Rethinking universalism and social rights

[Celerity]

Social rights in Europe today require marrying 20th-century universalism with the meeting of diverse, complex needs.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/rethinking-universalism-and-social-rights



Rights and universalism were the two main banners of 20th-century social policy. Proclaimed within the liberal-reformist and then the social-democratic tradition, they long defined the ‘European’ welfare state. Today, they need to be redesigned—to realign with the new economic and social context and recover their ability to inspire progress and innovation. The need to rethink universalism stems in particular from the growing importance of services. Entitlement to welfare benefits depends essentially on formal rules and cash payments can reach all potential beneficiaries. With social services, however, outputs have to be produced and ‘packaged’ so as to be tailored to individual needs. A universal right is then not universally effective. Specialised staff are needed, capable of addressing complex needs and deciphering unclear challenges. It is not so simple to insure against social risks when any individual’s exposure is situationally contextualised and interacting risks may be in play. Without throwing out the baby of all-encompassing inclusion with this muddy bathwater, universalism must accept and accommodate complexity and diversity.

Differentiated universalism

An apparent oxymoron has been advanced in Italian debates on minimum benefits—selective universalism. Here selection can apply to users (based, for instance, on their economic situation) and/or the range and type of benefits (based on cost-effectiveness). As for services, what in Scandinavia is described as differentiated universalism offers additional insights. Situational factors requires provision responding to ‘intersectional’ needs in local contexts and lifeworlds. Such a differentiated response does not however rule out standardised selection of a package of universal basic services aimed at ‘capacitating’ situated individuals, enabling them to ‘function’ (in Amartya Sen’s sense). Differentiation also applies to how services are delivered. The Italian debate on secondo welfare has highlighted the value of organisational pluralism within a framework of public-interest service obligations.

The state continues to discharge four essential functions: guaranteeing equality of access between and within localities, setting and enforcing ethical and quality standards, orchestrating the collection of the necessary funds and co-ordinating activities across different areas of need. But there are new margins for social participation and co-creation. Key decisions combine the ‘experiential wisdom’ of residents, the codified knowledge of experts and the strategic insights of elected representatives, accompanied by citizens’ juries and assemblies. The need for adaptation extends from the principle of universalism to the concept of social rights. In the last century, the welfare state basically meant entitlements to protection, regulated by the law and justiciable in the courts. Persistently high non-take up of benefits and, again, the increasing important of services call for a shift of focus from legal entitlement to effective furnishing. Justiciability links an entitlement to the threat of ex post coercion. But if a citizen has an impending need, what matters is the timely availability of a quality service where they are located. Legal action against a provider cannot ensure a citizen will receive what they need in the here and now.

From rights to guarantees

While for the financial component of the social safety net the concept of justiciable right remains valid, for basic services it is more appropriate to use the term guarantee. This term has a long history and has recently entered the European Union vocabulary vis-à-vis youth and children. So far it has been perceived and used as a soft-law instrument. But the guarantee may well be hardened and become cogent on the supply side. A ‘right’ focuses on the demand side (to what the citizen is entitled), whereas a ‘guarantee’ shifts the emphasis to what the state is required to do, envisaging sanctions in case of non-compliance. Supply-side ‘activation’ obviously implies the mandatory allocation of adequate resources—financial resources to produce outputs but also instrumental resources to facilitate access for citizens. Users would retain the right to complain through organised, but not necessarily judicial, procedures. In addition to defining eligible users and mandating the production of outputs, social guarantees can mobilise additional funds, staff and civil-society organisations.

snip