Utrecht University Governing pathways to work in Europe Rik van Berkel, Utrecht School of Governance ESPAnet/RECWOWE Summerschool ‘New Risks and New Governance in Europe’, Utrecht 2008.

Utrecht University Governance and social policy John Clarke: governance as “practices of managing populations and their conduct”. Two types of governance practices: -The governance of citizens, i.e. unemployed people; -The governance of institutions, i.e. agencies involved in policy implementation.

Utrecht University Active welfare states and the new governance of unemployed citizens Main formal policy reforms: -More jobless people treated as ‘normal’ unemployed; -Income provision less generous; -Income provision conditional; -Activation programmes introduced and changed -Major consequences for public organisations: new ‘core business’; from people processing to people changing technologies and interventions

Utrecht University Active welfare states and the new governance of institutions Public agencies not only do new things, they also operate in new ways and with new actors Operational policy reforms: new ways of implementing policies and delivering social services

Utrecht University How are both types of reforms related? The governance of citizens and the governance of institutions are both base on an ‘incentive paradigm’ (Van der Veen) Operational policy reforms may influence formal policies, e.g. content of activation services Formal policy reforms created a need for operational policy reforms

Utrecht University Summarising: studying active welfare state reforms involves: Studying formal policy reforms (social policy studies) Studying operational policy reforms (public administration studies) Studying processes of change in organizations involved in implementing these reforms ((public) organizational studies). Lipsky: “decisions of street-level bureaucrats become the public policies they carry out”.

Utrecht University How this presentation will proceed from here A closer look at operational policy reforms in the areas of income protection and activation in European countries How are these operational policy reforms related to formal policy reforms? Formal policy reforms made operational policy reforms necessary What is the impact of welfare state reforms on public organizations involved in policy implementation?

Utrecht University Operational policy reforms in four EU countries UK: Jobcentre Plus. One agency responsible for income provision and activation of all unemployed; Germany: Hartz reforms. A.o.: one stop shop for long term unemployed, jointly managed by FEA and municipalities; Denmark: Structural reform. A.o.: local Job Centres coordinating activation services of PES (insured) and municipalities (uninsured/SA) Netherlands: SUWI reform. A.o.: new public benefit agency, privatised activation, one stop shop for all unemployed

Utrecht University Comparing operational policy reforms: one stop shops Variety of tasks and responsibilities, depending, a.o., on nature social security system and administrative structure. UK: strongest integration (Jobcentre Plus). D: separate structures for short-term and long- term unemployed, in which income provision and activation integrated. DK: integration of activation services for all unemployed in local Jobcentre. NL: one gate keeper organisation (Centre for Work and Income), income provision/activation separate for benefit recipients and recipients of SA.

Utrecht University Comparing operational policy reforms: decentralisation, quasi- markets Decentralisation. Various forms: a) more autonomy for regional/local offices of national agencies; b) devolution of policy authority to municipalities. Role of municipalities in income provision and activation different in four countries; c) promotion of local partnerships in service provision. Quasi markets and competition in activation. Mixed service provision models in all countries; most radical form of privatisation in NL (recently: demarketisation).

Utrecht University Comparing operational policy reforms: social partners, NPM Marginalisation role social partners in administrating SI and in PES. Most radical in UK and NL; in DK limited to activation. Introduction of NPM styles of management in public organisations. E.g., decoupling agencies from ministries; contractualisation of relationships ministries – agency; and internally between national and regional/local offices.

Utrecht University Comparing operational policy reforms: conclusion Bureaucracy has lost its dominance in governing benefit administration and activation. All 4 countries now have mixed, hybrid governance models, combining bureaucratic, corporate, market and network governance.

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: 1 These reforms are not only a reflection of broader processes of public sector reforms inspired by new public management thinking; But also responses to specific challenges and problems arising in the process of making welfare states more activating.

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: first challenge To create an institutional arena that actually implements active welfare state reforms. Strategies: to reduce the role of social partners in policy implementation and restore ‘primacy of politics’ (management of benefit and public employment agencies); to introduce new public management instruments (devolving financial responsibilities, contractualisation, performance indicators).

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: second challenge How to manage frontline workers’ discretion that is necessary for successful activation? Strategies: bureaucratic rules, marketisation of service provision, increasing frontline workers’ discretion and responsibility/accountability for outcomes (NPM)

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: challenge three How to promote the integration of income provision and activation services? Strategy: the creation of one-stop shop agencies where co-location and coordination of services for the unemployed should take place. Core issue: coordinating national and local agencies.

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: challenge four How to activate the long-term, most vulnerable groups of unemployed? Strategies: removal of dividing lines between activation of STU/insured and LTU/uninsured; local networks to organize and provide social services beyond the provision of income and activation.

Utrecht University Understanding operational policy reforms: challenge five How to provide tailor-made activation services, adapted to individual and local needs? Strategies: decentralizing policy making and policy implementation authority; marketization and competition in order to promote responsiveness of service providers.

Utrecht University Policy reforms and Dutch local welfare agencies: context Tasks: administration social assistance, activation, care/social participation Decentralization of policy making and financial responsibilities ->incentive to decrease SA dependency Activation service for SA recipients: provided by private providers or in-house Cooperation with benefit agency and PES (Centers for Work and Income), over which municipalities have no direct control

Utrecht University Policy reforms and local welfare agencies: tasks and resources Initially: income provision core priority, little attention for activation and care After marketization of activation: frontline workers acted as referral agents Disappointing results + decentralization of financial responsibilities: activation became top priority, and organization of activation services was redesigned, increasing the role of frontline workers and decreasing the autonomy of private providers

Utrecht University Policy reforms and local welfare agencies: increasing discretion No elimination, but increase of frontline workers’ discretion (content & provision of activation, selection of provider, monitoring): professionalisation of frontline work, but low level of institutionalised professionalism -> frontline workers as ‘professionals without a profession’

Utrecht University Policy reforms and local welfare agencies: managing discretion Bureaucratic management (e.g. task specialisation combined with profiling procedures); Professional management (more discretion, training and education, coaching, consultation, case discussions); NPM management (performance agreements, performance pay, decentralising budget responsibilities).

Utrecht University Conclusion We need to study formal policy reforms, operational policy reforms and processes of organisational change to find an answer to a core question of social policy research: what do active welfare state reforms mean for the lives of unemployed people?

Utrecht University Thank you!