Whose job is this? The basic job as a solution to long-term unemployment

(1)

Whose job is this?

The basic job as a solution to long-term unemployment

Name: Veerle van Wijk Date: 27 July 2020

Supervisor: Dr. I. Verhoeven Second reader: Dr. C. Roggeband

Course: Thesis Project “Who cares? The politics of welfare state decline” Master Thesis Political Science

Specialization: Public Policy and Governance Student number: 12782068

(2)

2

Abstract

After the publication of some influential governmental reports, the basic job is on the table as a new policy solution to the problem of long-term unemployment in the Netherlands. The basic job is a solution where the government actively creates work for groups of unemployed people. Versions of the basic job are practiced in multiple municipalities and proposed by political parties and experts. In this thesis, I will employ a framing analysis in order to analyze how different actors construct the problem and solution of the basic job. Results from this explorative empirical study show that there is a large agreement amongst actors on the causes of the problem, but the ideas on the solution differ greatly. In relation to larger societal trends, I analyze that there is a shift in thinking on the responsibilities to find employment from the individual to society, employers and the government. It is still debated who exactly is responsible to create these jobs, and for what exact group this work is meant to be. It is also clear that the solution greatly resembles the earlier Melkertjobs and the solution is viewed in relation to other solutions to the same problem. I conclude that the aforementioned shift in thinking on responsibilities can be seen as a shift from away from activation thinking in the Activating Welfare State towards investment thinking in the Social Investment State, as there is agreement that more resources should be invested to help the problem population with multiple possible solutions according to their situation, and potential risks of the Social Investment State are addressed with the basic job. The basic job is seen as a way to revalue people that are unemployed and to put renewed value to certain types of socially relevant work.

(5)

5

Foreword and acknowledgements

This thesis is work on work, so to say. The topic for this research project was born out of my own interests in novel ideas and policies on the labor market, accompanied with the media attention to the topic. By doing this research project, I soon became aware of the complex nature of income support, welfare state regulations and reintegration policies. This thesis for me is a project that goes beyond the scope of the study program it is written for: I sincerely hope that due to the explorative nature of the thesis and the growing debates on the topic, my thesis will be helpful in clarifying current and future policies of a basic job. Now the job is done, I would like to acknowledge the people that were vital in the writing of this project. First and foremost, my supervisor dr. Imrat Verhoeven was paramount in inspiring this research, helping to find the correct methods and finding the best ways to analyze the data. Even though the course of which this research project was a part was suddenly online due to the Covid-19-crisis, he never stopped to help with all kinds of issues that arose during this crisis and during the writing process. Without his support, critical feedback and kind words, this thesis would not be what it is now. Secondly, I would like to thank study advisor Kim Ribbink for all her practical help during the writing process and her help creating a way to overcome all the obstacles one can encounter during a thesis process. Third, I would like to acknowledge that my research project group including Pieter Hoogerwerf, Roos Alkemade, Luuk Jaspers, Jessica Sam and Niels Park were very helpful with their peer-feedback and support during the entire process, even when we could not be physically together. Lastly, I thank my dearest partner Max de Blank, for everything he has done to help me through the process. Your work was vital in me being able to finish this project.

(6)

6

1. Introduction

Over the past few years, the idea of implementing a so-called “basic job1”in the Netherlands has received growing attention in a number of policy ideas2, proposals, and practices. The core part of a basic job in most of these ideas and practices is that the government creates or initiates jobs for people that are otherwise (long-term) unemployed and on income support3. Whilst similar national policies subsidizing work for those on income support had been discontinued in 2002 (namely the “Melkertjobs” and “ID-jobs”)4 (Van Dodeweerd, 2016, pp. 20–21), since about 2016 a growing number of people and organizations have put forward ideas on the government creating (subsidized) work again. In 2020, these proposals especially gained interest, as the influential WRR5 (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 173–183) and the Committee on the Regulation of Work 6 (Commissie Regulering van Werk, 2020, pp. 83–84, 89–90) also proposed policy ideas on a basic job in combination with other labor market and activation policies. They mainly argue that the government should create additional jobs for those that cannot participate or reintegrate in the regular labor market. The scientific bureaus of two political parties on both sides of the spectrum – that of the Christian-Democrat Party CDA (Siegmann, 2018a) and “De Helling” of the GroenLinks Party (GreenLeft, Greens) (Wetenschappelijk Bureau Groenlinks, 2019). also propose versions of the basic job: aimed at reintegration to regular work or explicitly not aimed at reintegration, respectively. In a variety of municipalities, there are already practices of work creation by the government. In some municipalities, there are projects to help people reintegrate in the labor market by providing temporary jobs, such as the Werkbrigade in Amsterdam (Burgemeester en

