CHALLENGES TO SOCIAL POLICIES
Pedro Hespanha
Introduction
Social policies are intervention instruments developed by the state to provide for the wellbeing and social protection of citizens and include actions to prevent social risk or to resolve existing social problems. In the case of the poor, social policies cover a wide range of problems and aim to respond in ways which ensure minimum standards of wellbeing. Although the range and effectiveness of these policies varies greatly from one society to another, in general the aim of meeting minimum social needs has failed to come up to expectations. In the case of Portugal – possibly with the exception of basic education and the social insertion income scheme - it cannot be said, in all honesty, that minimum social entitlements exist. They do not exist in many areas such as housing, welfare, employment, transport. Health is a very problematic area in this respect since, despite the existence of a universal National Health Service, in most cases the poorest members of society do not benefit from prompt, quality care.
Social policies targeted at the poorest members of society are implemented by the social services, characterised by benefits that are difficult to enforce and a low budget. Most of these services are run by voluntary non-profit organizations in exchange for agreed financial transfers. Some of these organizations, such as the Misericórdias, have a long history of helping the poorest members of society and are therefore able to exert considerable pressure on the state to delegate powers to combat poverty to them.
Finally, measures designed to fight poverty are increasingly being developed through projects financed by European programmes or other external sources of funding. Unlike the current work of the bureaucratic social services, project-based actions are characterised by their experimental nature and the fact that they operate within a limited time and space and are normally managed by partnerships between public and private institutions.
Within this organisational framework, it is important to analyse the relationship between professionals and the policies they implement, as well as the relationship between professionals and institutions with regard to the implementation of these policies.
One initial observation that should be made prior to our analysis concerns the ambiguous status of social policies regarding their mission to reduce inequality. It is known that one of the main problems of social policies nowadays, and a source of great disillusionment, lies precisely in the fact that there is a huge gap between their stated principles (the rhetoric of solidarity and emancipation) and the practical implementation of measures (the placebo effect, regulation of the poor, workfare). Moreover, there is a feeling that reducing inequality and fighting poverty are minor concerns for the state and that society itself, through its elites and leaders, is not sufficiently committed to reinforcing these objectives and bringing pressure to bear on ending the causes of poverty.
Nevertheless, changes have been introduced that are aimed at improving policies. Charges of inefficiency and the generation of dependency have led to the emergence of new forms of policies, either in combination with old policies or as a replacement for them. Essentially, the new generation of social policies favours social integration rather than subsidising risks and includes: i. the active involvement of beneficiaries in planning and choosing programmes rather than their passive submission to actions decided by professionals; ii. personalised rather than standard forms of assistance; iii. joint responsibility on the part of the provider and the beneficiary for the implementation of programmes; iv. decentralised planning of social programmes; v. partnerships with local institutions for the management of decentralised programmes; vi. an approach based on proximity rather than distant solicitude; and vii. flexible rather than stereotyped actions.
Finally, it is important to be aware of innovation within social policies and of trends towards activating certain target groups. All recent legislation and programmes incorporate the principle of activation and include very specific obligations to make beneficiaries responsible for compensating for the aid/benefits they have received. Social workers are the most important agents in this process of establishing responsibilities and contracting obligations and they play a central role in designing and adapting measures to respond to specific situations. This is sensitive work that often involves a combination of separate and contradictory roles – the advisory vs the supervisory – and a wide margin for manoeuvre and discretion that is not always linked to clear, straightforward procedural criteria. In presenting the outlines of the current approach to policies, we intend to reflect on a series of implications that are relevant to an understanding of the attitudes of professionals and institutions.
1. The new generation of social policies
Over the years the Welfare State has acted as a “compensation machine”, in the apt phrase coined by Pierre Rosanvallon (1995: 107) and this has clearly proved inadequate for the kind of social risk prevailing nowadays, such as long-term unemployment or unemployment amongst unskilled workers. For certain categories of the population, jobs quite simply do not exist unless they are able to improve their prospects on the jobs market, which they are rarely capable of doing without some form of help. These improvements are only possible if the state offers other policies that are genuinely able to help people (re)integrate into labour market or society.
Integration has become a key word. In general, the aim is to create an intermediate area between salaried employment and socially useful activities in cases where compensatory policies have failed. As such, they embody a series of innovative features that distinguish them from traditional social policies.
Firstly, integration is more than a mere right to subsistence, since it acknowledges that the beneficiary has a positive role to play in society, namely by engaging in socially useful work. As Castel (1995) states, it does not only involve the right to survive but also the right to live in society. By considering individuals active citizens rather than just the recipients of aid, it introduces a philosophy of citizenship that is far removed from the traditional paternalistic relationship between state and beneficiary which generates dependency.
Secondly, this obligation is not one-sided but has implications for society too, in forcing it to take the rights of the marginalised population into account. The mutual implications for the individual and for society are quite different from both traditional social legislation and paternalistic welfare. The obligations are therefore reciprocal: there is a responsibility on the part of the beneficiary, who is considered an actor in his/her own future, and an obligation on the part of society to provide resources. The process of social integration is, as a rule, subject to a contract between the beneficiary and the state and implies a positive obligation on the part of the beneficiary but, at the same time, represents an acknowledgement of her/her dignity as a citizen and actor (rather than a mere beneficiary).
Thirdly, integration is a concept open to experimentation. The employment status which emerges during the integration process may take a variety of forms, broadly ranging from salaried employment to socially useful activities and including new forms of public work, as well as compensation combined with remuneration.
