Transfer: European Review

of Labour and Research

http://trs.sagepub.com/

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

Ben Valkenburg
Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 2004 10: 588
DOI: 10.1177/102425890401000410
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://trs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/588

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Trade Union Institute

Additional services and information for Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://trs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://trs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://trs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/588.refs.html

Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions:

confronting the dilemma
Ben Valkenburg*

Summary
Active employment strategies raise complex questions and considerations for trade unions.
This is especially true for activation. If unions oppose activation it will be hard for them to play
a relevant role in the contemporary debate. If they agree with current activation policies they
will share responsibility for the risks attached to them. This article tries to find a way out of
this dilemma. It explores the central issue of what constitutes an adequate stance for trade
unions with regard to activation, in a situation where full employment is not a realistic aim. A
possible way out of the dilemma is formulated from two perspectives. The first is a reciprocal,
client-oriented approach to benefit claimants elaborated in terms of rights and duties that are
defendable from a trade union point of view. The second is a broader concept of social participation, in which participation is not limited to paid employment on the regular labour market. Formulating these ideas only makes sense if the unions are also prepared and able to back
them up with union power. The final section of the article addresses the question of how
unions can back up their position on activation with union power.

Sommaire

Les stratgies actives pour lemploi soulvent des questions et des considrations complexes
pour les syndicats. Cela vaut particulirement pour lactivation. Si les syndicats sopposent
lactivation, ils auront des difficults jouer un rle appropri dans les dbats actuellement en
cours. Sils sont daccord avec les politiques dactivation actuelles, ils partageront la responsabilit des risques lie celles-ci. Cet article essaie de trouver une issue ce dilemme. Il se
penche sur ce qui constitue une position adquate pour les syndicats en ce qui concerne lactivation dans une situation o le plein emploi nest pas un objectif raliste. Une issue possible
ce dilemme est formule partir de deux perspectives. La premire est une approche rciproque, oriente vers le client, par rapport aux demandeurs de prestations sociales labore en
termes de droits et dobligations qui sont dfendables dun point de vue syndical. La seconde
est un concept de participation sociale plus large o la participation nest pas limite lemploi rmunr sur le march du travail rgulier. La formulation de ces ides na de sens que si
les syndicats sont galement prts et aptes les soutenir grce au pouvoir des syndicats. La
dernire partie de larticle soulve la question de savoir de quelle manire les syndicats peuvent soutenir leur position sur lactivation avec le pouvoir des syndicats.

* Lecturer in Labour Sciences, Social Science Faculty, University of Utrecht

TRANSFER 4/04

588
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

Zusammenfassung
Fr die Gewerkschaften ergeben sich aus aktiven Beschftigungsstrategien komplexe Fragen und
Erwgungen. Dies gilt ganz besonders fr Aktivierungsmanahmen. Wenn sie eine ablehnende
Haltung gegenber Aktivierungsstrategien einnehmen, wird es schwierig fr sie sein, eine bedeutende
Rolle in der heutigen Debatte zu spielen. Wenn sie hingegen die aktuellen Aktivierungspolitiken befrworten, dann tragen sie auch die Verantwortung fr die damit verbundenen Risiken. Dieser Artikel
versucht, einen Ausweg aus diesem Dilemma zu finden. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Frage, welche
Haltung die Gewerkschaften in einer Situation, in der Vollbeschftigung kein realistisches Ziel darstellt, gegenber Aktivierungspolitiken einnehmen sollten. Der Autor beschreibt einen mglichen
Ausweg aus diesem Dilemma aus zweierlei Perspektiven. Der erste basiert auf einem gegenseitigen,
kundenorientierten Ansatz in Bezug auf Anspruchsberechtigte mit Rechten und Pflichten, die aus
gewerkschaftlicher Sicht vertretbar sind. Der zweite beruht auf einem breiteren Konzept der sozialen
Teinahme, die ber die bezahlte Beschftigung auf dem normalen Arbeitsmarkt hinausgeht. Es macht
jedoch nur dann Sinn, diese Ideen zu formulieren, wenn die Gewerkschaften auch darauf vorbereitet
und fhig sind, sie mit Gewerkschaftsmacht zu untersttzen. Im letzten Teil des Artikels befasst sich
der Autor mit der Frage, wie die Gewerkschaften ihre Position bezglich der Aktivierung mit
Gewerkschaftsmacht untermauern knnen.

Introduction
In the past years almost all EU Member States have introduced active employment
strategies. At the European level, this is an ambition that has been laid down in the
European Employment Strategy (EES). For some Member States the EES supports
policies that have been in place already for some time. For others, the EES is a reason
for developing new initiatives.
The EES combines an active labour market policy, aimed at the creation of new jobs,
with activation. This activation policy distances itself from a passive approach to benefit
claimants which focused primarily on income protection. The obligation to actively seek
paid employment is increasingly emphasised, the right to income protection is reduced
and the sanctions for failing to fulfil the obligation are made stricter.
Active employment strategies raise complex questions and considerations for the trade
unions. This is true for the attempts to create new jobs, and the social partnerships that
are encouraged to do so. It is especially true for activation. If the unions oppose it and
continue defending the traditional rights to income protection only, it will be hard for
them to play a relevant role in the contemporary political debate. If they agree with current activation policies they will come to share responsibility for the risks attached to
them. For the unemployed these risks are considerable, as the discussion and experience
have made clear by now. Either position, for or against, are problematical in themselves.
Currently, most unions are evading the dilemma. They are formulating a critical viewpoint concerning activation, without distancing themselves from it, and focus mainly on
their own contribution to the creation of new employment. The unions aim is to ensure
TRANSFER 4/04