1_{Basisbaan in Dutch (translated by author). I will use this term instead of using similar terms as “Job}

Guarantee”, as these are affiliated with different kinds of macroeconomic concepts in scholarly literature, as will be explained in the Literature Review

2_{In this thesis, I conceptualize ideas for policies as put forward by Scientific Councils, political parties,}

academics and others as “policy ideas”. Other than policy proposals, these policy ideas are not directly proposed for in legislation or entail a complete operationalisation of such a policy idea.

3_{Bijstand in the Dutch policy practice, now formally known as a part of the Participatiewet (Participation law),}

is the “miscellaneous”- category of income support in the Netherlands, which comes with a responsibility to look for work as well. Throughout the thesis, I will use the terms income support or income benefits to describe this policy, whereas other policies that provide income to people are named according to their specifics, such as unemployment support.

4_{Melkertbaan and I/D-baan in Dutch (translated by author). This policy created subsidized work for a large}

group of unemployed from the mid-nineties until 2002, including tasks as neighborhood services, maintenance of parks, janitor in schools. These jobs were created in specific societal-benefits-oriented sectors.

5_{Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, translated as}_{The Netherlands Scientific Council for}

Government Policy, is an independent government research council advising the government in different policy areas on the basis of scientific research. The government officially has to respond to the advice. The common abbreviation of the name also used in this proposal is WRR.

6_{More commonly known as the Borstlap, abbreviated in this thesis as CRW or as}

(7)

7 Wethouders van Amsterdam, 2019). In Groningen, the municipality started in March 2020 with an experiment named “Basic Jobs”, which is similar to the ideas of the WRR and CRW (Groningen, 2020). In Rotterdam, the municipality creates “work” by asking people to do volunteer work as a compensation for their income support accordingly with the national Participation Law7, which is in Rotterdam named Tegenprestatie (before 2018) and now Prestatie010.

Although there are a variety of ideas and practices for basic jobs or the government taking an active role to create work otherwise, there is yet no clear scientific literature on the topic. Mosselman et al. (Mosselman, Ravenshorst and Polstra, 2018; Mosselman and Ravenshorst, 2019) from the Hanzehogeschool Groningen wrote commissioned reports for the municipalities of Groningen and Assen to inform their policies on the basic job. The WRR, extensively reviews literature on the importance of having a job in contemporary society – mainly for individual welfare and health reasons – and then proposes a variant of the basic job based on the ideas from research on the benefits that work brings for citizens.

A few aspects stand out, when looking at the debate as a research puzzle:

• Multiple actors use the term “basic job” for different kinds of policy ideas: (jobs in the private sector aimed at reintegration in the regular workforce, as well as jobs in the public sector providing structural work for those that cannot make it on the regular labor market

• Actors construct the problem differently: at first glance, it seems that the WRR views that the problem is that people are not provided with the benefits that work can provide, such as self-esteem, whereas other actors as the CDA seem to view that the issue is that too many asylum-seekers and refugees are “left behind” on income support.

• Actors’ policies differ in the exact solutions proposed: the WRR names “structural work without the need to grow to regular work” as a solution (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 173–183), whereas the municipality of Amsterdam views getting back to regular work on the labor market as an aim of the policy (Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam, 2019).

