market transitions is that of ‘active labour market policies and job matching’ (Hemerijck, 2018: 817). Similarly, other recent conceptualisations of SI have highlighted related policy instruments concerning human capital and employability development (Heitzmann and Matzinger, 2021), proactive and integrated social services (Andersson, 2018) and early childhood care and education (Plavgo and Hemerijck, 2021). These conceptualisations have all contributed insights into both the policy functions and the more concrete policy instruments of the SI paradigm.…”

“…In recent years, important contributions have been made to refine the conceptualisation and operationalisation of SI as a policy paradigmi.e. to define the shared normative and cognitive framework that informs SI policies (Andersson, 2018;Heitzmann and Matzinger, 2021;Hemerijck, 2017Hemerijck, , 2018Kvist, 2014;Plavgo and Hemerijck, 2021). One of the most influential contributions is Anton Hemerijck's definition of three policy functions of the SI paradigm:…”

“…In recent years, important contributions have been made to refine the conceptualisation and operationalisation of SI as a policy paradigm – i.e. to define the shared normative and cognitive framework that informs SI policies (Andersson, 2018; Heitzmann and Matzinger, 2021; Hemerijck, 2017, 2018; Kvist, 2014; Plavgo and Hemerijck, 2021). One of the most influential contributions is Anton Hemerijck's definition of three policy functions of the SI paradigm:(1) raising and maintaining human capital ‘stock’ throughout the life course; (2) easing the ‘flow’ of contemporary labour market transitions; and (3) upkeeping strong minimum-income universal safety nets as social protection and economic stabilisation ‘buffers’ (Hemerijck, 2018: 812).…”

“…This is often defined in contrast to the more regulatory measures favoured by both the traditional Keynesian-Beveridge and the neoliberal welfare state model. However, it is one thing to design and adopt policies with the explicit aim of ‘human capital development’ (Heitzmann and Matzinger, 2021), such as early-childhood education or vocational training for the unemployed. It is quite another thing to have sufficient capacity to implement such policies in a way that also enhances the human capital of the citizen.…”

“…Sometimes these debates have been fuelled by a lack of conceptual clarity as to why SI policies – in the eyes of both proponents and critics – have come to represent a wide variety of both specific policy instruments and normative propositions. In recent years, a second wave of scholarly attention has thus moved away from discussions of the principles of SI towards efforts to provide more precise conceptualisation and operationalisation of how to measure its existence and impact (Andersson, 2018; Heitzmann and Matzinger, 2021; Hemerijck, 2018; Kvist, 2014; Plavgo and Hemerijck, 2021). This second wave of SI literature has mostly focused on what can be termed the politics of the SI state – i.e.…”