Essay: From welfare to workfare

Keywords: activation, labor market policies, mapping review, employment, ALMP
1. The political frame—from welfare to workfare
Throughout the Western world, labor market policies have undergone significant changes during the past two decades. These changes amount to a liquid transition, a silent change of tracks, from a social welfare perspective to a workfare perspective, where the primacy of work has been promoted while the provision of welfare has been increasingly limited and made conditional on making the transition from welfare to work (Bonoli, 2010; Brodkin & Larsen, 2013; Torfing, 2004). This transition to a ‘workfare’ or an ‘activating’ state has involved a combination of enforcing labor market participation, emphasizing the obligations of the individual, and increasing services in order to promote the employability of the individual (Dingeldey, 2007). Despite the common goal of policies in the different countries in terms of reducing the number of people on welfare benefits, they have not evolved along a single path nor adopted a uniform approach. Thus, the continuing policy changes within this field operate in various ways and under various labels (e.g., welfare-to-workfare, work-first, active labor market policies, activation, welfare reform), and the transition toward this plurality of policies has been bumpy and non-linear (Bonoli, 2010; Brodkin & Larsen, 2013). Although there is a common transition from welfare to workfare, there is wide variation in specific policies and programs across countries. Further, a number of countries have substantial variation in approaches across regions and localities. Perhaps the most dramatic variation is between the United States and Scandinavian countries (recognizing their own internal variation). But other variations are worthy of note. Bonoli distinguishes between four different orientations in ALMP based on the extent to which market-driven employment policies are emphasized and the extent to which the programs are based on investing in clients’ human capital (Bonoli, 2010). Further, due consideration should also be given to how the shift in these policies has changed over time. For instance, some European countries have undergone a movement from policies aiming at supporting and developing the wellbeing of an active workforce, toward more regulatory policies like those found in United States, where significant requirements have been imposed on the individual in order to receive benefits (Brodkin & Larsen, 2013; Schram, 2006).
Activation must also be understood as being part of a broader policy shift that changes the relationship between the citizen and the state. Now, citizens’ entitlement rights are no longer un-conditional but are contingent upon them fulfilling responsibilities in exchange for rights. This basic philosophical change has profound implications and consequences for the unemployed workers as a whole, and especially for the individuals who are disadvantaged by market arrangements and thus confronted with increasing risks in an economic landscape that features worker flexibility, job instability and diminished job-related benefits (Brodkin & Larsen, 2013; Soss, Fording, & Schram, 2011). Activation has come to imply new forms of accountability and obligations as regards the individuals’ roles in improving their employability and making do with what jobs offer them. Last, the New Public Management has popularized the use of Performance Measurement schemes, where, among other things, the documentation of program outcomes heightens pressure to move recipients into jobs (even those without full benefits) as quickly as possible (for further elaboration on this see, for example, de Bruijn, 2007).
At the same time, ALMP approaches have led to the development of more client-centered services designed to increase the chances that each client will get what he or she needs in order to achieve successful activation. Governments have increasingly focused on tailoring their treatment of individual clients so that they can be activated effectively. Personalization has become a buzzword used by governments, service providers and international bodies in the current activation paradigm (van Berkel & Valkenburg, 2007). Personalization is understood as the tailoring of services to account for individuals’ needs while applying a holistic approach that takes the whole person and his or her needs into account. Personalization creates the foundation for insisting some degree of user participation and co-production in their transition to work—given that the services have been tailored to the individual (Considine, Lewis & O’Sullivan, 2011; Fuertes & McQuaid, 2014). The implementation of the personalization principle appears as a growing necessity since the greater number of individuals, often with multiple and complex problems, are the targets of activation policies. Thus, a great variety of instruments (e.g.,, training, education, personal contracts, sanctions and counseling) are deployed to treat a broader variety of the unemployed. However, as is argued by, among others, Considine et al. (2011), despite the promise of personalized service delivery, the quasi-market model of employment services has more or less delivered standardization.
