Résumés
Abstract
New fiscal pressures, rising neo-conservatism, and a general desire to reinterpret social rights and responsibilities have led to the emergence of welfare-to-work policies in Canada and internationally. This paper seeks to understand welfare-to-work and, most importantly, its implementation. The paper begins with a look at the rich literature on the emergence of welfare-to-work, making an important distinction between “insertion” models and “workfare” models. In either format, welfare-to-work indicates a marked shift away from social rights towards an emphasis on personal obligation and responsibility. While the “new welfare” has received considerable attention, the implementation of such policies is a neglected area. This paper argues that studying implementation is crucial to the outcomes of policy reform : policy is, effectively, remade on the ground level. Understanding the importance of street-level bureaucracy, the paper questions whether the shift in welfare is replicated in implementation and how it varies across systems and models. Utilizing qualitative data from two months of non-participant observation and over 40 interviews with welfare-to-work participants and workers in Manitoba and Ontario, the paper argues that the interactions between workers and clients can greatly alter the focus and nature of significant pieces of welfare-to-work policies. The paper argues that discretion at the implementation level, mitigated by time, information and attitude, is crucial in understanding the impact of policy. It concludes by discussing the implications of the findings on the importance of discretion. The implications include positing a role for street-level bureaucrats in devising policy to ensure effective implementation and also questioning to what degree we can understand welfare reform in the past two decades without significant implementation data.
Résumé
Les nouvelles pressions fiscales, la montée du néo-conservatisme et le désir général de réinterpréter les droits et les responsabilités sociaux ont conduit à la réforme des politiques d’aide sociale au Canada et au niveau international. Cet article se propose de comprendre la réforme de l’aide sociale, à travers sa mise en oeuvre par les fonctionnaires de première ligne. L’article commence par une revue de la littérature sur l’émergence des nouvelles formes d’aide sociale, tout en faisant une distinction entre les modèles « d’insertion » et les modèles dits de « workfare ». Ainsi, la réforme de l’aide sociale indique un déplacement d’accent des droits sociaux vers l’obligation et la responsabilité personnelles. Tandis que la « nouvelle aide sociale » a reçu une attention considérable, la mise en oeuvre de telles politiques demeure encore un domaine négligé. Cet article avance que l’étude de leur mise en oeuvre est cruciale pour les résultats de la réforme de cette politique : la politique est en réalité réélaborée sur le terrain. En comprenant l’importance du pouvoir discrétionnaire des fonctionnaires de première ligne, l’article questionne la manière dont le changement dans l’aide sociale se traduit sur le terrain, ainsi que la manière dont il varie à travers les systèmes et les modèles. En utilisant les données qualitatives provenant de deux mois d’observation non participante et de plus de 40 entretiens de recherche avec des participants à l’aide sociale et des fonctionnaires de première ligne au Manitoba et en Ontario, l’article suggère que les interactions entre les travailleurs et les clients peuvent altérer significativement le but et la nature de certaines politiques d’aide sociale. L’article insiste sur ce que le pouvoir discrétionnaire des fonctionnaires de première ligne lors de la phase de mise en oeuvre, pondérée par le temps, l’information et l’attitude, est cruciale pour comprendre l’impact réel de la politique. En terminant, l’article considère les conséquences de ces conclusions sur le pouvoir discrétionnaire, notamment l’idée d’accroître le rôle des fonctionnaires de première ligne dans l’élaboration de la politique pour assurer une mise en oeuvre efficace.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Abrahamson, Peter and van Oorschot, Wim. 2002. “The Dutch and Danish Miracles Revisited: Comparing the Role of Activation Policies Within Two Different Welfare Regimes”, paper presented at Welfare Reforms for the 21st Century, COST A15 Conference, Oslo.
- Banting, Keith. 1982. The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism, Kingston: McGill- Queen’s University Press.
- Bardach, Eugene. 1997. “Implementing a Paternalist Welfare-to-Work Program” in Mead (ed.), The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 248-278.
- Boychuk, Gerard. 1998. Patchworks of Purpose: The Development of Provincial Social Assistance in Canada, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
- Clasen, Jochen and van Oorschot, Wim. 2002. “Work, welfare and citizenship: diversity and variation within European (un)employment policy” in Goul Andersen et al (eds.), Europe’s New State of Welfare: Unemployment, employment policies and citizenship, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 233-245.
- Considine, Mark. 2001. Enterprising States: the public management of welfare-to-work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cox, Robert Henry. 1998. “The Consequences of Welfare Reform: How Conceptions of Social Rights are Changing”, Journal of Social Policy, 27:1, pp. 1-16.
- Deacon, Alan. 2000. “Learning from the USA? The influence of American ideas on New Labour thinking on welfare reform”, Policy and Politics, 28:1, pp. 5-18.