589
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

that the activated benefit claimant can in fact find proper employment on the regular
labour market, so that the negative consequences of activation can be avoided. Though
I respect the good intentions behind this position, in my opinion it is not very adequate.
The doctrine according to which sufficient jobs can be created for all benefit claimants
to be activated is often professed, but there are few true believers.
This article is an attempt to find a way out of the above dilemma. The question that I
would like to explore is that of an adequate stance for trade unions regarding activation,
in a situation where full employment for all who are able and willing to work can hardly be called a realistic aim.
First, I will briefly outline the EES, and activation policy as an important part of it.
Subsequently, I will discuss the present position of the trade unions and its inherent
problems, as well as the need to find solutions. An adequate position on the part of the
trade unions would be a first and necessary condition to achieve adequate representation of the interests of the unemployed. I will then seek a possible way out of the present dilemma, from two perspectives. The first is a reciprocal, client-oriented approach
to benefit claimants, in which the relationship between rights and duties is defendable
from a trade union point of view. The second is a broader concept of social participation, in which participation is not reduced to paid employment on the regular labour
market.
It goes without saying that the representation of interests does not just depend on ideas
about activation. Formulating these ideas is sensible only when the unions are also prepared and able to back them up with union power. The final section will be devoted to
this question of power. I will finish with the proposition that formulating a union position and backing it up with union power may well have unexpected positive consequences for the unions themselves. Formulating a critical point of view on activation
policy is not only difficult but also worthwhile.

Employment and activation policy in Europe

In the EES, improving employability is seen as the most important instrument for reducing unemployment. Employability is meant to prevent unemployment instead of combating it.
Important elements are a preventive approach aimed at limiting the growth of long-term
unemployment, an activating approach to benefit claimants, development of cooperation with social partners focused on promotion of training and lifelong learning, and the
facilitation of the transition from school to work. In addition, the EES aims to promote
entrepreneurship, for instance, by reducing overheads and administrative taxation of
companies, the promotion of self-employment, creation of employment in the (local)
social economy and the reduction of taxation on relatively low-qualified, low-paid
labour. Modernisation and flexibility of work organisation are to contribute to the
adaptability of companies and their workers. Important elements of this are incentives
TRANSFER 4/04

590
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

to achieve a new balance between flexibility and security, incentives for in-company
training and investment in human resources. Finally, the aim is to promote equal opportunities for men and women, and the disabled, by promoting a better balance between
work and family life, facilitating reintegration on the labour market, and reintegration
of the disabled.
The discourse that underlies the EES can be summarised in three core points.
First, the competitive position of the European economy needs to be reinforced by flexibilisation and deregulation of the labour market. A modern economy does not only
demand flexible adaptability of companies but also of employees. Old securities, and
forms of regulation to support them, stand in the way of modernisation. Modern
employees must learn to live with permanent change (in their current jobs, but also by
changing employers) and should be actively involved in their own adaptation to the
changing circumstances and demands they make on them. They should be permanently
improving their own employability. The discourse on the knowledge-based society
(Crespo and Pascual 2004: 14) presents this development as seemingly inevitable.
Anyone resisting it, for instance by clinging to forms of regulation focused on protection,
is open to the suspicion of turning their back on the future (ibid. 28).
Secondly, social security should not primarily be aimed at protecting people against loss
of income resulting from loss of paid employment. Social security should rather aim to
(re-)integrate them into the labour market as rapidly as possible (Van Berkel 2000: 87).
This transformation implies a fundamental alteration of the social contract. The main
responsibility for dealing with unemployment lies with the individual (Crespo and
Serrano Pascual 2004: 13). Citizenship is no longer the right of the individual, but has to
be earned by visible efforts, aimed at reintegration into the labour market. Citizenship
is no longer described primarily in social terms, referring to protection against the risk
of developments in society and criteria for eligibility for protection on the basis of characteristics that apply to large groups, but in individual terms. The right to protection is
determined by behaviour, choices, attitudes and motivations of the individual. Emphasis
shifts from collective responsibility of the welfare state to the individual responsibility of
the citizen. In this way the welfare state turns into a distrusting welfare state, permanently screening its benefit claimants for the extent to which they are exercising their
individual responsibility. The basic assumption is that, in principle, those citizens will
not do so without coercion. Unemployment is no longer regarded as a consequence of
social developments (blaming the system), but as a result of actions of the individual
unemployed person (blaming the victim). Thirdly, social integration and participation
are equated with economic participation, that is to say paid employment in the regular
labour market.
Under the EES and the underlying discourse, reality is differentiated. Countries like the
Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have had activating employment strategies for a
long time, and these are now supported and reinforced by the EES. In other countries,
for instance Spain, the EES is an important incentive for developing new policies.
TRANSFER 4/04