• The policies and proposals are similar in the respect that they all propose a more active role of government in the labor market, with the government actively creating “jobs”. It

7_{Participatiewet. This law encompasses more than providing benefits for the long-term unemployed. The part of}

the law that this thesis is about is commonly known as the “Bijstand”. The policy that enables municipalities to do volunteer work or other work to help reintegrate in the labor force is called “Tegenprestatie”.

(8)

8 diverges from earlier policies over the past decade, where there has been limited government policy to actively intervene in the labor market, other than the possibility for municipalities to enforce activation policies as the Prestatie010.

• Actors’ solutions and problem constructions seemingly have different underlying values and beliefs on what work means for people and what the government’s role in the labor market should be.

Based on these primary observations, there seems to be some convergence of policy ideas around the creation of work by the government, whereas they view the problem differently, and have different ways of executing the solution. As different actors seem to interpret the problem and the solution differently, I will employ a framing analysis in this thesis to map out these differences and convergences. This research aims to map out the existing field of basic job policy practices and policy proposals in the Netherlands. As no public policy research has been done on the basic job, this will be an explorative study. It aims to analyze the various framings through which actors construct both the problem and the solution in the cases, thus uncovering both what the exact differences and similarities of the framings are.

From the research puzzle and the research objectives, I distil my central research question for this thesis:

How do different actors frame the problem and solution regarding the basic job in the Netherlands in policy ideas and practices?

I will answer this question by using a framing analysis to interpret the various ideas and practices in the data collected during an empirical study. I will use data from interviews, policy letters, policy reports and some media materials as primary sources. The actors included in this study are three municipalities – Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Groningen – that have various practices of work creation by the government, two employees from scientific bureaus of political parties – the CDA and GroenLinks -, and three experts with different opinions on the basic job. This material will be analyzed and put into the broader perspective of trends in the Activating Welfare State and Social Investment State.

The societal relevance of researching this topic, is that there is a growing debate over this policy both in policy ideas and practices. There is a range policy ideas proposed and practiced, but yet the definition of what a basic job is or should do remains unclear. Thus, research on the scope of ideas and the exact differences and similarities is needed to clarify the policy choices that are or can be made. Additionally, the basic job is a policy solution proposed in a governmental

(9)

9 report meant to inform politicians on the potential policy choices for the next years and their effects, but the report states that effects and costs of the basic job will only become clear once choices are made on how to implement and shape a basic job (Rijksoverheid: Brede maatschappelijke heroverwegingen, 2020, pp. 40-41,78). Therefore, research on how the basic job is debated, may inform potential policies, thus making research on the topic relevant for enabling to see the different types of basic jobs and their effects. Furthermore, as literature on unemployment and the role of work in peoples’ lives suggests (as reviewed in (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 43–62), having work is paramount for peoples’ wellbeing. Therefore, research on the exact policies that are suggested to provide people (and the society at large) with the benefits of paid work, is of societal relevance as well. With respect to the Covid-19-crisis that is becoming an economic crisis as well at the moment of writing of this proposal, research on unemployment and reintegration policies may become highly relevant for all affected by this crisis in the upcoming times as well. The scientific relevance of researching this topic is that there is none or almost no literature specifically on the basic job and/or similar policies from a political science or public policy perspective. It is also academically relevant to study the interesting convergence and divergence of policy ideas and practices, as it may uncover dynamics of congruences or potential conflicts in certain parts of the problem or solution framing of policy ideas that may be relevant for other cases as well. It is also scientifically relevant to see how these proposals and practices for a more active government that creates jobs fits into larger trends of the activating welfare state and/or social investment state, where policy on work is also a relatively understudied phenomenon in the past decade. As the Netherlands is one of the only welfare states with a history of similar policies (the Melkertjobs) and one of the only countries where policies like the basic job are practiced and proposed, research on the specific dynamics in the Netherlands may also inform research on other welfare states’ job creation ideas and practices.

It is important to note that there are empirical limitations to this study: it does not look at policies (that may be similar or related) that focus on issues as youth unemployment or unemployment for people with work disabilities, as these are empirically quite different policy schemes in the Netherlands, and are also not part of the proposals, ideas, reports or practices of the basic job in the Netherlands. The research will also not aim to map out the “debate” on the basic job, as this debate is virtually non-existent, For the resources and scope of this research project, mapping out the entire debate does not fit the aim of this research. Lastly, this research will not

(10)

10 focus on the related policy idea of full employment. Literature on these ideas are, however, to be found in the literature review.

