Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:25:50.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Problems to Barriers: A Bottom-Up Perspective on the Institutional Framing of a Labour Activation Programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2019

Helle Cathrine Hansen
Helle Cathrine Hansen*
Affiliation:
VID Specialized University, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway E-mail: helle.cathrine.hansen@vid.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human resource development (HRD) approaches aim to increase service users’ labour market prospects through training and upskilling. However, research on activation policy implementation suggests that individualised, tailored measures may be difficult to implement because of organisational structures, standardised procedures, contradictory professional interests, and broad framework laws. This qualitative study explored the institutional framing of the Norwegian Qualification Programme and how that framing created barriers in service users’ trajectories towards labour market inclusion. The study applied a bottom-up perspective to analyse how these barriers are entangled in a multidimensional web of interrelated and sometimes contradictory relations. Highlighting the service users’ perspective, the study aimed to examine how institutional framing may interfere with the activation policy goal of qualifying service users for the labour market. The results point to how institutional framing governs local practice and creates barriers that ultimately may impede activation policy goals.

Keywords

Labour activation policylabour and welfare servicesservice usersbottom-up perspective
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 75 - 87
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreassen, T. A. and Fossestøl, K. (eds.) (2011) Nav Ved et Veiskille. [Nav at a Crossroad], Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M. (2014) ‘Towards standby-ability: Swedish and Danish activation policies in flux,’ International Journal of Social Welfare, 23, 54–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2013) ‘Street-level organisations and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E., and Marston, G. (eds.) Work and the Welfare State. Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing, 17–34.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. and Majmundar, M. (2010) ‘Administrative exclusion: organisations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 4, 827–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, D. (2006) Handlingsmuligheder i social arbejde– et casestudie om kommunalfrontlinjepraksis på beskæftigelsesområdet, PhD-avhandling, Roskilde Universitet og Afk-forlaget.Google Scholar
Caswell, D., Kupka, P., Larsen, F. and van Berkel, R. (2017) ‘The frontline delivery of welfare-to-work in context’, in van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P., and Larsen, F. (eds.), Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe, New York: Routledge, 1–11.Google Scholar
Eskelinen, L., Olesen, S. and Caswell, D. (2008) Potentialer I sosicalt arbejde. Et konstruktivt blikk på faglig praksis, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E. and Borg, E. (2016a) ‘Hvorfor lykkes ikke NAV-kontorene med å jobbe mer arbeidsrettet?’, Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 33, 1/2, 4–23.Google Scholar
Fossestøl, K., Berg, H., Borg, E., Gleinsvik, A., Maximova-Mentzoni, T. and Pedersen, E. (2016b) Idealer og Realiteter i Forvaltningen av Arbeidsrettede Tiltak i NAV [Ideals and Realities in Administration of Employment-oriented Measures in NAV], Oslo: Work Research Institute.Google Scholar
Fuertes, V. and Lindsay, C. (2016) ‘Personalization and street-level practice in activation: the case of the UK’s work programme’, Public Administration, 94, 2, 526–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, E. (2014) ‘Participant meaning-making along the work-trajectory of a labour activation programme’, in Gubrium, J., and Järvinen, M. (eds.), Turning Troubles into Problems: Clientization in Human Services, London: Routledge, 137–54.Google Scholar
Gubrium, E., Harsløf, I. and Lødemel, I. (2014) ‘Norwegian activation reform on a wave of wider welfare state changes’, in Lødemel, I., and Moreira, A. (eds.), Activation or Workfare: Governance and the Neo-liberal Convergence, New York: Oxford University Press, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, R. and Jensen, P. (2004) ‘Activation in Scandinavian welfare policy’, European Societies, 6, 4, 461–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, H. C. (2018) ‘Recognition and gendered identity constructions in labour activation’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 27, 2, 186–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, H. C. and Natland, S. (2017) ‘The working relationship between social worker and service user in an activation policy context’, Nordic Social Work Research, 7, 2, 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupe, P. and Hill, M. (2007) ‘Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability’, Public