Governance of the activation policies in Europe

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this introduction to the special issue is to give an overview of the key aspects of the governance of activation policies as discussed in the existing literature. It explains the focus and contribution of this special issue and provides a brief summary of the main findings in the individual articles. Design/methodology/approach -In this special issue the comparative analysis of the key aspects of governance of activation policies like centralization/decentralization, new public management, marketization and network governance is covered, accompanied by an assessment of the role of implementation conditions in shaping the real trends of governance reforms of activation policies. Further, the effects of governance reforms and the influence of EU governance on the dynamics of national activation policies are discussed. This comparative analysis leads to a typology of the "worlds of governance" of activation policies in Europe. Findings -All the countries show certain comparable converging trends in the reforms of governance of activation, although a closer look helps us determine the shape of increasingly different patterns of governance in several respects. In spite of this variety, another general finding is the common discrepancy between aims and effects: the key explanation involves implementation failures. Three governance regimes may be distinguished in the EU countries: committed marketizers, modernizers and slow modernizers. Originality/value -This paper suggests a new typology of governance regimes.

Marketization and Varieties of Accountability Relationships in Employment Services: Comparing Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain

“…We also expected that market instruments are accompanied by country-specific hybridized modes of accountability, shaped by political context and by characteristics of institutions (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010, p. 15), in particular by their institutional flexibility (Pierre, 2012). Great Britain as a liberal welfare regime and "committed marketizer" of employment services (Van Berkel, de Graaf, & Sirovátka, 2012), for example, could be expected to have gone furthest in embedding market instruments as the dominant form of accountability, but as we discuss, this does not translate into the replacement of all alternative accountability instruments.…”

Active inclusion as an organisational challenge: integrated anti-poverty policies in three European countries

“…Section 4 analyses in detail how the three pillars of active inclusion policies and their interaction are organised in the three countries, because the vertical and horizontal coordination of social and employment services is the second precondition for successful active inclusion policies besides an adequate financing level. Such coordination is challenging because active inclusion requires a broad range of individualised and targeted services (benefit provision, training, job placement, family and care, care for the elderly and counselling) across various political levels (national, regional and local) and involving various types of organisations (private, public and third sector; see Van Berkel, van de Graaf, & Sirovátka, 2012;Van Berkel & Valkenburg, 2007). We conclude that financial support for, and the organisation of minimum income systems, activation policies and service provision are decisive for restoring the agency of the most disadvantaged groups (Section 5).…”

Personalized activation policies for the long-term unemployed: the role of local governance in the UK

“…Specifically, we consider the UK's main activation policy for the long-term unemployed since 2011, the Work Programme, and its wider policy context. Our attention focuses on the effects of current governance structures on inter-organizational coordination at the service delivery level because, as Van Berkel et al (2012) argue, governance reforms affect social policy practices. We ask: does the governance of activation policies affect the achievement of coordination, the practices of organizations and individuals, and the services that are actually offered at the local level?…”