591
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

In spite of all the differences there is, however, a general, common tendency. The results
achieved in the creation of regular employment are usually very modest. Insofar as there
is growth in employment, this is mainly found in atypical jobs in the lowest segment of
the regular labour market, in forms of subsidised labour and/or jobs in the (local) social
economy.
Activation policy is translated into a restriction of entitlement to benefits, for instance
through higher demands in relation to prior work experience, in making benefits less
attractive through a restriction of duration and amounts, in stricter requirements concerning the duty to look for work, to accept work, to participate in education, training
and work experience, and in sharper sanctions by means of reduction or cessation of
benefits. Benefit claimants are increasingly faced with officials whose primary duty it is
to activate them as quickly as possible, that is to say, to point out what their duties are
and to see to it that they fulfil them.
The ultimate aim of activation, (re)-entry onto the regular labour market, is only
realised to a very limited extent. The general picture is that the (re)-entry mainly concerns short-term unemployed who would probably have also re-entered without activation. In addition, (re)-entry mainly concerns the lowest segment of the labour market
where a job is often combined with long-term dependence on benefits and an income on
or below the poverty line (see Valkenburg and Coenen 2000). Most benefit claimants at
best enter forms of education and training and/or work experience projects, and forms
of subsidised work in the social economy. Many of them seem to be caught in a revolving door: after participating in one reintegration activity, they go on to the next, comparable, activity. For many of them, subsidised work is not a transient phase, but the last
stop.
In short, activation in reality means the vigorous application of the stick, and a situation
where the carrot is scarcely available. Activation stands for a process of recommodification, with a strong top-down orientation and a high degree of paternalism. It is the
policy-maker who decides what is good for the unemployed, and how the unemployed
can realise that good. When such realisation fails, that is the fault of the unemployed
and they will also have to suffer the consequences. In the meantime, the incentive of the
carrot in the form of growing employment and an intake of unemployed on the labour
market is hardly discernible.
The question as to what position the unions can or should take under these circumstances, is not an easy one to answer.

Activation as a dilemma for trade unions

As far as I can see, where activation is concerned, the unions are sidestepping the issue
at present, which means in fact that they are avoiding the discussion. To prevent misunderstandings, I will indicate first what I do not mean by this proposition.
TRANSFER 4/04

592
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

I do not mean that the unions are uninterested in active employment strategies in the
broader sense of the word. Almost all Member States and their trade unions are certainly involved in the issue, albeit in widely varying ways and from widely varying traditions. The Dutch situation, with its so called polder model, is a well-known example of
a long tradition of active union involvement, and it is certainly not the only example.
Over the years several national social agreements have been negotiated on wage development, employment, flexibilisation, education, etc. For years the Dutch trade unions
have participated in the tripartite administrative structure for labour market policies. In
the present situation their national role has been reduced to an advisory one. After initial resistance to the creation of subsidised jobs, in time they came to play a role in the
(cooperative) regulation of such jobs through collective agreements. In a number of
cases, they have tried to contribute to collective agreements with regard to development
and possibilities for regular employment of the workers concerned. At local, sectoral
and company levels, they have been involved in various ways in initiatives and policy
measures.
Neither does the above proposition mean to suggest that the unions are avoiding
involvement in activation policies in the narrower sense of the word: the situation of the
unemployed (and other benefit claimants) and the fact that they are faced with a
stricter, activation-driven regime of social security. In this respect too, the Netherlands
can serve as an example of active involvement, and it is not the only one. On several
occasions the unions have resisted government policies on social security. Activation of
benefit claimants, in their view, cannot mean the destruction of the financial guarantees
of the welfare state. In this respect they take a firm stance: current government policy is
discarded as anti-social and aimed at the destruction of the welfare state. The answer to
the question whether they will succeed in effectively organising this resistance, is open.
At the moment of writing this article a large demonstration has been organised and
strikes will follow in the coming months. If they do not succeed, it would certainly be too
simple to blame the lack of effectiveness on the absence of strong opinions or the
absence of the will to back them up. In the meantime, the members who are also benefit claimants (and sometimes also non-members) are offered support when they are
faced with activation: they are informed of their rights and duties, supported in cases of
conflict, etc. On several occasions the experience of benefit claimants has been mapped
out, and criticism has been voiced as to the practical consequences of activation policies.
In a general sense, the unions take a critical position: activation is not a bad thing in
principle, but it can lead to substantial, negative consequences and can only be legitimised when it is combined with a realistic, substantial activation offer. With reference
to this last point, the offer, the Dutch unions follow the discourse underlying the EES.
An offer is substantial when it leads to a full and regular job, preferably on the regular
labour market. And that brings me to what I do mean by the above proposition. The
trade unions are circumventing the issue, because they qualify the legitimacy of activation with conditions which, at the moment, are not being met. Subsequently, they focus
attention on creating that condition in the short and the longer term. An answer to the
question what they think of activation under current circumstances, in which the stated
TRANSFER 4/04

