Evaluating State-promoted Civic Engagement and Participation of Vulnerable Groups: The Paradoxical Policies of the Social Support Act in the Netherlands

Abstract

This article reports on the effects of the Social Support Act (Wmo) in the Netherlands, implemented in 2007. The Dutch Act resembles the current European political interpretation of citizenship: stressing self-responsibility in one's personal life, fighting against elements of the welfare state that are believed to be invasive and implying a shared responsibility of government and civil society for the care of socially vulnerable groups. Data were collected on the basis of two surveys evaluating the effects of the Wmo for voluntary organisations and professional nonprofit institutions in social care and welfare (2007: N = 383 and 2009-10: N = 389). In addition, in-depth interviews with stakeholders and qualitative case studies were carried out. The study yields several paradoxical policy outcomes. Contrary to the objectives of the Social Support Act, a 'revitalisation' of the Dutch civil society -in terms of a greater contribution to social goals and policies -remains problematic, whilst professional entities thrive under the new governmentaĺ elan. Other paradoxical outcomes stem from a too-dogmatic approach to the social participation of people with severe mental disabilities. Instigating the socialisation of these groups through mandatory measures can in practice increase their isolation. To reduce unintended effects, the Social Support Act should take into account the divergent capacities of vulnerable groups and prioritise the psychological safety of clients over political and administrative policy objectives. Note1 The names Marga Lammers and Peter Dijkstra are fictitious for reasons of privacy.

Prevention of involuntary admission through Family Group Conferencing: a qualitative case study in community mental health nursing

“…Society sometimes acts offensive when psychiatric clients are stimulated to integrate herein (Verplanke & Duyvendak ). Contrary to Lub and Uyterlinde () who argue that only clients with mild forms of psychiatric disorders can expect support from the community during their social integration, our case study indicates that the social embedding of clients with severe problems is sometimes within reach. In the presented case, the successful conduct after the conference is influenced by three factors.…”

“…In other words, strengthening social support decreases clients' vulnerability (Poortinga , Chen , Langeland & Wahl , Thoits , Chen & Ogden ). There are, however, doubts whether mobilizing informal support of clients with severe mental health problems and their social integration is possible at all (Lub & Uyterlinde ). More specifically, questions have been raised concerning the willingness of the social network to contribute and support people who have difficulties in maintaining reciprocal relationships.…”

Measuring Volunteerability and the Capacity to Volunteer among Non‐volunteers: Implications for Social Policy

“…In recent years, governments and social policymakers have sought to increase volunteering through a range of initiatives. Neo‐liberal politics has emphasized the self‐responsibility of citizens and focused on reduced government provision and stimulated market‐based strategies (Lub and Uyterlinde ). Western neo‐liberal governments have increasingly relied on volunteers to deliver essential services, while the state withdraws direct service provision (Carmel and Harlock ).…”

“…In addition, governments use volunteering as a measure to address other social policy issues, such as social inclusion or elderly well‐being (Jones and Heley ). For example, the Dutch Social Support Act or ‘Participation Act’ ( Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning ) focuses on promoting active citizenship and the participation of able‐bodied citizens and their associations in the development and implementation of local social policy (Lub and Uyterlinde ).…”

Encounters with an Open Mind: A Relational Grounding for Neighborhood Governance

“…Dutch urban governance reforms have offered no guarantee for new relationships, practices, and solutions to emerge (Denters et al, 1999). Urban policies have been criticized for upholding a hegemonic discourse grounded in engrained beliefs about the causes of and solutions to urban and welfare problems while neglecting academic evidence and actual effects in practice (Priemus, 2002;Blokland, 2003;Musterd & Ostendorf, 2008;Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2008;Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009;Lub & Uyterlinde, 2012). Abilities to integrally address the needs of people and areas are fundamentally hampered by detached, hegemonic "rationalities of hierarchy or market" (Kokx, 2011(Kokx, , 1043 transform socio-political inequalities in community participation (Beaumont, 2003;De Wilde et al, 2014).…”