(11)

11

2. Theoretical Framework

In this theoretical chapter, I will overview some literature on the basic job and similar solutions to long-term unemployment, and the larger frameworks in which the basic job can be placed: long-term unemployment and its solutions, and the activating welfare state and social investment state as larger welfare policy frameworks. In turn, I will describe the literature on framing theory and explain how I will use framing in the empirical analysis.

2.1 Literature Review

2.1.1 Literature on the basic job

Currently, there is no peer-reviewed scholarly articles on the basic job or work creation by the government that accurately explains the policy ideas and practices now apparent in the Netherlands. The existing body of research on policy and the basic job is mainly comprised of (government) research reports and some (opinion) pieces by academics. Most notable in this body of research is the aformentioned WRR report (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020). This report reviews literature that informs their policy idea of implementing a basic job in the Netherlands, mainly by citing literature from sociology and psychology on the importance of work and the effects of unemployment. In two reports for the municipality of Groningen and Assen, Mosselman and Ravenshorst and Polstra (respectively) (Mosselman, Ravenshorst and Polstra, 2018; Mosselman and Ravenshorst, 2019) perform a very practice-oriented review of policy ideas on the basic job, but nonetheless help greatly to get a basic understanding of the topic. These reports also inform the typology of basic job variations used in this thesis. Also providing some guidance on the topic by highlighting key arguments , potential versions and positives and negatives about the basic job are a collection of articles in De Helling8_{(Dankbaar and Muysken, 2019; Fenger, 2019; Rodenburg, 2019;} Verhoeven, 2019).

Although there is very limited literature on the basic job or similar policies in the realm of policy or political science, there is a larger body of literature in economics on similar ideas. In scholarly literature on policies aimed and reducing unemployment and the creation of jobs by the government, there is a key role for (macro)economic scholars as Wray, Mitchell and Muysken. Wray is a famous proponent of the idea of the government as “Employer of Last Resort” (ELR), which entails that governments provide jobs at a living wage to anyone willing

(12)

12 and able to work, but unable to find a job in the regular capitalist economy (Wray, 2000, 2007; Mitchell and Wray, 2005). The goal of this ELR-program is to create full employment, a key term in post-Keynesian economics and New Monetary Theory as opposed to the “Natural Rate of Unemployment” (NAIRU) that is present in Friedman’s economic theory. According to Mitchell and Muysken, full employment is desirable, as they quote that employment, following the UN Human Rights Declaration, is a human right, and thus governments should aim at full employment (Mitchell and Muysken, 2008). This can be done through ELR schemes or Job Guarantee schemes, as multiple authors point out. The literature on these policy ideas, however, concentrates on macroeconomic issues as price stability and inflation. There is a few examples of capitalist economies adopting an ELR scheme, most famously the Argentinian Jefes de Hogar-program, that are widely studied as case studies that focus on the macroeconomic impacts of such programs (Tcherneva and Wray, 2011; Tcherneva, 2012). Additionally, some scholarly literature focuses on the impact of ELR schemes from the feminist perspective of wages for unpaid care labor (Todorova, 2011). Notably, the studies on full employment do not focus on the more individual or social impacts of (un)employment and the political and policy reality of implementing such policies. The goal of full employment seems to be larger than most of the schemes proposed or practiced in the Netherlands, as it needs fundamental economic shifts, rather than few jobs for structurally unemployed people.