593
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

conditions have not been met (nor will be met in the future), is lacking for the time
being. As a consequence their answer is, certainly in the short term, but I also think in
the long term, hardly adequate. What, then, is an adequate answer? If anything is clear,
it is that an unqualified yes or no to activation would both be problematical, albeit for
very different reasons.
An unqualified yes has been sufficiently discussed above. It means that the unions would
confirm a policy which in the present situation would have far-reaching negative consequences, certainly if we look at it from the perspective of the unemployed themselves.
An unqualified no seems, however, scarcely less problematical. Not because there is a
lack of arguments. From the perspective of the unemployed the unions could again
point out the negative consequences of activation in a situation of insufficient available
jobs. No activation when there are no jobs. They could add to this the argument that
employment is not, or is only partly, dependent on the degree of employability of
employees/benefit claimants. Even if employability policy, macroeconomic policies
aimed at wage restriction and flexibility of the labour market, and active labour market
policy are combined, the results in terms of employment are modest (Esping-Andersen
2000). The Netherlands are regularly held up as an example of such a coherent approach
(Serrano-Pascual 2001: 7), but, contrary to what we are led to believe, it can hardly be
viewed as a success story (Valkenburg and Coenen 2000).
Unemployment, according to this line of argument, must not be blamed on individuals,
but on economic developments which are hardly affected by employability policies. From
the trade unions point of view, a clear stance that there should be no activation when
there are no jobs could minimise the risks of current policies for the trade unions themselves. In the event of insufficient growth of employment, activation will contribute to a
larger reserve of labour, which in turn is a threat to the negotiating position of the unions
and the working conditions of current employees. Moreover, trade unions run the risk of
being made responsible for the negative effects of activation. The claim being made on
the unions in the framework of the EES is quite substantial. The claim is that activation
(focused on supply) should be combined with an active labour market policy (demand).
The former is primarily a government responsibility; the latter should be developed in
social partnerships. In other words, if social partners do not successfully contribute to
social partnerships, the negative consequences of activation will become ever more serious. What is said of activation for young people is true in a more general sense:
The social partners have the joint responsibility of re-regulating the functioning of the labour
market, of defining new rights and obligations, in order to achieve a better quality of work.
Stability in work, non-precarious work-contracts, and the right to social protection and to
life-long learning inside companies, are part of the collective bargaining agenda to promote
better integration of young people in the labour market. (Andre 2001: xvi).
The concept of partnership could have an important role to play in finding solutions to the
employment crisis and the crisis of the welfare state, acting as the driver for a revitalised
social economy (Serrano-Pascual 2001: 31). In short: if governments activation policies
TRANSFER 4/04

594
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

have negative consequences, that is your fault, that is to say, the fault of the social partners including the unions.
A general rejection based on the above arguments is hardly conceivable, however. This is
not, in my opinion, primarily because of financial problems of the welfare state (a discussion far beyond the confines of this article). The impossibility of such a rejection is based
on other arguments, more relevant to the search for an alternative view of activation.

Background to the dilemma

Without alternative views on activation, a rejection would imply a return to earlier, passive policies focusing primarily on income protection. Such a point of view is hardly justifiable from the perspective of the benefit claimants. It implies that benefit claimants,
in a situation of ongoing lack of employment, are offered financial security but are left
to their own devices for all the rest. In the Netherlands that would affect over a million
people depending on benefits. If we are realistic, and presume that full employment,
also in the long term, is an illusion, a rejection of activation would mean the structural
social exclusion of this group of people. That would get little support, and rightly so.
The return to a passive, primarily protective, policy is however also problematical from
the point of view of those in work. One way of approaching this theme is through the
question of why, in spite of all the arguments to the contrary, activation is and can be
central to the EES. Lind and Moller (2004) have suggested a three-fold explanation: the
function of an active labour reserve for the free market economy, a deeply rooted work
ethos in Western societies, and the rise of a post-Fordist workfare regime. These points
play an important role not only in the formulation of the European labour market policy but also for its support in society. Regarding this last aspect, support in society, there
are additional matters of importance which should in my view carry more weight in the
search for an adequate union stance with regard to activation.
In my view, there are quite a few politicians but fewer workers who think that activation
of the unemployed is a good thing because it contributes to an active labour reserve, or
is supposed to contribute to the growth of employment. For most working people an
active labour reserve, more job-seekers than jobs, is a threat rather than a blessing. From
the point of view of their direct interest, it would be much better not to activate the
unemployed. Yet, in spite of all the reservations, the support among people in work is
widespread. This support is, I think, based on two points. First, most people in work do
realise that full employment is an illusion. Macroeconomic developments and their own
daily experience strongly confirm this. Companies move to low-cost countries, continue
to replace human labour by new technology, and cut back as much as possible by firing
workers. Secondly, people are faced with deregulation and increasing flexibility in a
labour market that is already precarious. Old certainties and forms of protection of
workers are being eroded. This erosion, as to its consequences for people in work, is
reinforced by the European strategy which makes employability a central concern for
workers. In the EES, living with insecurity, flexibility and permanent adaptation to
changing economic circumstances is not regarded as a problem, but as a solution.
TRANSFER 4/04

595
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

The basic feeling most working people have in this situation is determined by considerations of justice: people cannot be left to fend for themselves. In addition, there is also
a basic feeling that precisely in this situation of structural unemployment, there is no justification for the fact that a working person is permanently harassed and subject to insecurity, whereas this is not true for large groups of benefit claimants (Baumann 2001;
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002).
These considerations are to my mind of central importance for the union position
regarding activation. Such a position will have to be realistic, or at least more realistic
than the present position where the achievement of full employment is presented as the
solution to all problems. At the same time it will have to accommodate the basic feelings of many working people. The rejection of activation policies is not an option in this
situation. That is a strong argument for formulating an alternative position. The possibilities for the development of such a position are available. The EES is not as airtight
as would appear at first sight.
A further problem is the vagueness and weakness of the concepts underpinning the strategy,
for example employability, flexibility, activation, and partnership, all of which are ambiguous terms which can be interpreted in various ways, making it easy for member states to simply continue their existing policies (Crespo and Serrano Pascual 2004: 17). To a certain
extent this vagueness is a problem. At the same time it also creates room for discussion
and alternative positions.
Moreover, activation in present policies is an active reaction in a passive adaptation strategy to the knowledge-based society. The latter can also be made into an active strategy,
with alternative ideas on social participation and the meaning of paid work at its core.
Before suggesting a number of elements for an alternative union position on activation,
I will summarise the above into three requirements which such a position must meet:
it must do justice to emancipatory objectives. That is to say, it should offer prospects
for reinforcing social participation of benefit claimants, and so contribute to social
inclusion, with due regard for the structural nature of the lack of employment.
it should contribute to the solidarity between workers and the unemployed. This
means that the position taken, again with due regard for the structural nature of
unemployment, should not only accommodate basic feelings among benefit claimants,
but equally those current among many working people.
it should contain elements that are also attractive to other actors involved in social
policy, more especially politicians and employers, and which make realistic compromises as part of a social partnership possible.