- Deacon, Alan. 2002. Perspectives on welfare: Ideas, ideologies and policy debates, Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Esping-Andersen, G. 1996. “After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy” in Esping-Andersen (ed.), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 1-31.
- Finn, Dan. 2000. “Welfare to Work: the local dimension”, Journal of European Social Policy, 10:1, pp. 43-57.
- Fridberg, Torben and Ploug, Niels. 2000. “Public Attitudes to Unemployment in Different European Welfare Regimes” in Gallie and Paugam (eds.), Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 334-348.
- Gallie, Duncan and Paugam, Duncan. 2000. “The Social Regulation of Unemployment” in Gallie and Paugam (eds.), Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 351-374.
- George, Vic. 1998. “Political Ideology, Globalisation and Welfare Futures in Europe”, Journal of Social Policy, 27:1, pp. 17-36.
- Government of Manitoba. 2003. Employment and Income Assistance Administrative Manual, Winnipeg: Department of Family Services and Housing.
- Government of Ontario. 2001. Ontario Works Policy Directives, Toronto: Department of Community and Social Services.
- Gueron, Judith M. and Pauly, Edward. 1991. From Welfare to Work, New York: Russell Sage.
- Harris, Patricia. 2002. “Welfare Rewritten: Change and Interlay in Social and Economic Accounts”, Journal of Social Policy, 31:3, pp. 377-398.
- Herd, Dean and Mitchell, Andrew. 2002. Discourage, Diverted and Disentitled: Ontario Works New Service Delivery Model, Toronto: The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.
- Hudson, Bob. 1993. “Michael Lipsky and street level bureaucracy” in Hill (ed.) The Policy Process: A Reader, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 386-398.
- King, Gary and Keohane, Robert and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim. 2003. “New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalization: Welfare State Regress in 18 Countries, 1975-95”, American Political Science Review, 97:3, pp. 425-446.
- Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Lodemel, Ivar. 2000. “Discussion: workfare in the welfare state” in Lodemel and Trickey (eds.), ‘An Offer You Can’t Refuse’ Workfare in international perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 295-343.
- Lodemel, Ivar and Trickey, Heather. 2000. “A new contract for social assistance” in Lodemel and Trickey (eds.), ‘An Offer You Can’t Refuse’ Workfare in international perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1-39.
- Lofland, John. 1971. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
- Lofland, John and Lofland, Lyn H. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Third Edition, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
- Morel, Sylvie. 2000. Les logiques de la réciprocité: les transformations de la relation d'assistance aux États-Unis et en France, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, Collection Le lien social.
- Morel, Sylvie. 2002. The insertion model or the workfare model? the transformation of social assistance within Quebec and Canada, Ottawa: Government of Canada (Status of Women).
- Nordlinger, Eric. 1981. On the autonomy of the democratic state, Cambridge; Harvard University Press.
- Pal, Leslie. 1984. State, class and, bureaucracy, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
- Palier, Bruno. 2001. “Beyond Retrenchment: Four Problems In Current Welfare State Research And One Suggestion How To Overcome Them” in Jochen Clasen (ed.), What Future for Social Security? Debates and Reforms in National and Cross-National Perspective, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 105-120.
- Paugam, Serge and Russell, Helen. 2000. “The Effects of Employment Precarity and Unemployment on Social Isolation” in Gallie and Paugam (eds.), Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 243-264.
- Peters, B. Guy. 2001. The Politics of Bureaucracy, 5th Edition, London: Routledge.
- Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Powell, Martin and Barrientos, Armando. 2001. “Welfare Regimes and Active Labour Market Policy”, paper presented at Welfare States, Labour Markets, and Families, COST A15 Conference, Budapest: Eotvos Lorand University.
- Reamer, Frederic. 1982. Ethical Dilemmas in Social Service, New York: Columbia University Press.
- Scheuerman, William E. 1999. Carl Schmitt: The end of law, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Skocpol, Theda. 1985. “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research” in Evans et al (eds.), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-37.
- Trickey, Heather. 2000. “Comparing workfare programmes- features and implications” in Lodemel and Trickey (eds.), ‘An Offer You Can’t Refuse’ Workfare in international perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 249-293.
- Vandenbroucke, F. 2001. “European Social Democracy and the Third Way: convergence, divisions, and shared questions” in: S. White (ed.), New Labour. The progressive future?, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 161-172.
- Walker, Robert. 1998. “The Americanisation of British welfare: a case-study of policy transfer”, Focus, 19:3, pp. 32-40.
- Wright, Sharon. 2003. “The street-level implementation of unemployment policy” in Millar (ed.), Understanding Social Security: Issues for policy and practice, Bristol: Policy Press.