One of the rights strengthening the client's position introduced in all three countries is the client's right to participate in the decision-making process concerning her/his case. In Denmark, this is called the principle of dialogue. lt means that the authorities should give the claimant an opportunity to influence the decision-making process, though she/he is under no obligation to play an active part in it (sections 1 and 4 of the Legal Security Act (LBK nr 858 af 08/08/2006); section 1, subsection 3 of the Active Social Pol icy Act (LBK nr 1009 af 24/10/2005); Ketscher, 2002: 317-320).The principle emphasises the active role of the claimant as someone with rights, as opposed to the conception of the recipient as the submissive object of administrative action. However, under Danish law, the client can only participate in the processing of her/his case, not in formulating the actual decision.
In the Swedish and Finnish legal provisions, participation is con-nected with individualisation, (sections 8 and 13 of the Finnish Rehabili-tative Work Activities Act — 189/2001 (and section 8 of the Client Act — 2000/812) and chapter 4, section 4, subsection 2 of the Swedish Social Services Act — 2001/45) which is an important feature of activation policies. Individualisation has a dual nature. lt permits the client to put forward her/his personal views and wishes, while at the same time requiring of her/him to subject her/his personal affairs, abilities and weaknesses to an even closer scrutiny and assessment than in the case of traditional social work. Moreover, in practice, the meaning of participa-tion and individualisaparticipa-tion depends on the organisaparticipa-tional condiparticipa-tions in which they are realized. The term participation can be used in different ways (e.g. Borghi and van Berkel, 2005: 7). In its weakest sense it means that clients take part in the decision-making process only by giving information to the officials. The authorities proceed by discard-
58
Paul Van Aerschot
ing the data which do not fit into their pre-established decision-making patterns and convert the selected material into a formal decision. The decision may, or may not, take the claimant's personal wishes and abilities into account, depending on the limitations resulting from the number of alternative measures available, the administrative culture of the unit involved, and so on. In any case, the programme is chosen by the officials.
Naturally, this is not genuine participation (and hardly "dialogue"
either) and does not satisfy the requirements of the Swedish and Finnish legislation, which oblige the administration to respect the client's right to self-determination. Real participation presupposes that the client gets adequate information on all possible alternatives and on the conse-quences of her/his choice. She/he should be allowed to influence the planning of the activation measures concerning her/him or to change their contents. Furthermore, the client should have an opportunity to consult an adviser and be given time to make up her/his mind Ideally, she/he should be permitted to try out different programmes. lt is obvious that authentic participation puts heavy demands on the administration, and the same applies to genuine individualisation, which aims to adapt services to individual needs and preferences. Both arrangements call for flexible decision-making supported by considerable resources. In situa-tions where either of these elements — or both — is lacking, there is a risk that the concepts in question are only catchwords resulting in tokenism.
This can be illustrated by a study of the implementation of the Danish legal provision in question, which showed that in many cases local social services did not implement the participation rule properly (So-cialministeriet, 2004: IV-VI). Decision-making concerning activation measures were not included in the data, but there is reason to presume that these research results also apply to activation.
Conclusions
Activation policies increase the officials' power and, correspond-ingly, make the client more dependent on the balanced implementation of the legislation involved. When evaluating the Impact of activation, not only the results of various programmes should be taken into account, but also the effectiveness of legal provisions protecting the client against unlawful administrative action. In the three Nordic countries, many such protective provisions have been enacted, but their realisation should be improved. One of the difficulties attached to implementation deficits in this area is that in all three countries, especially activation measures applied to the disadvantaged unemployed are the responsibility of the local (municipal) authorities. These units have a considerable degree of self-government, which allows them in certain situations to pursue their
Labour and Employment in a Globalising World
own organisational or other interests when implementing the protective legal provisions.
lt is difficult to determine at which point sanctions imposed to en-force compulsory activation violate the recipient's basic rights. How-ever, to avoid such violations, voluntary measures should be preferred, as well as programmes facilitating entry into the labour market of people with reduced employability e.g. by creating or subsidising jobs espe-cially suitable for them. Moreover, the individualised treatment of clients should be sensitive to other problems they may have and not concentrate exclusively an work-orientation.
References
Arbejdsdirektoratet, Being Insured against Unemployment in Denmark, 2006.
Borghi and van Berkel, Activation, Participation, Individualisation: Shifting Public-Private Boundaries, Shifting Roles of Citizens, paper prepared for an ESPAnet conference, September 2005.
Hytti, Helka, "Miksi ruotsalaiset ovat sairaita mutta suomalaiset työttömiä?"
Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 2002, p. 333-345.
Järvinen, Margarheta, "Mötet mellan klient och system — om forskning i socialt arbete", Dansk Sociologi, 2002.
Ketscher, Kirsten, Socialret, Copenhagen, 2002.
Lipsky, Michael, Street-Level Bureaucracy, New York, 1980.
Malmberg-Heimonen, Ira, Public Welfare Policies and Private Responses,
Helsinki, 2005.
Mäenpää, 011i, Hallinto-oikeus, Helsinki, 2000.
Perusoikeudet, Helsinki, 1999.
Salonen, Tapio and Ulmestig, Rickard, Nedersta trappsteget. En studie om kommunal aktivering, Växjö, 2004.
Socialministeriet, Undersögelse af retssikkerhedslovens 4 5C, Copenhagen, 2004.
Socialstyrelsen, Ekonomiskt bistand. Stöd för rättstillämpning..., Stockholm, 2003.
Socialstyrelsen, Hur tillämpas bestämmelsen i 4 kap. 4 § socialtjänstlagen?,
Stockholm, 2005.
Tala, Jyrki, Lakien vaikutukset, Helsinki, 2001.
Var sociala trygghet, Helsinki, 2005.
Ähman, Karin, "Europadomstolens principer", in Marcusson, Lena (ed.) Offen-tligrättsliga principer, Uppsala, 2005.
60