The reassessment of rights and duties from an

individual perspective
In this section I will elaborate on a reciprocal, client-oriented approach. This approach
has primarily been developed in Dutch labour market policy. More recently it has also
been further developed for other areas of social policy. In this section I will briefly presTRANSFER 4/04

596
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

ent the main elements of this approach (for a more elaborated version see Van Berkel
and Horneman Moller 2002; Valkenburg and Coenen 2000).
A reciprocal, client-oriented approach is based on the assumption that the unemployed
have a fundamental right to receive active support and that this support should contribute to their participation in society. If this support is delivered in an adequate way,
the unemployed themselves may be held responsible for their participation and for the
contribution they deliver to society. In this approach unemployed people have rights and
obligations.
In a reciprocal, client-oriented approach the central aim of social policy is to enable
people to be in charge of their own lives in an adequate way. This approach departs from
the assumption that people always take charge of their life. So the question is not
whether they do, but to what degree they take charge of their life and how adequate they
are in handling things. In enhancing the competences of the unemployed person, the criterion is not whether the individual is able to take fully charge of his or her own (life)
trajectory, but whether he or she succeeds in being more in charge than before.
In an adequate way means that the way people take charge of their own life should contribute to their integration and emancipation, and that there must be reciprocity
between their individual perspective and the social perspective. The individual perspective is represented by the unemployed as an individual person, with his or her social conditions, wishes, motivations and possibilities. The social perspective is represented by
society in general, and, more specifically, the social context of the unemployed person
(friends, relatives, etc.), the system of social security that he or she is dealing with, and
the labour market. An approach that wants to contribute to the way people can take
charge of their own lives, must do justice to this principal of reciprocity between the individual and social perspective. He or she also wants to do this. The starting point is that
if people are approached in an adequate way by social policy (a right), they may be
expected (an obligation) to give consideration to the consequences of their actions for
the actors with whom they are confronted, including the people delivering social policy.
To the primary aim of a reciprocal, client-oriented approach, enabling people to take
charge of their own lives, secondary aims can be connected: integration in the labour
market, participation in education, the strengthening of local social networks, etc. In the
Dutch experience there is strong evidence that the primary aim is the most important
success factor for realising these secondary aims.
In a reciprocal, client-oriented approach the unemployed is first and foremost seen as a
person with strength, possibilities and competences. The unemployed is not regarded as
a sum of loose characteristics, but as an individual person in a concrete social context,
whose characteristics cohere in a certain manner in the context of his or her background.
Competence must not be restricted, as often happens, to the skills that someone has.
Competence must be understood in the widest of meanings; it lies in (the coherence of)
several aspects:
wishes, motives, and realistic prospects;
skills (functional and social skills, but also emotional, affective, and communication
skills) and personal factors (certain talents and restrictions);
TRANSFER 4/04

597
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

learning styles: possibilities and ways of learning;

social background and (natural and professional) networks;
personal sphere and personality.

Furthermore, competence must be understood in terms of the discursive and practical

knowledge people have about themselves and their social conditions. These aspects and
their mutual interrelation are the resources that an individual can fall back on, and
which can be further developed.
Realising the primary aim presupposes that the unemployed person must be enabled to
take charge in the process of activation and that, as a precondition for that, this process
takes into account the starting situation of the unemployed person, the process of his or
her daily life, and his or her strength and competences. The unemployed person must
be given the opportunity to think and reflect upon the upcoming decisions, and to consider them effectively and emotionally. His or her decisions must be of a substantial
quality and imply more than just a formal yes. He or she has to understand what the
professional is doing and must agree with the steps which are taken. In this respect, this
approach is based on a fundamental element: clients must have the fundamental right
to make decisions, including on the propositions made by the professional, without this
directly having consequences for their financial situation. I will elaborate on this further
in the next section.
This does not mean that the unemployed person has no obligations and responsibilities.
In terms of rights and responsibilities: it is the duty of the professional to set up the trajectory in line with the starting position, context and competences of the unemployed
person. Only when this connection is established can the unemployed person be asked
and expected to carry responsibility for the choices and decisions made.
The above approach implies that the basis for the interaction between unemployed and
professional is the everyday life processes of the unemployed. This does not mean that
the professional takes these processes for granted. It means that the professional gives
back the things he sees and hears from the unemployed person, in such a way that the
unemployed person himself can do something with it in his own situation.
A reciprocal, client-oriented approach breaks with the traditional, supply-driven
approach that currently dominates many existing policy practices. Many of these practices are still characterised by a top-down approach, in which the role of the objects of
the policy with regard to the development, enactment and administration of the particular policy is very limited. Usually, the most important steps have already been taken
before the individuals for whom the policy is designed enter the picture. In most cases,
the problem has already been defined, the causes have been determined and the possible solutions have been described, for which instruments are developed. Only then are
the individual clients whom the policy concerns involved in the process.
In my view there are good arguments for taking the most important elements of a reciprocal, client-oriented approach, as set out above, as a basis for a trade union position on
TRANSFER 4/04