Administration, 85, 2, 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, K., Hollertz, K. and Garsten, C. (2017) ‘Local worlds of activation: the diverse pathways of three Swedish municipalities’, Nordic Social Work Research, 7, 2, 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (1998) Approaching Dialogue, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lødemel, I. and Moreira, A. (eds.) (2014) Activation or Workfare: Governance and the Neo-liberal Convergence, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg-Heimonen, I., Natland, S., Tøge, A. G. and Hansen, H. C. (2016) ‘The effects of a skill-training program for social workers’, British Journal of Social Work, 46, 5, 1354–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, L. (2006) ‘Keeping the institution in view: working with interview accounts of everyday experience’, in Smith, D. (ed.), Institutional Ethnography as Practice, Oxford: Rownman and Littlefield, 109–25.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2007) ‘The “double dynamics” of activation’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 9/19, 364–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security (2012) Circular to the Act on an Introductory Programme and Norwegian Language Training for Newly Arrived Immigrants, Circular Q-20/2012, Oslo: Ministry of Justice and Public Security.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Inclusion (2006–2007a) Work, Welfare and Inclusion, Parliamentary Report 9, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Inclusion.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Inclusion (2006–2007b) Concerning the Act Changes to the Social Welfare Services Law and Individual Other Acts, Parliamentary Proposition 70, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Inclusion.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2009) The Social Services Act, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2011) Regulations Concerning Qualification Program and Qualification Benefit, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2012) Directive 35 Concerning the Social Services Act, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare.Google Scholar
Nothdurfter, U. (2016) ‘The street-level delivery of activation policies: constraints and possibilities for a practice of citizenship’, European Journal of Social Work, 19, 3/4, 420–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oslo Kommune (2017) ‘The staff in kindergardens’, www.oslo.kommune.no/barnehage/kvalitet-i-oslobarnehagen/personalet-i-barnehagene [accessed 15.01.2017].Google Scholar
Raeymaeckers, P. and Dierckx, D. (2013) ‘To work or not to work? The role of the organisational context for social workers’ perceptions on activation’, British Journal of Social Work, 43, 1170–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røysum, A. (2009) ‘Ulike forståelser av helhetlig oppfølging i NAV?’ [‘Different understandings of comprehensive follow-up in NAV’], Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning [Journal of Welfare Research], 12, 3, 192–206.Google Scholar
Røysum, A. (2013) ‘The reform of the welfare services in Norway: one office—one way of thinking?’, European Journal of Social Work, 16, 5, 708–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafft, A. and Spjelkavik, Ø. (2011) Evaluering av Kvalifiseringsprogrammet. Sluttrapport. [Evaluation of the Qualification Program. Final Report], Oslo: Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet (AFI) and Work Research Institute (WRI).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjefstad, N. (2013) ‘Er det rom for sosialt arbeid i Nav?’, Fontene forskning 1: 76–88.Google Scholar
Thorén, K. H. (2008) Activation Policy in Action. A Street-Level Study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State, doctoral dissertation, Groningen: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, E. (1996) ‘Institutional ethnography: a method for showing how the context shapes practice’, Occupation, Participation and Health, 16, 3, 179–99.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, B. (2007) ‘Individualising activation services: trashing out an ambiguous concept’, in van Berkel, R., and Valkenburg, B. (eds.), Making It Personal. Individualising Activation Services in the EU, Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R. and Van der Aa, P. (2012) ‘Activation work: policy programme administration or professional service provision?’, Journal of Social Policy, 41, 3, 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Larsen, F. and Kupka, P. (eds.) (2017) Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wel, K., Dahl, E., Lødemel, I., Løyland, B., Naper, S. O. and Slagsvold, M. (2006) Funksjonsevne Blant Langtidsmottakere av Sosialhjelp [Long-time Social Welfare Recepients’ Functioning Capacity], Report No. 29, Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo/Oslo University College.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2013) ‘On activation workers’ perceptions: a reply to Dunn’, Journal of Social Policy, 42, 4, 829–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar