EFSQ, ENIQ
Discussion paper socio-economic security
Amsterdam, 30 August 2002
European Foundation on Social Quality
Socio-economic security
Preliminary Discussion paper
On behalf of the first meeting of assistants of the European Network on Indicators of Social Quality
Margo Keizer
Amsterdam, 30 August 2002
European Foundation on Social Quality
Keizersgracht 324
1016 EZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone:+31-20-626 23 21
Fax:+31-20-624 93 68
Email:
Content
1Introduction
2The component of socio-economic security
2.1Socio-economic security in the social quality quadrant
2.2Subject matter of socio-economic security
2.3Terminological confusion
3Changing welfare states and needs of citizens
3.1Background of changes
3.2New needs
3.3New needs and sub-domains of socio-economic security
1Introduction
This discussion paper is a first draft to trigger the theoretical discussion on socio-economic security from a social quality perspective. We would like to work on the elaboration of the components of social quality, by writing four theoretical ‘fragments’. This discussion paper is a first attempt to problematise the component of socio-economic security. I based chapter 2 of this paper on chapters 17 and 18 of the second book on social quality[1] and the paper by L.J.G. van der Maesen and A.C. Walker on the theoretical state of affairs[2]. Nevertheless the use and interpretation of the axes of the first quadrant of social quality are not yet completely clear to me. I even question the presentation of the quadrant. I made some new presentations, but these are all based on chapters 17 and 18. I would like to confront the theorisers with the question if a quadrant really is the best way to present the social quality ideas. The fundamental question is how the axes interact and how we should interpret these interactions with regard to the subject matter of the components. While working on the theoretical elaboration of socio-economic security I hope we can solve these problems.
Despite this issue I went on in chapter three of this discussion paper with the operationalisation of socio-economic security. Hereby focussing on criterion three of our method of operationalisation in the Draft Second Working Paper[3]. This criterion states that we should take into account relevant new insight in actual processes and developments in daily life. To this purpose I used an article by Maurizio Ferrera stating that social security systems in Europe are lagging behind societal developments and therefore are unable to solve new needs and risks of citizens. I think we can use this way of thinking to meet our third criterion of the method of operationalisation.
2The component of socio-economic security
2.1Socio-economic security in the social quality quadrant
Socio-economic security is one of the components of the social quality quadrant. As could be read in the document Social Quality: The Theoretical State of Affairs[4] and the second book[5], the objective conditional factors of the theory of social quality are based on this quadrant. So far, this quadrant has always been presented in a two-dimensional figure, but in my opinion we should actually present it as a three-dimensional figure with three axes, in stead of two. One axis presents the tension between societal and biographical development. Another axis presents the tension between on the one hand systems, institutions and organisations and on the other hand communities, configurations and groups. The central axis is formed by the social quality dialectic between the individual self-realisation and the formation of collective identities. In figure one I have drawn the picture of this quadrant. This is all very abstract. In this section I will first focus on the working of the axes and second give my interpretation of the position of socio-economic security in the theory of social quality.
Figure 1The three-dimensional first Social Quality Quadrant
Societal development
Formation of collective identities
Socio-economic securityCohesion
(y)
(z)
systemscommunities
institutions(x)configurations
organisationsgroups
InclusionEmpowerment
Individual self-realisation
Biographical development
The y-axis presents the tension between societal development and biographical development. In the second book on Social Quality this axis is described as follows:
“The concept of social quality is only conceivable by analysing the acting subject in a changing societal context. As a result biographical aspirations (interest, relations, preferences), actions, orientations, continuities and discontinuities are also changing”.[6]
The tension of this axis is connected with the political-theoretical orientation of discourse theories. Weyman is quoted for his formulation of these theories:
“’Discourse theories describe the social process that links human biographies with societal forms as a process of the creation of social reality through interaction’. This quotation can be translated into social quality terms. Interactive communication (the x-axis) will create the reality of the social, which is connected to the processes which link biographical and societal developments (y-axis). Discourse theories analyse the creation as well as the processes involved. In this perspective social reality is more than the visible world of appearances.”[7]
The x-axis represents the tension between institutional processes and interventions on the left side and collective and individual actions on the right side.