Both the increased number of individuals to be activated and the increased compulsion upon them increases the pressure to develop nuanced ALMP services that can be effective with diverse populations. But, as the analysis in this paper will show, the problems of the unemployed, the variety of ALMP approaches they are subject to, and the uneven outcomes of the policies studied, all indicate that the ingredients for successful activation remain ambiguous, and perhaps in far too many cases, actually unlikely. A critical examination of the literature on activation suggests the need to reframe how we look at activation. Thus, the recurring and urgent questions to be answered within the research in this field address the effects of ALMP, the extent to which the workfare approach has in fact improved the employability of the individuals, what programs are most effective and so forth. As will be illuminated in this paper, numerous programs designed to encourage welfare recipients to move into work and off benefit have been evaluated across countries. I will give emphasis to whether personalization, as in the tailoring of activation-related services, has in fact gone far enough or whether the literature indicates that activation is still too much the ‘one size fits all’ approach it should not be.
This article employs a mapping review technique specially constructed for grasping the extent, distribution and methodological quality of research within a specific area. In the first section, a detailed description of the methodological approach behind the mapping review will be presented, followed by an initial descriptive analysis of the body of research. Then, the paper is divided into different analytical sections, each thematically addressing the patterns in the studies and thus identifying possible knowledge gaps within the research. Throughout the analysis, descriptions of the studies are included as examples to illustrate the analytical findings. Finally, a case from the Danish ALMP will be presented with the purpose of demonstrating the consequences of the available knowledge, arguing that what is known has been selectively influential in shaping policy developments but only in the absence of a thorough understanding of the biases and gaps present within the research.
4. The unemployed workers
Unemployed people are by no means a homogeneous group of individuals without a job. Besides the obvious variations in personal characteristics like gender, age, unemployment history and educational background, they also differ in less obvious, but nonetheless important ways when it comes to studying the consequences of ALMP for their employability. Just to mention a few other differences, clients vary widely in their mental and physical status, and their social and personal skills, as well as the extent of work experience. Thus, there is a large group of people who are unemployed for reasons that go beyond the economic sluggishness that produces high unemployment rates. These additional factors need to be taken into account when addressing how best to serve the unemployed as a whole. During the review process, three categories, reflecting the various target group definitions in the body of research, were developed. As illustrated in Figure 1 above, the categories are: 1) clients with several and/or severe problems besides unemployment; 2) clients with little or no problems besides unemployment; and 3) diffuse target group.
Predominantly in the studies within the first category of clients (with several and/or severe problems besides unemployment) is a focus on problems like alcohol dependency, psychiatric disabilities, homelessness and poverty. For example, Bauld et al. (2013) examine alcohol misuse as a barrier to accessing and sustaining employment. The study involved a systematic literature review followed by qualitative interviews with 53 clients and 12 professionals from sites in England, Scotland and Wales. The findings focus on individual and organizational facilitators and barriers for returning to work. Some of the facilitators and barriers identified were similar to those found in research conducted on other groups of unemployed adults while others were more specific to alcohol misusers (Bauld et al., 2013).
Besides the common tendency of focusing on the individual barriers for employment, it is hard to find many additional similarities between the studies in this category. Thus, some studies have a strong health perspective—looking for example at the health status among the sick and disabled compared to employed workers (Herbig, Dragano, & Angerer, 2013) while other studies focus on recidivism among former welfare recipients (Cheng, 2005) and others again study the geographical mobility of unemployed workers (Arntz, 2008). Nor are there any commonalities regarding methodology. In particular, one glaring omission of political significance is that very few studies adopt a bottom-up perspective that takes client perspectives as the point of departure.
As regards the second category of clients (with little or no problems besides unemployment), there are less than 10 studies available using this definition and they are very similar in terms of the research questions and the applied methodology. The target group in these studies is primarily insurance benefit recipients—for example, newly graduated people trying to find their first job or experienced workers who have been laid off because of cut downs. All of the studies have a clear outcome focus—for instance, looking into either the outcomes of a specific training program or the effects of reducing benefits, limiting the eligibility period or implementing mandatory programs. To illustrate, Graversen and van Ours (2009) focus on the short-term effects of activation, showing among other things, that unemployed people who were assigned to activation programs found a job more quickly than unemployed people not assigned to an activation program. On this basis, Graversen and van Ours conclude that activation programs mainly work because they are compulsory and that the unemployed don’t like them (Graversen & van Ours, 2009). Further, all of the studies in this category are based on a quantitative methodology, using primarily administrative data. This is the case with Graversen and van Ours, who used an experimental setting to answer their research question, and for Gaure, Roed, and Westlie as well, who examined the impacts of time-limited unemployment insurance on the duration and outcome of job search in Norway by using a comprehensive simultaneous equation model (Gaure, Roed, & Westlie, 2012).