There is some overlap in literature on a basic income and the Job Guarantee. Most importantly, Dutch scholar Kleinknecht writes that a guaranteed job is a more cost-efficient way of providing some kind of basic income to people and efficient way of reducing poverty (Kleinknecht et al., 2016). The discussion in academic literature on the “right to work” and “right to income” seemingly overlap. A premise in some of the literature and also in the WRR report, is that “work is better than just an income” (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, p. 182), as work is said to provide benefits that are far greater than just monetary compensation. 2.1.2 Literature on long-term unemployment and its solutions

Scholarly literature on the problem that a basic job aims to solve, namely long-term unemployment, mainly comes from sociology and focuses on the lived experiences of being unemployed or receiving income benefits, including so-called “cultures of unemployment”.9

9_{This includes the widely-cited studies “Een tijd zonder werk: Een onderzoek naar de leefwereld van langdurig}

werklozen” by Kroft, H, Engbersen, G, Schuyt, K, Timmer, JS, Hoegen, S, Müller, H & van der Sluis, J. 1989. Stenfert Kroese and “Marienthal, the Sociography of an Unemployed Community” by Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. & Zeisel, H.. 1972. London. Unfortunately, due to the Covid-19-crisis, it was sometimes impossible to find the original sources when they were not digitally available.

(13)

13 (Engbersen, 1990; Ypeij, 2004). Most of this literature, also reviewed by the WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 43–62), highlights the overall costs and negative effects of unemployment on people, and reveals the different important roles that work plays in peoples’ lives. These roles include providing identity, self-esteem and daily routines, but also the (psychological) health benefits of having work. Authors as Elshout and Sennett (as cited by the WRR) additionally point to the larger role that work plays for self-respect and status in a society that views itself as a meritocracy (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 43–46). Research on volunteering as cited in the report suggests that these kinds of work do not deliver the same effects as paid labor – although evaluations of the Participation Law in Rotterdam show slim positive results (Ibid. 46-47, Bus, Vries and Zeele, 2017). Kampen and Tonkens (2019) analyze how activation policies as the Participation Law can be both empowering and disempowering, by looking at the relation between caseworkers and clients. As the WRR also notes, there has been very limited literature on unemployment experiences since the financial crisis in 2008 (Ibid 45). This body of literature on unemployment is important for this study, as much of the framing in the practices and policy idea for a basic job seems to be based on the views on the negative effects of (especially long-term) unemployment on people and society – as the policy recommendation of the WRR itself. The literature that exists on interventions and solutions to unemployment is rather complex and diverse. This body of literature is important, as it is likely to inform the framings and policy ideas and practices that are based on the views of the negative effects of unemployment as explained above. There are a few meta-studies on activating people to find employment, that largely suggest that many different interventions (such as re-integration, learning projects, job interview training, job creation) are not effective or have very limited effects, as the WRR reviews (Groot, 2009; Card, Kluve and Weber, 2015; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, pp. 173–183). Other authors, as Van Oorschot (2002) are critical of past activation policies, as it has chipped away from social rights whilst not having the desired effects. This body of literature thus does not point clearly to a certain direction for policymakers to use.

2.1.3 Literature on the activating welfare state and social investment state

Some practices and ideas for a basic job seem to fit perfectly within the dynamics of the activating welfare state, whilst other versions seem to resemble more the “old” welfare state. Tonkens (2012, pp. 201–206) distinguishes four versions of the welfare state, of which two versions are relevant for this thesis. According to her, in a so-called “Welfare Recipient” regime,

(14)

14 people are entitled to public care and policy decisions are made to arrange such care. One could see that active help to find a job by either helping to foster skills or help to seek for fitting work, or by creating a job, is a form of such care entitlement. A basic job, then, would be a fit for the “Welfare Recipient”- regime. On the other hand, Tokens describes the “Active Citizen”- regimes (what is more commonly known as an activating welfare state), that entails that citizens take responsibility and take on volunteering, but also that everyone has a right to participate. With the creation of basic jobs, some former “volunteer” tasks are taken over by waged labor, and those who want to take responsibility but are somehow unable to find work, are encouraged (or forced) to work in a government-created job. Additionally, arguments in promoting a basic job include the “right to participate”. Most literature on the (activating) welfare state, including Tonkens (2012) focus on care in a welfare state, but not on activating work policies. Activating work policies, including the former Melkertjobs, are relatively understudied. Existing studies do not highlight recent experiences of unemployment, such as Van Oorschot (2002).

