Contractualising social policies: A way towards more active social citizenship and enhanced capabilities?

Abstract

The move towards activation, individualisation and territorialisation of social policies is by now well documented in academic literature. This threefold transformation coincides with an ideologic l convergence towards emphasising individual responsibility in the process of social integration policies and increasing benefit conditionality. Thus, a contractual approach to welfare is promoted that questions the conventional role of the welfare state as well as the very notions of social rights and social citizenship (e.g. Gilbert 2002; Handler 2004) and imposes a new distribution of rights and duties on welfare recipients. This has a deep-seated impact on the place granted to beneficiaries and welfare local agents in social policies: both are called to be more active but in a context where such a call can either enhance their individual agency and margin of manoeuvre or constrain them into a specific way of activating themselves or being activated by administrative authorities. This raises wide-ranging questions about the issue of contractualism and its impact in terms of participation and active citizenship: what does it mean to be a citizen in such a context and what are the missions conveyed to so-called ‘contractual’ public policies when they are called upon to promote autonomy and active citizenship? What is the very meaning of the word ‘contract’ in this context: to what extent does it involve the ideas of ‘equality between the parts to the contract’, ‘completeness’ of the terms of the contract, etc.? Do such instruments consist in promoting autonomy or real freedom to choose one’s way of living or do they rather imply compliance with administrative or official expectations? This contribution suggests some answers to these interrogations, based on an analysis of the Swiss case against Amartya Sen’s capability approach.