Comparing these first two categories with the third (diffuse target group), there are more than twice as many studies in this last category. The fact that the bulk of the studies fall into this category is troubling for a number of reasons; two in particular deserve special note. First, this group is not the most difficult to serve given their problems are ostensibly limited to unemployment alone. The need for more research on more difficult cases would seem to be critical if ALMP programs are to live up to their credo to tailor services to the client. Second, and perhaps more troubling, is that this catch-all group is, in all likelihood, often more diverse than it is made out to be. In fact, it may include many people with multiple challenges that are masked by being lumped into the simple unemployed category. Actually, the group of people being studied in this research category is very difficult to gain detailed knowledge about as they hide behind general and overall reaching categories as ‘welfare-to-work participants’, ‘unemployed workers’ or ‘benefit recipients’. In most of these studies, objective criteria and randomized selection processes from administrative registers define the population.
For example, Crepon, Ferracci, Jolivet & Berg (2009) examine a nationally representative sample of all unemployed workers in France since 1990, drawing a random 2.5 per cent sample each quarter of 2007. From this sample the outcomes of training programs are studied by observing each individual’s unemployment duration in relation to their participation in a training program. The analysis includes a number of covariates including age, gender, former occupation, region, duration of affiliation to the unemployment system and wage in previous job, but does not take into account variables not directly observable in the national register. Thus, the population is all unemployed workers in France in the given time period, regardless of whatever problems the individual might have in addition to their unemployment. The study concludes that training has little impact on unemployment duration (Crépon et al., 2009).
Due to the use of general unemployment categories and limited inclusion of softer characteristics within the target group it is, from this body of research, impossible to conclude whether the people being studied are, in fact, especially vulnerable clients or simply unemployed workers with no problems beside unemployment. As a result, the analyses offered often fall into the trap of using a one-size-fits-all understanding of the unemployed in terms of the way they are all addressed as part of the same homogeneous group of people. The resulting opacity is problematic for policy makers who remain unaware of the differentiation within the target group. Further, the lack of distinction between different types of the unemployed makes it difficult to assess the validity of the research—whether the research object was, in fact, what was intended to be studied. Thus, although some welfare-to-work programs may be appropriate for those who are more or less job ready, it is less clear whether they are suitable for hard-to-help groups with multiple disadvantages. Taking this notion into account, the next section will address the instruments and programs that this group, ‘unemployed workers’, is subject to.
5. An empty shell: The understanding of instruments, measures and programs
When studying ALMP, the term policies (or programs) intended to improve the employability of the unemployed has little consistency and is defined in numerous ways. And, as the following discussion will illuminate, often no definition is included in the research, which makes the applicability difficult to assess. In the mapping review, two subcategories were developed (measurable interventions and unmeasurable interventions), constituting the starting point of the analysis.
In the first of the two subcategories, where a little more than 60 percent of the studies are placed, is the research assessed to have a somewhat measurable intervention. A typical example is research on benefit sanctions and how effective sanctions are as a means of getting the unemployed off benefits (Arni, Lalive, & van Ours, 2009; Berg, Klaauw, & van Ours, 2004; Bong, Slack, & Lewis, 2004; Boone & van Ours, 2006; Butler et al., 2012; Fording, Schram, and & Soss, 2013; Svarer, 2011). Amongst others, Arni, Lalive & van Ours have conducted a comprehensive evaluation on temporary reductions in unemployment benefits as punishment for noncompliance with eligibility requirements. Besides looking at the effects in terms of unemployment durations, the study also evaluates the effects on post-unemployment stability, on exits from the labor market and on earnings. In the analysis they use administrative data from a Swiss register, which makes it possible to distinguish between ex ante effects, the effects of warnings and the effects of enforcements of benefits. The results of the evaluation point in the direction that both warnings and enforcement increase the job-finding rate and the exit rate out of the labor force. Further, the evaluation shows that warnings do not affect subsequent employment stability but do reduce post-unemployment earnings. Actual benefit reductions lower the quality of post-unemployment jobs both in terms of job duration as well as in terms of earnings. On this basis, Arni et al. conclude that the net effect of a benefit sanction on post-unemployment income is negative (Arni, Lalive, & van Ours, 2009).
