1. Changing regimes? Accounting for divergent convergence International Symposium „Reforming Unemployment Policy in Europe“ May 15-16 2009, Hamburg Patrizia Aurich

2. Introduction Aim: Compare changes in diversity under common frame of activation Activation in different welfare states? Differences in the degree of activation (Gilbert 2002, Hvinden 2003) Differences in nature of activation (Serrano-Pascual 2007, Barbier and Ludwig- Mayerhofer 2004, Lødemel and Trickey 2001) „divergent convergence“ (Kitschelt 1999; Seeleib-Kaiser 2007)

3. Central Questions How can divergent convergence towards activation be compared? How have welfare states developed differently? How can these differences in development be explained?

4. Structure of the presentation I. I.Theoretical and methodological framework II. II.Findings of the comparative analysis of change III. III.Approach to explaining differences

5. Part I Theoretical and methodological framework

6. Conceptualising welfare state change part I Retrenchment, re-commodification and re-calibration (Pierson 2001) Activation instead of income compensation:   re-calibration Symbolical convergence (Serrano-Pascual 2007)

7. Definition of activation part I Activation can be defined as a policy aimed at increasing activity levels of the unemployed. It is: aimed directly at the benefit recipient … … affecting rights and/or obligations during benefit receipt.

8. Conceptualising welfare state change part I Comparative framework: scope for diversity? 2 perspectives on activation Increase social inclusion of the unemployed by bringing them into work and training activities (Giddens 1998) Increase labour market participation by reducing disincentives (Streeck and Heinze 1999, Murray 1994)

9. Conceptual framework low Coercion Autonomy high Coercive Welfare Re-commodification EnablingDe-commodification Construction of individual action situation Active support Most active human resource development strict benefit regime Partly active strict benefit regime Partly active human resource development income compensation Least active income compensation part I

10. Methodological approach part I Three countries (DE, DK, UK) representing: Different types of welfare regimes Different reform dynamics Different programmes: Unemployment Insurance (UI) Unemployment Assistance (UA) Social Assistance (SA) Data Institutional regulation from 1990 - 2008 MISSOC, OECD Country Reports etc.

11. Methodological approach part I Input – ideas and discourse Legal output – institutional change in legislation Administrative output – practices, implementation Outcome – effects of policies in social settings

12. Methodological approach part I

13. Part II Findings of comparing activation in different welfare regimes

14. Policy trajectories in Denmark part II Coercion Autonomy Active support high low Coercive WelfareRe-commodification EnablingDe-commodification Construction of individual action situation

15. Policy trajectories in the UK part II Coercion Autonomy Active support high low Coercive WelfareRe-commodification EnablingDe-commodification Construction of individual action situation

16. Policy trajectories in Germany part II Coercion Autonomy Active support high low Coercive WelfareRe-commodification EnablingDe-commodification Construction of individual action situation

17. Unravelling divergent convergencepart II DenmarkUnited KingdomGermany Divergence in active support (intensity of ALMP and placement, range and quality of activities) (++) right and obligation to participate in ALMP (++) training, longterm education and job subsidies (++) intensive placement and supervision (IAP after 9 months) (++) right and obligation to participate in ALMP (+) activity options (training included) (+++) most intensive placement and supervision (IAP after 2 weeks, 13 weeks of gateway counselling) (+) discretionary access (+) low end activities (1-€-Jobs) (+) increased case management

18. part III An attempt of explanation   How can we explain similarities and differences?

19. Explanations?part III CasesExplanation Denmark  Institutional corporatism (Larsen/Mailand 2007)  Favourable labour market context (Andersen 2002) UK  Focus on social inclusion in New Labour discourse (Giddens, Layard)  Favourable labour market context Germany  Formerly quite active (access to “Arbeitsförderung”)  High unemployment  “Selective Activation” (Clegg 2007)  Focus in discourse on disincentives (“no right to being lazy” Chancellor Gerhard Schröder)

20. Thank you for your attention!