Background
The concept of
workfare was first developed by Joseph Schumpeter, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century. The term itself was first employed publicly by President Nixon in 1971 as a contraction of the expression ‘welfare to work.' Since then, the number of
workfare systems has been on the rise, notably in Anglo-Saxon countries.
Whereas in a traditional welfare system, benefits are available while little is required of the recipient, a
workfare system obliges recipients to meet certain participation requirements in order to receive welfare benefits. These requirements are often a combination of activities intended to improve the recipient's job prospects, such as training or rehabilitation, and activities which contribute to society, or community service.
These programs, now common in the United States, Australia, and Canada, have generated considerable debate and controversy.
(adapted from Wikipedia,
Workfare, visited 2010-01-26)
Flexicurity and Workfare
These two concepts are generally seen as being complementary.
The main goal of
workfare is to generate a contribution to society on the part of welfare recipients while providing them with the necessary experience to reintegrate into the workforce. Furthermore, it is argued that once they have acquired recent employment experience, their employability will increase, helping to break the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence.
Similarly, the concept of flexicurity stresses the importance of maintaining worker flexibility while also ensuring security. The integration of security and flexibility not only aims at protecting workers against losing their jobs but also allows firms to preserve and improve their market position, the loyalty of their workforce and their productivity.
Therefore, both
workfare and flexicurity aim to build and preserve workers' ability to enter, remain in and progress in employment throughout the life-cycle.
(adapted from Wilthagen, Ton,
Flexicurity Pathways, Observatoire social européen, 2007, visited 2007-11-22)
Debate
"Researchers are […] critical of
workfare because of the express aims of such programs and the kinds of employment regulation these policies are meant to ensure.
For Eric Shragge (1997),
workfare programs merely shuffle the line-up for income support. They keep the unemployed connected to the labour market and maintain a pool of cheap, skilled and disciplined labour (the ‘reserve army'). Ernie S. Lightman (1997) asserts that workfare programs are part of a broader strategy to dismantle […] social programs by reducing government responsibility for social services. Other authors point out the harshness of
workfare by placing these policies in an historical perspective. The new obligations of
workfare are compared to the old forms of putting the poor to work (Mullaly, Weinman, 1994; Shragge, 1988; Struthers, 1983)."
(Government of Canada, Status of Women,
The Insertion Model or the Workfare Model? The Transformation of Social Assistance within Quebec and Canada, 2003, visited 2007-11-30)