Another body of literature that may shed some light to the topic of the basic job, is the so-called “Social Investment State”. This concept, mostly coined by Hemerijck, has some similarities to Tonkens’ Active Citizen Regime, but is more focused on economic factors. The keystone of the social investment state is “investment”: a government invests in its citizens, through education or perhaps the creation of a job to acquire skills for the “normal” workplace, and thereby aims at creating a “return on investment”. This “return” is an economy with low unemployment and highly-skilled, high-wage workers. The social investment state helps to better understand the gaps of literature on the welfare state and employment and may inform policy choices. However, as the literature is on a macro-level and much based on economic rationale, it does not tackle the rationale of some of the more individual and social-based frames and arguments seemingly used in the policy ideas and practices of a basic job. (Hemerijck 2012; Van Der Veen, 2016; Benda et al., 2017; Groot, Muffels and Verlaat, 2019) (Benda et al.(2017) and Groot, Muffels and Verlaat (2019) see the most recent developments in Dutch activation policies as examples of the shift of governments from a welfare state to a social investment state, although Hemerijck himself views the Social Investment State as a framework that has been growing to dominance since the 1970s.

There are a few papers on policies on labor disabilities, that outline risks and shortcomings for the Social Investment State, that may to be addressed by the basic job policy. Benda et al. (2017) view that welfare illiteracy, a lack of network ties, a vicious cycle of “own fault”- rhetoric and barriers of moral articulation of not having a network are risks of the social investment state.

(15)

15 As the basic job is a more straightforward solution initiated by the government, these risks may be caught by providing a basic job. Cantillon and Van Lancker (2013) name three shortcomings of a social investment framework. The notion of social inclusion through work is seen as a risk for not valuing those that cannot readily engage in paid employment. They also name the risk of the individual responsibility-framework that seems to be part of the social investment perspective, and view that high expectations on investments in human capital to mitigate past inequalities may not be accurate. Lastly, van der Veen (2016) views that the social investment perspective regarding work for vulnerable groups provides thee policy options: one of investing in people to increase their skills and capacities, one of steering behavior by sanctioning (financially), and one of protection by creating special, protected jobs and by providing income support and care. The basic job in relation to these risks and policy options, is an interesting one, as from preliminary research, it seems that some risks that are identified as part of the social investment perspective may not be present in the basic job solution, as for example, more special employment is created.

2.2 Framing Analysis

In order to fully grasp the differences of interpretation of the basic job and similar policies, I will employ an interpretive method in my thesis. An interpretive framework for analysis seems to be most appropriate, as a more positivist analysis would not enable to analyze the underlying values and beliefs that create differences in policies, such as those on the basic job. As Yakow (2007) states, meaning-making is central in policy-making and should thus be a part of policy analysis. For this thesis, I will use the interpretive method of framing analysis. According to Gray (Gray, 2003, p. 12): “[f]raming refers to the process of constructing and representing our interpretations of the world. (...) A frame reflects our interpretation of what is going on and how we see ourselves and others implicated in what is happening.”. She states that, amongst others, frames define issues, shape actions and enable to justify actions. Schön and Rein (Schön and Rein, 1994) further focus this method on policy analysis, stating that “[w]e see policy positions as resting on underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation, which we call "frames". For this thesis, I will analyze the framing through which multiple actors construct the policy problem and thereby construct the policy solution. A framing analysis is useful for the purpose of my research, as it helps to uncover the various aspects in which policy actors differ and converge, and also helps to understand the underlying positions and beliefs that inspire the constructions of problem and solution.

(16)

16 Schön and Rein mainly focus their analysis on problem construction in policy conflicts, but do hint at how the construction of a solution is inherently part of the construction of the problem. They state that frames "describe what is wrong with the present situation in such a way as to set the direction for its future transformation.” And that “[t]hrough the processes of naming and framing, the stories make the "normative leap" from data to recommendations, from fact to values, from 'is' to 'ought'.” (Schön and Rein, 1994, p. 26). In the solution construction, the “ought” by default will frame what the problem “is” at this moment.