This last finding points to the importance of moving beyond studies that rely on linear causality, where the intervention, in this case benefit sanctions, is studied in terms of the effects on reducing the number of unemployed without considering whether the intervention complicates the challenges the client is struggling to address. What is not included in evaluations like these are aspects like the consequences of sanctions on an individual level, for whom in particular the sanctions are effective and in what way. As result, the circular dynamic of sanctioning is missed where sanctions create additional hardships that make employability that much more difficult to achieve.
These sorts of complications are also apparent in a study by Baumgartner and Caliendo, where the effectiveness of two start-up programs for the unemployed are evaluated. This analysis focuses on the probability of being employed, and the results show that at the end of the observation period, both start-up programs were effective and one was also efficient (Baumgartner & Caliendo, 2008). The challenge with this kind of research is that the specific elements in the two start-up programs are not considered in the analysis and that oversight makes it impossible to assess what it is specifically in the program that works. For instance, it is unclear if it is a particularly good case worker, a certain element in the programs, or the programs as a whole that are effective in terms of moving people into self-employment. And further, as with the argument in the preceding section, the specific target group is not defined, which makes the results even more muddy as you might assume that the population is consistently made up of people who in order to gain self-employment have to be fairly ‘job-ready’ and without severe problems beside unemployment. This is not made clear in the evaluation, which concludes that ALMP focusing on self-employment may be the most effective, both in Germany and elsewhere.
Moving onto the second subcategory, here are found the studies with unmeasurable interventions. These represent a plurality of research regarding the methodology, the understanding of outcome measures and the research objects. Before reviewing this plurality of research, it is important to state that in this case ‘unemployment programs’ or ‘active labor market programs’ are considered general terms that are not really adequate to explain the specific content of particular programs. Thus, the studies in this category are investigating more than just ALMP programs and also include studies that use one of these generic concepts without providing further details and descriptions of the specific program.
An example of a study applying one of these overall concepts is Graversen and Jensen’s (2010) who evaluate private sector employment programs for Danish benefit recipients. The authors use a latent variable model that allows for heterogeneous treatment effects among observationally identical people to estimate commonly defined mean treatment effects and the distribution of treatment effects. Graversen and Jensen find no significant mean treatment effect of the private sector employment programs when comparing to other programs intended for the same group of unemployed. What is unclear is the composition of the private sector employment programs. Both public and private sector programs vary significantly depending on the provider (e.g., the specific private organization or the local municipality responsible for the public employment programs); the different elements in the programs (e.g., focusing on job-searching skills, vocational training or personal appearance); the employees working on the programs and their relation with the unemployed; and the group of clients participating in the program (with reference to the arguments presented in the above section). Given the limitations of the study, and in particular its lack of attention to program diversity, if in fact the study showed that there was a significant effect when using private sector programs, this knowledge would be unclear and difficult to apply in practice (Graversen & Jensen, 2010).
A similar example is found in Albert and King’s study from 2011, where exits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are studied by longitudinal monthly administrative data and a Cox proportional hazard model. The primary focus of TANF is to assist low income families meet basic needs by providing cash assistance, supportive services and training, as well as employment opportunities. But how and with what weight on the different elements TANF is being implemented across the country, is unknown. Therefore, findings regarding high exit rates (within the first eight months) or showing that families headed by non-citizens remain on TANF the longest, leave unanswered questions, limiting the relevance to improving the ALMP programs (Albert & King, 2011; see also Arellano, 2010; Behncke, Froelich, & Lechner, 2008; Bernhard & Kopf, 2014).