598
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

activation. In so doing, it is important to stress that these arguments do not only refer to
justice, but also to efficacy. A reciprocal, client-oriented approach not only stands for a
decent way of treating unemployed people. Certainly in Dutch practice, it also stands for
better results in the realisation of social policy objectives. Accommodating the requirements of the individual, putting direction as much as possible in the hands of the unemployed person, and reciprocal adequacy are not just morally justifiable principles; they
turn out to be important success factors for social policies.
I would add that a reciprocal, client-oriented approach offers a good basis for countering, on practical grounds, all sorts of ideological arguments underlying current activation policy, and for formulating alternatives. When people are in fact approached in
this way, it turns out that as individuals they hardly conform to the general image propagated by current activation policies. These policies project an image of a category of
calculating, exclusively self-interested and unwilling citizens. When the image is individualised, no real evidence can be found to support it. Of course there are exceptions.
Most unemployed people, however, turn out to be ordinary people trying to make the
best of life, who are open to correction, whose so-called calculating behaviour primarily reflects the way they are usually approached by social policy, and means little in connection with their motivation, etc.
When the reciprocal, client-oriented approach as set out above is summarised as an
approach to activation, it means the following:
clients are entitled to active support;
they are entitled to an accommodating approach to their personal daily lives;
they are entitled to take charge of their own lives as well as their own activation
trajectory;
they have the duty to enter into a discussion on an activation trajectory, based on their
personality and daily life;
they have the duty in that discussion and in their own trajectory to take into account
the reciprocity between their own individual perspective and the social and societal
perspective;
when, on the basis of the principle of reciprocal adequacy, a trajectory has been determined, they have a duty to live up to the agreement.
In order to avoid misunderstandings, a few remarks should be added. First of all, the
reciprocal, client-oriented approach as set out above can be equal or similar to more
individualised approaches towards benefit claimants, already in place in a number of
European countries. But that is not true by definition. In the United Kingdom, under
the New Deal, there is individual case management, and in Denmark there are individual contracts. In both cases, the aim is to tailor activation trajectories as much as possible to the needs of individual clients. Such a more individual approach can, however,
be combined, and is in fact, combined (also in the Netherlands), with the top-down
approach that is characteristic of dominant activation policies, even when a holistic view
of the individual client is acknowledged. It is anything but hypothetical that the professional talks with an individual client in a situation where the objectives to be realised are
fixed beforehand, where the professional has far greater power at his or her disposal
TRANSFER 4/04

599
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

than the client, and where the clients options are in fact limited to agreeing to any proposal made by the professional. The result will be a contract that is individual, but has
nothing whatsoever to do with reciprocity or management by the client. Experience with
British practice shows that such a situation, in which an individual approach is combined
with traditional activation policy, is anything but theoretical. The professionals involved
in this situation are soon caught between taking the individual, holistic approach to their
clients seriously, and the objectives as defined from above which are translated into target scores (Darmon 2004: 394).
A reciprocal, client-oriented approach, then, is not just based on a holistic view of the
unemployed person. It is at least as important that management is as much as possible
left in the hands of the unemployed person, and that activation trajectories are developed on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
Secondly, the above formulation of rights and duties does not solve all possible problems of activation; on the contrary. The principles set out above lead to numerous new
questions and problems. All I am saying is that the above principles lead to better questions and problems than those raised by the dominant, top-down approach to activation.
One of those questions is how to clarify the principle that the client has the duty to take
account of the social and societal perspective. That takes me to the following section.

The reassessment of rights and duties from a societal

perspective
As indicated at the beginning of this article, the EES equates social participation with
paid work, preferably on the regular labour market. Activating employment strategies
are also aimed at forms of subsidised work, at work in the local social economy and, in
a number of European countries, at voluntary work. All these forms of participation,
however, are not regarded as forms of full social participation, but as a possible step
towards the final goal, paid work in the regular labour market.
The arguments in support of this central meaning of paid work are diverse. Raising
labour participation is regarded as a condition for the financial basis of the welfare state,
certainly in a situation of ageing populations. Paid work is supposed to offer people
social contacts, opportunities for development, economic independence, structure and
self-respect. It is also the royal road to other forms of social participation. Finally, we
can refer to the work ethos that is deeply rooted in our society, proclaiming that if you
do not work, you will not eat.
The trade unions are apparently in agreement with this central meaning of paid work;
unjustly so, in my opinion. This point does not need extensive discussion here; it has
been dealt with elsewhere, for instance in Transfer (2001). I will confine myself to a short
summary of the main arguments. The ongoing deployment of new technology is leading
to a situation of growing productivity, with ever decreasing deployment of human
labour. In this situation it is hardly realistic to expect the free operation of the economy
TRANSFER 4/04