“The left pole refers to Vergesellschaftung and the right pole to Vergemeinschaftung. Vergesellschaftung refers to processes leading to social constructions, which are based on interactions characterized by rationally motivated exchanges of interests. Vergemeinschaftung refers to processes of social construction, which are based on subjective and affective feelings of togetherness”.[8]
In the second book an explication is given about the interaction of both tensions. The authors state that: “Both tensions are different. The x-axis represents the field of interactions between unequal actors with different outcomes on both poles. The y-axis represents the field of contingencies. It concerns the manifestation of symbols, meaning, constructions, norms, traditions and cognition on both biographical and societal level. In other words it concerns values as points of orientation. Thus both tensions are neither identical nor complementary. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the x-tensions influence the outcomes of the y-tensions and vice versa. But we do not speak of causal relationships. Thanks to this they create together the first quadrant of social quality and the nature of its four components. This quadrant should be appreciated as a heuristic device, not as an exclusive classification because both tensions refer to different processes”.[9]
Furthermore the tension of the x-axis is directly connected with the z-axis in which the central dialectic of the social quality theory between self-realisation of citizens as social beings and the formation of collective identities is expressed. This dialectic expresses the essential of the ‘social’ and is manifest in all processes that take place in the four quarters of the quadrant.
When concentrating on the component of socio-economic security, we can interpret that the processes in this component especially take place at the societal development-end of the y-axis and the systems, institutions and organisations-end of the x-axis. If this interpretation is right, we would be able to say that with the operationalisation of socio-economic security we should concentrate on processes based onrationally motivated exchange of interests on a societal level. Furthermore the dialectic between individual self-realisation and the formation of collective identities plays a role in the processes taking place in every component, also in the component of socio-economic security. This means that the whole z-axis (both ends of the axis) is central in every component.
To make it more clear, we can present it in the following way (see figure 2):
Figure 2The three-dimensional first Social Quality Quadrant reformed
2.2Subject matter of socio-economic security
Now we have interpreted socio-economic security as processes of Vergesellschaftung at a societal level, we can try to explicate the subject matter of socio-economic security. We already wrote about this in the Draft Second Working Paper[10]. It is therefore not useful in this preliminary discussion paper to repeat section 4.2 of Working Paper. For the reading of this discussion paper, I only would like to stress the essence of socio-economic security as defined by the social quality theory. This is useful with regard to the next section of this paper on terminological confusion.
As said in the Working Paper, socio-economic security has two aspects. First, the central focus is to cope with people’s social risks; primary existential security of citizens (for instance income and social protection), basic security of life (for instance safety and environmental issues) and freedom, security and justice. The second aspect concerns enhancing people’s life chances. With regard to socio-economic security this means that those social risks and life chances should be regarded at a societal level. Important are for instance questions of welfare, third sector organisations and the enabling state. Socio-economic security responds to new social relations, production systems and conditions as the consequences of processes of modernisation.
2.3Terminological confusion
The description of socio-economic security above poses questions about the differences and similarities between this term related to the theory of social quality and the use of other concepts that regard more or less the same subject. We can think about concepts like social protection, social security, social inclusion and social exclusion for instance. How is socio-economic security related to those concepts?
Social inclusion and social exclusion as applied by the EC
I would like to focus first on the concepts of social inclusion and social exclusion used by the European Commission. In 1992 the Commission launched the initiative for a convergence strategy regarding the diversity of social protection systems in the Member States. In 1997 the Commission referred to the emerging consensus ‘that social protection systems, far from being an economic burden, can act as a productive factor which contributes to economic and political stability and helps European economies to be more efficient and flexible and, ultimately, to perform better.’ Of interest is the shift from security to protect citizens against social risks to a broadly defined protection with which to contribute to economic and political stability. In the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999 the above mentioned strategy of the Commission was formulated in the objective of inclusion as a fight against social exclusion. The Lisbon Summit in 2000 agreed to start the eradication of poverty by 2010 based on the ‘open method of co-ordination’. In those previous two sentences we already find the use of three concepts which seem to indicate the same goal; social inclusion, social exclusion and poverty. The Commission uses the concepts of social inclusion and social exclusion as each others opposites. By developing policy measures to enhance the social inclusion of European citizens, the Commission will try to diminish social exclusion and eradicate poverty. To reach those goals the Commission identifies severe risk factors that increase the danger of poverty. Mentioned are long-term unemployment, living long-term on low income, low quality employment, poor qualifications and leaving school early, growing up in a family vulnerable to social exclusion, disability, poor health, drug abuse and alcoholism, living in an area of multiple disadvantages, homelessness and precarious housing, immigration, ethnic background and risk of racial discrimination. The first report of the Commission[11] adopted on social exclusion and governments’ social inclusion policies warns for some major structural changes that take place in society, which could lead to new risks of poverty and social exclusion for particularly vulnerable groups. These changes include changes in the labour market due to globalisation and the very rapid growth of the knowledge-based society and information and communication technologies, demographic changes with more people living longer and falling birth rates, a growing trend towards ethnic, cultural and religious diversity as a result of increased international migration and mobility within the Union, changes in household structures with growing rates of family break-up and the de-institutionalisation of family life and the changing role of men and women. The Commission identifies eight core challenges:
-developing an inclusive labour market and promoting employment as a right and opportunity for all,
-guaranteeing adequate income and resources for a decent standard of living,
-tackling educational disadvantages,
-preserving family solidarity and protecting the rights of children,
-ensuring reasonable accommodation for all,
-guaranteeing equal access to and investing in high-quality public services (health, transport, social, care, cultural, recreational and legal),
-improving the delivery of services,
-regenerating areas of multiple deprivation.
