Demanding Activation

Abstract

The distinctive character of the unemployment policies overhaul, known as the 'activation turn' of the 1990s, was that OECD governments intensified coercion against unemployed individuals while relaxing their commitment to ensuring full employment. By now supplyside activation policies have been tested long enough to permit conclusive evaluations, and the article surveys the body of empirical assessments to determine the achievements of the activation turn. The implementation of welfare-to-work policies has not resulted in bringing down the rates of unemployment (independently of the business cycle), combating long-term unemployment, reducing (in-work) poverty or empowering jobseekers as consumers of public services, which were all goals of the reformed 'activating state'. Instead, activation has been working as a mechanism of entrapment at the margins of liberalised labour markets by dint of its complementarity with employer-centred flexibility. The activation turn has thus failed to achieve its direct labour market and social objectives. However, it has produced pronounced indirect negative effects in the labour market, and its social impact has been regressive and repressive, as anticipated in normative and political-economic critiques of the rising 'workfare state'.

Dignity‐based practices in Norwegian activation work

“…In conclusion, while the reported findings are context‐bound, the issues in question are translatable to an international level. As Raffass (, p. 362) pointed out, ‘The internationally codified human right to work receives no acknowledgment within the paradigm of the activating state’. While activation policies receive political support internationally (OECD, ), there is a risk that welfare recipients’ dignity may be compromised in our zeal to activate them.…”

Expediting youth's entry into employment whilst overlooking precariousness: Flexi‐employability and disciplinary activation in Hong Kong

“…This links to the third problem that the work‐first and supply‐side intervention are portrayed as “fair weather instruments” (Raffass, ), in which they can function smoothly in times of economic growth yet do not guarantee the same advantage during economic downturns. Therefore, policymakers and analysts cannot be over‐optimistic on the positive consequences brought by supply‐side intervention as a panacea for advancing youth employment conditions.…”

Reconsidering ‘What Works’ in Welfare-to-Work with the Vulnerable Unemployed: The Potential of Relational Causality as an Alternative Approach

“…Examining the existing literature on WtW policies in terms of what works when getting vulnerable unemployed into the labour market is a formidable task, since the extent of such research has increased substantially within recent years (Danneris, 2016;Raffass, 2017).…”