The Impact of Social Investment Reforms on Income and Activation in the Netherlands

Abstract

In this chapter we assess the buffer and flow dimension of the social investment state for early school leavers and lone parents in the Netherlands. By applying an ‘at-risk household-type model’, we show that the buffer function of the welfare state for the two risk groups out of work has declined in the last decade, particularly for early school leavers. On the other hand, the buffer function, in terms of minimum income protection, for those risk groups that have acquired paid employment has significantly improved. In terms of labour-market flow, we show that capacitation of risk groups is an explicit aim of service delivery at the local level in the Netherlands. On the other hand, capacitation was brought in jeopardy by recent budget, which undermined the flow function for precarious risk groups. Both the buffer and flow function of the Dutch social investment state point to an ambivalent reform path.

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

“…International institutions, including the European Commission (2013), the OECD (2012) or the World Bank (Jenson, 2017), recommend its implementation. Some countries have traditionally strong investment states (e.g., the Nordic welfare states, van Kersbergen & Kraft, 2017), some have been early adapters (e.g., the Netherlands, see, e.g., Soentken, van Hooren, & Rice, 2017), some have been lagging behind. In Austria, for example, social investment has not been discussed much (Bock‐Schappelwein, Eppel, & Mühlberger, 2009; Famira‐Mühlberger, 2014; Heitzmann & Wukovitsch, 2015; Leoni, 2016), and empirical evidence on the relevance of this paradigm in welfare state policies is scarce.…”

Welfare States’ Social Investment Strategies and the Emergence of Dutch Experiments on a Minimum Income Guarantee

“…Work-first and workfare principles are reinforced through a stronger monitoring and tightening of benefit access conditions, cuts in unemployment and disability benefit levels and duration and stricter law enforcement, especially for youngsters and school-leavers on social assistance (henceforth SA). Stronger law enforcement occurred notably with respect to SA beneficiaries' application obligations and reintegration duties (see also Hemerijck, 2013Hemerijck, , 2017Soentken et al, 2017). The ideas on basic income (henceforth BI) and the local community experiments which are currently in debate in the Netherlands can be seen as highlighting a shift to pursue social investment or a 'capacitating' approach to social policy.…”