This means that the definition of the European Commission of social inclusion/ social exclusion/ poverty is very much connected with the definition of socio-economic security in the theory of social quality. The similarity of the aspects of combating social risks and enhancing life chances and opportunities is manifest. Even the operationalisation of the Commission in the eight challenges very much resemble the operationalisation of socio-economic security in sub-domains (see Draft Second Working Paper, section 4.4). Of interest to mention here, are the comments Tony Atkinson et al wrote on the proposal of the EC for the development of indicators to measure social inclusion[12]. In this book they primarily focus on the social indicators without diving into the conceptual and theoretical debate around the concept of social inclusion. It seems as if the authors go along with the concept as used by the EC. Therefore this book is especially useful with regard to the actual process of defining indicators of socio-economic security and the conditions these social indicators should meet. They criticize clearly the indicators the EC has proposed and propose useful suggestions for a more elaborate and qualitative approach of measuring social inclusion. But it does not help us with regard to the confusion of concepts. The authors see the conceptual discussion as outside the scope of their research project.
The confusion of concepts is even more confusing when considering that the theory of social quality has adopted ‘inclusion’ (not ‘social inclusion’ as the EC is talking about) as one of her other components next to socio-economic security. In the social quality theory the concept of inclusion is connected with the concepts of citizenship and participation. When operationalising the social quality component of inclusion, we should come back on this confusion of terminology with the European Commission.
Social protection and social security
In a lot of literature the concepts of social protection and social security are used as synonyms. Social protection should lead to social security and that should enhance people’s welfare. Because social protection and social security are meant to protect citizens against social risks, there is again a connection with socio-economic security. However the concepts of social protection and security are focusing more on combating social risks than on the provision of new opportunities and chances. Especially in the continental welfare states (as Gosta Esping-Andersen has clearly marked out[13]) very passive social security systems were developed. The idea was mainly that providing citizens with protection against poverty or other social risks related to the ability to work like pensions, unemployment benefits and benefits related to disability to work, implicated that they were provided as well with new opportunities. Under pressure of the European Labour Market Strategy this idea is changing. The Scandinavian welfare states are set as an example for a more active social security system. In these types of welfare states a high level protection is combined with strategies to activate citizens and help them back to work. Still the social security systems are focussing on work and risks related to work. The socio-economic security concept of social quality also tries to combine combating social risks and enhancing life chances and opportunities. Socio-economic security though is not only focusing on enhancing life chances through provision of jobs, but also on health, safety, quality of housing, neighbourhood provisions, etc. In this sense socio-economic security is a much broader concept than social protection and social security. Socio-economic security is focussing on a complex of aspects relevant for daily life. By focusing on this complex of aspects like risks related to work, housing and for instance safety, it tries to unravel the relation between these different risks and chances in daily life.
3Changing welfare states and needs of citizens
In the previous chapter I quoted the report of the EC on social inclusion. This report is speaking about new risks because of structural changes in society. In this chapter I will focus on the nature and background of these changes, making use of an interesting article by Maurizio Ferrera in the ‘Bulletin luxembourgeois des questions socials’ of 1997[14]. With regard to the operationalisation of our concept of socio-economic security, it will be useful to investigate the new needs of citizens thanks to the structural changes in society. This evaluation of new needs can probably help us with judging the proposed sub-domains of socio-economic security in the Draft Second Working Paper.
3.1Background of changes
As Ferrera sees it, the institutional core of the social security systems in Europe (especially continental Europe) is based on the principle of social insurance, i.e. rights-based guarantee of public support against pre-defined risks, like old age, invalidity, the death of a supporting spouse, sickness, unemployment and family dependants. This guarantee rests on the principle of collective insurance, financed by contributions of the gainfully employed. As Ferrera also explained, there are of course more provisions in the contemporary social security systems that are not based on this collective insurance system, but the social insurance absorbs the largest share of resources and is therefore mostly under attack now societal relations are changing. Another remark should be made about the very different way the European social security systems have developed, but Ferrera regards some structural changes more or less manifest in all European societies that influence the composition of the social security systems. The differences between European social security systems with regard to the occurrence of new needs will be dealt with in the next section.