600
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

to generate sufficient paid jobs for all people who are willing and able to work. Full
employment is an illusion in the short term, but also in the long term. Unqualified striving for, and foregrounding of, economic growth as a basis for growing employment, is
increasingly creating life-threatening ecological risks. Furthermore, it is hard to maintain that all paid work makes a meaningful contribution to society. Nor can it be maintained that all forms of unpaid work do not. And finally, at the level of the individual, a
paid job does not always entail development, independence and economic self-sufficiency. Certainly in the lowest segment of the labour market, a paid job more probably
stands in the way of development, and entails stronger dependence and enduring
poverty as well as benefit dependency.
This discussion becomes more urgent as far as activation is concerned. At the risk of
misusing the metaphor: in the current policy the availability of jobs is the carrot that
legitimises the use of the stick. This in fact means that the stick is legitimised by an illusion. This has sweeping consequences, however. Not only do many benefit claimants get
to feel the stick, whereas the carrot remains far beyond their reach. If there is no real
resistance to the legitimisation of this situation, there is every risk of a social climate in
which the lack of paid work is not blamed on economic developments, but on the insufficient efforts or cooperation of the unemployed in finding employment. That such a
changing climate in society is anything but theoretical, can be demonstrated by a recent
Dutch example. The minister of finances proposed that it should be made possible to
require people on social benefits to do cleaning work in schools and other public areas,
as a compensation for such payments. Everybody, so he argued, could hold a broomstick. His proposals hardly raised an eyebrow. The only protests of any significance were
made by the cleaning companies: they queried whether the minister knew that cleaning
was professional work that could not be done by just anybody. There was hardly any
protest against the principle involved in his proposals, that of forced labour in compensation for benefits.
This situation makes it of paramount importance that the trade unions should combine
their position on activation, as set out in the previous section, with a position concerning social participation that does justice to reality. That is to say, a position in which
social participation can take various forms, in paid or unpaid work, and in economic,
cultural and/or social participation.
The point of departure is that people are entitled to social participation which:
accommodates the person and the daily life of the individual;
contributes to the individuals management of his or her own life;
can be realised by the individual concerned in a realistic way.
A broader definition of social participation will mean that individuals will be able to fulfil
this right in various concrete ways, other than in the present situation where it is restricted
to paid work. In that situation it is legitimate that this entitlement entails the duty to:
make individual choices in such a way that social participation will mean a contribution to society as a whole.
TRANSFER 4/04

601
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

Here too, this position does not solve all problems, on the contrary. An important problem, of course, underlies the clause make a contribution to society. For who is to determine what that means and what the consequences are? In a complex, multiform, individualised society the problem cannot be solved in a general sense or on a general level.
One may question whether we should even want to do so. Any government which determines on behalf of all of us what will and what will not be regarded as a contribution,
and stipulates sanctions, is a frightening prospect. It should, of course, immediately be
added that a number of European governments have in the meantime increasingly taken
on this frightening form for many of their benefit claimants whose contribution is to be
made in the form of paid work, or failing that, there will be far-reaching consequences.
To leave the answer to the question what is a contribution to society entirely up to the
individuals concerned is not an attractive option either. That might well lead to a situation where the will of the individual is the final word.
When you cannot do what you should, then do what you can. In this case that means two
things. First, there is the desirability, that is, the necessity, of a social discourse, based
on a broad view of social participation, on the question of meaningful contributions to
society. Such a discourse does not aim to arrive at clearly defined, generally valid criteria. At best, it could lead to the development of arguments, the creation of room for
experimentation, the search for new perspectives and, last but not least, to a better social
climate than the present one in which this complicated discussion is circumvented by
equating a meaningful contribution to society with paid work. Secondly, the (by definition) undecided nature of this discourse implies that the citizen who is to be activated
must, in the final instance, always have a deciding say. A minimum, though not always
sufficient, condition of a meaningful contribution is that the individual concerned
should also regard it as meaningful. A citizen, as indicated in the previous section, must
be allowed a categorical no to certain forms of social participation, without far-reaching consequences for his financial situation. There are ideological, but few empirical,
arguments to assume that this point of view will put a bonus on laziness and anti-social
individualism. Current policy is based on this negative view of humanity: when people
have the opportunity they prefer to do nothing; so we should not give them that opportunity. In practice, however, there are few people who really fit this image. In practice
most people are in search of possibilities for doing something meaningful with their
lives, and meaningful also implies social aspects, not just individual ones. A bonus on
laziness for the (small) minority who in fact prefer to do nothing at all represents a small
price to pay, in my opinion, so as to allow us to treat adequately the majority who have
other ideas. This option is much to be preferred to the present one, in which the presumed image of a minority is a determining factor for the negative treatment of the
majority.
In short, unions are currently joining in the dominant political discourse, in which the
debate on social policy is restricted to a debate about combating unemployment. An
adequate union position on activation presumes, however, that the debate is put on a
broader footing. At stake in activation is the realisation of social participation, on the
basis of a reciprocal approach (see the previous section) and with a position regarding
TRANSFER 4/04

602
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

participation that allows for the possibility and desirability of other forms of work beside
paid employment.
Among other things, that also means the reformulation of the notion of fitting employment. In the present situation employment stands for paid work, the concept of fitting has hardly any meaning. In an adequate union point of view, employment stands
for various ways of contributing to society, and fitting stands for a good match
between the individual and his or her contribution to society.

