Suchergebnisse

De vraag naar mechanismen van doorwerking van beleid staat centraal in deze beschouwing. Hoe kan bewerkstelligd worden dat beleidsveranderingen ook echt doorwerken bij het verantwoordelijke bestuur of in de betreffende uitvoeringsorganisatie? Deze vraag lijkt op het eerste gezicht wellicht van ondergeschikt belang, maar is dat niet. Al te vaak wordt door de wetgever verondersteld dat juridische en beleidsmatige wijzigingen als vanzelf vertaald worden in de beleids- en uitvoeringspraktijk. Maar wijzigingen in beleidspraktijk of uivoeringsorganisaties vinden niet vanzelfsprekend plaats. De recente historie van herzieningen in de Bijstandswet maar ook van de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering illustreren dit. Achter de vraag naar doorwerking gaat het verschijnsel van ontkoppeling schuil. Het begrip ontkoppeling is afkomstig uit de organisatiesociologie en staat voor het verschijnsel dat zich voordoet wanneer het management van de organisatie de richting, het beleid van de organisatie wijzigt, terwijl er op de werkvloer verder weinig verandert. Processen van ontkoppeling maken het het management van organisaties mogelijk –naar buiten toe- snel in te springen op veranderingen in de omgeving van de organisatie en schermen tegelijkertijd de werkvloer in organisaties af van deze veranderingen. Ontkoppeling komt binnen uitvoeringsorganisaties als Sociale Diensten of het UWV zeker voor en maakt de uitvoering tot op zekere hoogte resistent voor beleidsverandering.

Disability policy in European countries is displaying a shift towards social investment: increasing human capital and access to the labour market. The reasoning that underlies this transition is that disabled persons would benefit from mainstream employment, but are impeded in traditional policy by deficiencies in labour supply and demand. However, the shift towards more activating policies in many countries is accompanied by a decline in social protection. It is unclear whether social investment may effectively promote the employment chances of disabled persons within this context. The present research examines this question through a quantitative, cross-sectional, multilevel analysis on microdata from 22 EU countries. Our findings suggest greater activation to predict lower employment chances, while reducing passive support shows mixed effects. Conversely, measures for facilitation in daily life predict greater employment chances, as do measures for sheltered work. These findings raise questions over the value of social investment for disabled persons—and underline the need to overcome broader barriers in the labour market and in society.

Evaluation studies of active labour market policy show different activation measures generate contradictory results. In the present study, we argue that these contradictory results are due to the fact that the outcomes of activation measures depend on other institutions. The outcome measure in this study is the long-term unemployment rate. Two labour market institutions are of special interest in this context: namely, employment protection and unemployment benefits. Both institutions, depending on their design, may either increase or decrease the effectiveness of active labour market policies in lowering long-term unemployment. Based on an analysis of macro-level data on 20 countries over a period of 16 years, our results show that employment protection strictness and unemployment benefit generosity interact with the way in which active labour market policies relate to long-term unemployment. Our results also indicate that, depending on the measure used, active labour market policies fit either in a flexible or in a coordinated labour market. This suggests that active labour market policies can adhere to both institutional logics, which are encapsulated in different types of measures.

Abstract A major shortcoming in the existing literature on welfare state legitimacy is that it cannot explain when social policy designs follow public preferences and when public opinion follows existing policy designs and why. Scholars examining the influence of public opinion on welfare policies as well as scholars investigating institutional influences on individual welfare attitudes find empirical evidence to support both relationships. While a relationship in both directions is plausible, scholars have yet to thoroughly investigate the mutual relationship between these two. Consequently, we still do not know under which circumstances welfare institutions invoke public approval of welfare policies and under which circumstances public opinion drives welfare policy. Taking a quantitative approach to public opinion and welfare state policies in the Netherlands, this paper addresses this issue in an attempt to increase our understanding of welfare state legitimacy. The results show that individual opinions influence relatively new policies, policies which are not yet fully established and where policy designs are still evolving and developing. Social policy, on the other hand, is found to influence individual opinions on established and highly institutionalised policies, but does not influence individual opinions in relatively new areas of social policy.