One recent trend in social protection policies, particularly those concerned with welfare, involves the creation of specific programmes for particular social areas. The concentration of poverty in certain areas within large cities, even in wealthier societies such as the United Kingdom, has made the problem of poverty more visible and has led to the emergence of new forms of intervention aimed at eliminating “pockets of poverty”. Scarcity of resources has also favoured directing these policies towards poor communities in which the cultural problems of inherited poverty feature heavily and, equally, where the work of professionals can help a larger number of poorer individuals at a lower cost. To social selectivity – the opposite of the universalism of traditional social policy – geographical selectivity is now added, representing a major trend in state intervention.
This is only one example of the change in philosophy affecting welfare policies today. Whilst the state upheld a relatively passive, desk-bound approach which was highly centralised and based on a bureaucratic departmental structure governed by strict rules, it maintained an authoritarian relationship with citizens, refusing to recognise that they had any authentic rights. The state assumed sole responsibility for intervention, operating in isolation. The citizen was merely a passive agent, since it was felt that any greater autonomy would only be used for personal gain. In general, the notion that individuals are influenced more by private than public interests is the norm in public-private relations.
This new approach implies a more active attitude on the part of both state and citizens. The social services show greater initiative in seeking out citizens who are at risk and manage their operations on a more decentralised and flexible basis. Intervention is based on projects, following the principle of objectives-oriented management and sharing responsibility for achieving these objectives with other partners. The citizen, in turn, becomes an active, competent agent with whom the state negotiates the format of the policies to be applied and defines rights and obligations.
The changes are evident both in the state and in society. Within the state there is now a confidence in the ability of civil society to develop autonomous initiatives and to play a stronger role in organising solidarity actions. Society has become more aware of rights, there is a deeper understanding of solidarity and new ways of organising actions and fighting passivity and fatalism have emerged.
2. An institution-based approach to social policies
Everyone accepts that good policies in themselves are not enough. They need to be put into practice without distortions that may alter their aims and, in this context, the influence of institutional structures on policies is all too well known. The old saying “law in books, law in action” reminds us that there may be a huge gap between the underlying philosophy and planning of policies and their practical application. Structures that are rigid (precisely because of the economic and social interests that reside in them) filter new ideas and ways of developing them through their networks, fostering incremental change (Hudson & Lowe, 2004).
It is necessary to adopt an institution-based approach in order to observe how state policies depend on institutions when being formulated and implemented. “Institutions incorporate culturally shaped social norms including, indeed especially, including those shaped by social class and economic elites” (Hudson & Lowe, 2004: 247). Policy trends in individual countries are both the result of forces operating at a global level (such as the economic power of the world market) and the previous institutional and historical/cultural legacy (Hudson & Lowe, 2004).
Institutional factors vary according to the scope of the policies. Marsh and Rhodes (1992) distinguish between factors determining policies operating on a macro level (such as globalisation, and demographic change), meso level (such as policy networks) and micro level (such as particular groups or individuals who negotiate or apply policies). We are particularly interested in what takes place at meso and micro level.
At meso level, the concept of policy networks – networks of collective actors which influence the implementation of policies – has proved very important in understanding resistance to change and the ways in which institutions and policy practices are adapted. Policy networks have different configurations and incorporate different agents – local social forces, networks of professionals close to power, lobbies of economic agents such as property developers, social development NGOs, employers’ associations and even certain informal networks and policy users – and have an enormous capacity to filter or mediate change.
At micro level, institutional analysis covers the period when policies are under implementation and provides an understanding of the way in which users and the promoting institutions influence implementation. Moreover, it reveals how powerful personalities and elites influence the practical configuration of policies. In fact, “individuals and personalities matters a great deal to the outcomes of the policy process and in shaping the development of political cultures” (Hudson & Lowe, 2004: 250), an idea which owes much to Giddens’ classic distinction between structure and agency, or between the solid class, institutional and cultural structures and the ever fluid dynamics of actions and actors in the field.
The microanalysis of policy implementation is based on an understanding of its complexity, characterised by its hybrid nature, unpredictability and multiple dimensions. It is therefore a very different form of analysis to the policy cycle approaches that are restricted to assessing the public’s opinion of its elected representatives and the suitability of policies on the basis of this opinion (Hudson & Lowe, 2004).
One starting point for institutional theory is through the street-level bureaucrats, in this case the staff working in the welfare system, who play an important role in implementing social programmes. In a classic work on this subject, Street-Level Bureaucracy, published in 1980, Michael Lipsky analyses the way in which street-level bureaucrats (SLBs), who are in direct contact with the public, reflect and perpetuate the traditional values of society. For example, the author recognises that in the United States case officers are influenced by mainstream opinions on the poor, such as the notion that they are responsible for their way of life, that it is humiliating to receive benefits and that programmes to help the poor are costly for society. Consequently, they show a reluctance to relate to atypical groups (the poor or ethnic minorities) and subtly tend to justify the inadequate aid they allocate in practice with other reasons that amount to nothing more than their own preconceptions.
However, an institution-based analysis extends further than simply citing the influence of stereotyping and shared values as revealed in the attitudes and practices of agents. Their own personal histories may also prove a decisive factor. For example, the more compassionate or colder attitudes often displayed by case officers towards users may be influenced by their professional background. “There is a clear link between the agent’s trajectory and their feelings in relation to low income groups” (Moulière et al. 1999:62). When the front-line agents are qualified professionals, as is the case with social workers, this personal history becomes more complex, since it includes professional ideologies acquired at school or during socialisation as professionals (the relative autonomy of the profession, the ideal of service, social neutrality i.e. the ethics of being non-judgemental and respecting individuals) which can be distinguished from and, at times conflict with, the bureaucratic approaches of the departments where they work.