Organising union power

It goes without saying that the influence of the unions on activation policy is not restricted to a theoretical position on activation. The unions will have to back up their position
with union power: without an adequate carrot, we will not accept the stick. Organising
union power, however, entails major problems.
It not only presumes an adequate vision of the issues, but also sufficient support for that
vision. That support is not self evident, and cannot be achieved by the simple publication of the views propagated. Support will have to be gained by engaging in a discussion
with benefit claimants and working people. That requires a substantial investment. The
point of departure is that the thinking of members (those in work and benefit claimants)
and non-members (large groups of benefit claimants who do not benefit from employee insurance) is fed to a high degree by traditional ideas, reinforced by the dominant
political discourse. In everyday thinking a reciprocal, client-oriented approach is usually equated with an approach in which the will of the benefit claimant determines what
takes place. This everyday view is reinforced by the political discourse in which this conception is used as an argument to discredit a reciprocal, client-oriented approach.
Breaking through this common point of view not only requires an explicit union position, but also an explicit and extensive discussion on the subject. Also, breaking through
the equation of social participation with economic participation, that is, the reduction of
obligations to society to finding and accepting paid work, will not be simple. The traditional work ethos is deeply rooted. Nor will breaking the link between labour participation and the economic viability of the welfare state, much stressed in political discourse, be an easy matter.
Even if the unions are prepared to make this investment, complicated problems will
remain. Union membership by now only partly mirrors the groups targeted by the investment. Large groups of working people, who are highly relevant, socially and politically
speaking, are scarcely represented among union members. Many of the benefit
claimants that are organised have formerly had paid employment and are now covered
by unemployment or disablement benefits. People who depend on social benefits, the
group most negatively affected by activation policy, are rarely found among union members. They also belong to the group that is hardest to reach in a more general sense. Of
course, in this respect, the standpoint from which the unions approach them and the
conditions they create to do so, play an important role. Approaching these people
TRANSFER 4/04

603
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Ben Valkenburg

presumes localised union structures, close to the daily lives of benefit claimants. That
condition is not met, at least not in the Netherlands. Regional union structures have
been cut back over the years or are strongly focused on formal, internal union activities.
The problems are also connected, however, to factors concerning the target group itself.
In many cases these are people who keep their distance from social institutions, because
they expect little from them. They regard the trade union primarily as one of those institutions. In addition, these are people who do not feel they are in need of complicated discussions concerning a reciprocal, client-oriented approach and a broader definition of
work. In their experience, their daily lives are taken up by more urgent and more practical matters. In discussions, in our experience, they soon tend to foreground these practical matters, and tend to regard all the rest as words that you can neither eat nor sell.
Finally, there is a question of what forms of action are feasible where benefit claimants
are concerned. Large demonstrations are currently regarded merely as a means of venting frustrations. Over the past few decades they have failed to make an impression on
politicians. To make an impression, tools must be downed. The question with regard to
benefit claimants is, of course, which tools. Employees can (and may) strike. Benefit
claimants lack such possibilities. The comparison with strikes can also be made positively, however. The right to strike was achieved after strikes had been held for many
years in a situation where they were still prohibited. In other words: forceful forms of
action by benefit claimants presume the willingness to break the law. Such action is certainly feasible. There have been examples. In the past decades, Dutch farmers have used
their tractors to blockade important motorway junctions, on several occasions. That is
not legal, but it proved to be very effective. Hundreds of benefit claimants, supported by
the trade unions, could do the same thing, albeit without tractors.

The positive effects of an alternative position

The discussion above would imply considerable investment by the trade unions. It also
would mean that they should break new ground for discussions. This would not be just
a burden. It might also have surprising positive effects. In my experience, the general
feelings on activation and active employment strategies are mixed and double.
Politicians are propagating clear visions and strong statements. It is not clear whether
they themselves believe everything they say. There is, however, a big gap between what
they are saying and what is actually achieved on a practical level. Of course we should
be careful to speak of the people in the street who do not believe much of what the
politicians say. Nevertheless, I think the everyday experience of people is that they see
a lot of problems (among them unemployment), see traditional solutions that prove to
be inadequate time and again, but do not see alternatives. This is a worrying situation.
If trade unions seize their chance to deal with this situation in a realistic, creative way,
the effect might be a strengthening of their position and image. The current image is
that they are old-fashioned and traditional. A realistic, creative discussion on activation
might help to break through this dominant image.
TRANSFER 4/04

604
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010

Activation and trade unions: confronting the dilemma

References
Andre, M. H. (2001) The role of social and civil partnership in combating youth unemployment, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2001).
Bauman, Z. (2001) The individualized society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Individualization, London: Sage.
Van Berkel, R., (2000) Activering in Nederland, Tijdschrift voor Arbeid en Participatie,
21, No 2/3, Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Van Berkel, R. and I. Horneman-Moller (2002) Active social policies in the EU, Bristol:
Policy Press.
Coenen-Hanegraaf, M., B. Valkenburg, M. Ploeg and H. Coenen (2000) Begeleid
Werken; theorie en methodiek van een individuele, vraaggerichte benadering,
Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Darmon, I. (2004) Activation strategies or the labour market imperative, in A. Serrano
Pascual (ed.) (2004), 373-412.
Crespo, E. and A. Serrano Pascual (2004) The EUs concept of activation for young
people: towards a new social contract?, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2004), 13-45.
Esping-Andersen, G. and M. Regini (2000) Why deregulate labour markets?, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lind, J. and I. Hornemann Moller (eds.) (2004) The Danish experience of labour
market policy and activation of the unemployed, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2004),
163-195.
Serrano Pascual, A. (2001) The role of social and civil partnership networks in combating youth unemployment bridging the gap between the European and the local
level, in A. Serrano Pascual (ed.) (2001), 13-59.
Serrano Pascual, A. (ed.) (2001) Enhancing youth employability through social and civil
partnership, Brussels: ETUI.
Serrano Pascual, A. (ed.) (2004) Are activation policies converging in Europe?, Brussels:
ETUI.
Transfer (2001) Special issue on Inclusion through participation, 7 (1).
Valkenburg, B. and H. Coenen (2000) Working poor in the Netherlands, Transfer,
6 (4), 612-630.

TRANSFER 4/04

605
Downloaded from trs.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on September 13, 2010