As stated, this subcategory also includes a variety of research not focusing on specific interventions or programs. This goes for Rivera et al. (2012) who study unemployed people’s perception of their employability competences, London’s (2005) research on the effects of college attendance on employment chances, and Cheng (2005), who investigates factors affecting the return to TANF programs by former participants who left welfare benefits. Much of the research is not aimed directly at specific ALMP but focused more on soft measures and the consequences of unemployment, like subjective wellbeing and mental health issues. For instance, Ervasti and Venetoklis (2010) analyze the level of subjective wellbeing and its determinants among the unemployed compared to people in paid labor. With a hypothetical deductive starting point, they test whether unemployment is a psychological stressor, whether the level of wellbeing among the unemployed is sufficiently high to discourage them from actively and effectively searching for a new job, and finally whether there are adverse effects of financial stress for subjective wellbeing during unemployment. Ervasti and Venetoklis use data from the European Social Survey in 21 countries and find evidence that the financial strain of unemployment is crucial for the wellbeing of the unemployed and that unemployment is related to psychological factors (Ervasti & Venetoklis, 2010).
Unlike the subcategory representing the studies with measurable interventions, a great number of studies in this subcategory apply a qualitative methodology. And, even more unlike the studies in the other subcategory, this includes an approach where the unemployed perspective or point of view is addressed (Eskelinen & Olesen, 2010; Leibetseder & Kranewitter, 2012). For example, Cooney examines the perspective of welfare recipients as they experience the policy enacted at the street level. The purpose of the study is not to determine what works in the ALMP, but to provide information about the gaps between the assumptions embedded in welfare legislation that become apparent when we learn in-depth about the complexity of welfare recipients’ lives. Through focus group interviews, the analysis identifies two coping strategies invoked by women in the welfare-to-work programs: respectively, affirming motherhood and strategic acceptance of sanctions (Cooney, 2006). These kinds of ‘bottom-up’ studies provide a critical missing ingredient not found in the quantitative studies. Another study taking a ‘bottom-up’ view is Breitkreuz and Williamson, who base their examination of social assistance recipients’ attempts to make the transition from social assistance to employment on a longitudinal, institutional-ethnographic study with 17 welfare-to-work participants in Canada. Through in-depth interviews with the participants, they find that there is a considerable gap between what welfare-to-work programs are intended to do and what they in fact do (Breitkreuz & Williamson, 2012). Though looking across the body of research, it is often the case managers and not the clients being interviewed in the studies applying qualitative methods (Coop, 2010; Weibel & Madsen, 2012).
The findings in the initial analysis of the target group can be mirrored when focusing on the nature of the interventions within the research. Thus, the prevailing tendency is studies applying a general concept of activation programs or ALMP when describing their research object. When detailed descriptions of the content of a specific program is lacking, the potentially gained knowledge is embedded in what amounts to an empty shell not adequate when it comes to either assessing the validity of the research or using the knowledge to improve current programs and policies. Once again, the one-size-fits-all understanding of the field predominates.
6. To be or not to be unemployed?
In this final section of analyzing the body of research extracted from the mapping review, focus is on the understanding of effects and outcomes of ALMP. In order to provide a clear overview and identify the potential knowledge gaps, it is pivotal to dissect the different definitions and outcomes present in the body of research. As mentioned in the descriptive analysis, the categorization of the studies changed during the review process, arriving at two initial subcategories: hard outcomes and soft outcomes.
More than two-thirds of the studies are coded into the hard-outcome subcategory. The prevailing understanding of outcomes in this subcategory derives from econometric and statistical research, where effects and outcomes are closely linked to the linear understanding of causality, and the purpose of the research is to explain the relationship between a program and its outcomes using observations on a group of individuals. Different methods are applied—for example, randomized control trials, where the outcomes between an experimental group exposed to the program and a control group not participating in the program are compared. This example is the case in Carling and Richardson’s study from 2004, where the relative efficiency of eight Swedish labor market programs are estimated in terms of reducing the unemployment duration for participants. They use a rich administrative data set of all adult unemployed workers and find that programs in which the participants obtain subsidized work experience and training provided by firms have better outcomes than classroom vocational training. Further, they find that the relative efficiency is similar across demographic and skill groups and independent of the timing of the placement (for a similar example, see also Crepon, Dejemeppe, & Gurgand, 2005). Illustrated here is that a focus on outcomes with a linear approach to causality requires a research object that can be formulated and operationalized into straightforward, measurable variables (something that is often not immediately available for many studies).
Moving beyond the simple classical understanding of outcomes, many of the studies in this subcategory distinguish between different kinds of hard outcomes: exit-rates, income increasing, lock-in effects, spillover and tax effects, as well as threat effects. To give an example, Arntz (2008) examines the lock-in effect in terms of whether of unemployed people in Germany choose search strategies that favor migrating out of declining regions. Using a competing-risk framework of exiting unemployment to jobs in local or distant labor market areas, Arntz finds that the unemployed in West Germany are responsive to local labor market conditions and are more likely to leave regions with unfavorable re-employment opportunities (Arntz, 2008).
When distinguishing between these different hard outcome measures, it is important to be aware of what they do not say in addition to what they do. For instance, several studies use exit rates and administrative data on the unemployed leaving welfare benefits when determining the effects of ALMP. However, leaving welfare is not necessarily equal to finding a job (Berg, Klaauw, & van Ours, 2004; Bryner & Martin, 2005). On the contrary, the unemployed exiting welfare can do so without entering the job market. In some cases, the unemployed refuse to be subject to the public restrictions related to being eligible for benefits and thus decide to get by without the financial support from the state. In other cases, the unemployed might decide to depend on a working spouse, or the elderly unemployed might feel pressured to retire before planned. On this basis, some studies in this category have applied a more refined research design, where more variables, details and sophisticated analyses are utilized (see for example Bencke, Froelich & Lechner, 2008 and Kemp and Davidson, 2008 – both supporting the need to consider a wide variety of factors that can affect employment-related outcomes).
The review clarifies that even when focusing only on hard outcomes, there are many variations and differences in the understanding of this concept. And, when proceeding to the next subcategory, these understandings only become more differentiated and thus the picture gets even muddier. Among the studies with a focus on soft outcomes, it is possible to make a distinction between research that quantifies traditionally soft variables, research not immediately associated with statistical calculations, and a little side category of research not applying to outcome focus at all. The vast majority is research related to the first of these three distinctions, which primarily examines the correlation between ALMP and health or subjective wellbeing. For example, Ayala and Rodriguez (2013) evaluate the effects of welfare-to-work programs on physical and mental health status. They base their research on data from the minimum income program in Madrid and match the administrative data from the program with a survey of former welfare recipients who took part in different work-related activities. By calculating propensity scores, they find that both health status and health behaviors were modestly better for people that had taken part in the work-related activities. On this basis, Ayala and Rodriguez conclude that welfare-to-work policies may have positive unintended health outcomes (Ayala & Rodriguez, 2013; see also Coutts, Stuckler, & Cann, 2014).
Not all of the research in this subcategory is quantitative, even though there is an outcome focus. This is the case especially for studies where the research object is to gain in-depth knowledge about a complex and differentiated target group, and where the context of the research object plays an important role in understanding and explaining the outcomes. Here, an econometric or statistical model of explanation falls short, and a different understanding of outcomes is needed. Very few studies in the mapping review have engaged in research were qualitative methodology is combined with an attempt to investigate outcomes of ALMP. One of the few is Eskelinen and Olesen’s work from 2010, where an empirical study of the content and consequences of ALMP is examined from the perspective of the unemployed. They use small narratives to trace changes in welfare recipients’ experience of work identity when participating in welfare-to-work programs. Among other things, they find that clients have important knowledge of ALMP and as actors they have a significant role in designing the ALMP being implemented. A similar research focus is found in King’s study of current and former welfare recipients living in Ohio who were in transition from welfare to work. By performing in-depth qualitative studies, King (2008) identifies those services, resources, policies and procedures that the participants perceived to be effective in assisting them to make the transition from welfare to work.
Finally, the last group of studies includes those that actually exceed the initially intended criteria for this subcategory, that is, studies with no outcome focus whatsoever. Since there turned out to be several studies matching this definition, it was necessary to make this adjustment in the review process. Even though most of this research points in very different directions (though all within the boundaries of ALMP) there is a preponderance of studies concerned with the lived experiences of the unemployed. For example, Alzate, Moxley, Bohon & Nackerud (2009) investigate the realities that poor women living in Georgia face in the pursuit of employment. Through a survey undertaken by the Welfare Reform Project in Georgia, 107 women report on their confidence to leave welfare. Alzate et al. find that health followed by age are the strongest predictors of confidence to leave welfare and on this basis they conclude that the confidence of female welfare recipients may be greater than can be justified by the realities of their lives and the society they live in (Alzate et al., 2009). Further, a few studies focus on the case manager perspective. For example, Caswell, Eskelinen, and Olesen (2013) show how clients try to evade the demands of labor market identities in their negotiations with caseworkers. In the results of an in-depth analysis of several qualitative observations of meetings between clients and case managers, they find that clients are in fact active participants who resist, protest against and sometimes even avoid the identities offered to them by the employment system. These few studies commonly focus on processes and interactions rather than on outcomes. This means that the detailed knowledge revealed about the ALMP is not directly linked to specific interventions and, I would argue, therefore is not likely to be taken into consideration when it comes to improving the ALMP.
The above findings from the mapping review pose significant challenges for reframing how best to connect the research to efforts to improve ALMP policy. The analysis has shown that studies often had: (1) unclear target groups, where no distinctions are made between different social problems and causes of unemployment; (2) a linear understanding of causality that failed to address the dynamic effects of various features of specific programs; (3) results that were primarily focused within a range of different quantitative outcome measures; and (4) a top-down approach that left behind a knowledge gap about how clients experience these programs. Across the board, there is an urgent need for in-depth knowledge and sensitivity toward the individual client’s role as an active participant in ways that affect outcomes and could be the basis for forming improved policies.
7. Expanding policy beyond the limits of the knowledgebase
The idea of using economic sanctions as an instrument to discipline clients to focus more intently on finding a job is inherently punitive. It becomes less attractive to receive benefits when benefit receipt becomes precarious and can be curtailed or removed as a consequence of not meeting the duties demanded by the welfare system. When introduced in Denmark in the 1990s, sanctions were initially reserved for clients with no personal problems besides being unemployed. But following the reforms of the welfare system and the implementation of mandatory activation programs for all unemployed, sanctioning became an inevitable consequence for all clients who were not adhering to the prescribed terms for receipt of assistance, even though evaluations show that the most vulnerable clients were rarely activated (Brogaard & Weise, 1997). By 1998, all unemployed clients were included in mandatory activation programs and thus they were all at risk of being sanctioned with reduction or termination of benefits if absent or if refusing job openings and/or participation in activation activities. Since then, legislation on sanctions has continued to become more restrictive, including increasing the benefit reductions from a maximum of 20 to 30 percent and by making it an absolute duty for the municipalities to sanction when clients were absent from activation (Caswell, Larsen, & Sieling, 2015).
Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of sanctions in Denmark as an instrument to move unemployed people away from welfare benefits. The research mirrored findings from other parts of the world (Arni, Lalive, & van Ours, 2009; Berg, Klaauw, & van Ours, 2004; Bong, Slack, & Lewis, 2004). Sanctions were generally found to be an effective tool of active employment policy. But, the one-size-fits-all mentality undermines these studies, since they analyzed only data on people with no problems beside unemployment. Representative is Svarer (2011) who argues that even moderate sanctions have rather large effects (Svarer 2011). However, Svarer’s study also shows that the effect of sanctions decreases over time and they have very heterogeneous effects varying across even this relatively homogeneous client population. Further, when we look at these studies overall, these effects are often presented as effects on the transition from welfare to work, but what is generally measured in this as well as in international studies is not whether a client moves into paid employment, but only whether the client no longer receives welfare benefits. As described in the analysis of the understanding of ALMP outcomes, this can also mean that a client decides to retire before planned, tries to manage on a spouse’s income or even seeks to get by without any income at all.
The results from these studies reflect how the Danish authorities have prematurely come to view the use of economic sanctions as an effective tool for motivating unemployed people in general to get back into employment, but with little or limited differentiation between the various groups of unemployed. Following the implementation of the new and harsher ALMP regime in Danish municipalities, there has been a substantial resistance from social workers and other frontline workers (Caswell & Høybye-Mortensen, 2015). Among other things, caseworkers now must, of necessity, use a lot of precious time trying to understand the legislation and then assess whether a sanction is to be given and, if so, what kind of sanction. Less, but much needed attention is subsequently available to give to clients. At the same time, the unemployed themselves are often left in confusion, finding it difficult to understand the reasoning behind a sanction, why they are sanctioned, for how long and with what economic consequences.