In their framework, they distinguish between two overlapping frames: “action frames”, the frames that inform policy practice, and the rhetorical frames “"that underlie the persuasive use of story and argument in policy debate". My analysis will focus on the action frames, as I will mainly analyze the construction of problem and solution within policy proposals and practices, and not on the policy debate or interactions between actors where the use of such persuasive story is apparent. Schön and Rein divide the action frame into three levels: for clarity on the relation between the levels of frames, please see figure 2. The “policy frame” is the frame that constructs the problem (and thereby the solution), and will be the focal point of my analysis. One abstraction-level higher, is the “institutional frame”, that refers to the larger policy frame that institutional actors employ to construct a larger set of policy problems. The third level, the “metacultural frame” is a more abstract frame that draws on larger beliefs in society on how to deal with certain problems, similar to actors drawing on larger discourses when they frame an issue. (Schön and Rein, 1994, pp. 33–34)

In order to further help analyze the more loosely-defined policy frames of Schön and Rein, I will use the perspectives of both Gusfield (1981) and Rochefort and Cobb (1995) that help to further specify how problems and solutions are socially constructed. How these perspectives interrelate in further specifying the other, please refer to figure 3 and figure 4. According to Gusfield, public problems are constructed by both a “cognitive dimension” and a “moral dimension”, that are both necessary in order to speak of a situation as a public problem. The cognitive dimension is the facts-driven assessment of a situation as a problem, including beliefs on what is and causes the problem, whereas the moral dimension of a problem is that which “suggests a condemnable state of affairs from the perspective of someone's morality” (Gusfield, 1981, p. 9) Both dimensions are needed for a problem construction to be successful, and although these angles are analytically useful, in practice they will largely overlap. I will use both the cognitive and moral dimension to further make explicit the ways in which problems

(17)

17 are constructed and framed in my analysis. Rochefort and Cobb, as explained below, further help to explain the construction of a solution.

Figure 1: Rein and Schön's categories in framing

Figure 2: Gusfield's elements of problem construction related to Rochefort and Cobbs elements of problem construction

Framing of problem and solution Rhetorical Action frame Policy frame Institutional frame Metacultural frame Problem Construction Cognitive Causality Severity Incidence Novelty Proximity Problem Population Moral Instrumental vs. Expressive

(18)

18

Figure 3: Gusfield's elements of problem construction related to Rochefort and Cobbs elements of solution construction

Gusfields cognitive dimension of problem construction can be further specified by using the set of characteristics that Rochefort and Cobb (Rochefort and Cobb, 1995, pp. 15–24) (see figure 2) propose. These elements are helpful to further guide my analysis, as they may help to uncover the characteristics that make up such a problem construction and emphasize certain elements that may be present. These characteristics proposed are:

• Causality: what are the origins of the problem?

• Severity: how serious are the problem and its consequences? • Incidence: what is the frequency and prevalence of the problem? • Novelty: is the problem seen as novel?

• Proximity: is the problem presented as directly impacting someone’s interest? • Crisis: is the problem constructed as a crisis or emergency?

• Problem populations: what are the affected groups or individuals?

• Instrumental vs. expressive orientations: is the problem and its solution deliberate to achieve certain ends or are the means found more important, as related to ethical boundaries? Furthermore, Rochefort and Cobb (Ibid. pp 24-26) help to further understand the various elements of the construction of a policy solution (see figure 3) as related to Gusfields dimensions. They pay attention to the dialectic that seemingly exists between problem construction and the solution, and how sometimes the solution seems to come before the problem construction. They argue that four elements are often a part of the construction of the solution:

• Availability: do actors believe they have the means to achieve what needs done? • Acceptability: does the solution conform to standard ethical codes of behavior?

Solution Construction Cognitive Availability Agreement Affordability Moral Acceptability

(19)

19 • Agreement: do actors agree on the policy intervention?

• Affordability: what are the costs of the solution?

This more focused analysis is especially important for the topic of the basic job, as some course of action (job creation by the government for long-term unemployed on income support) seems to be agreed upon, but both the problem construction and the exact construction of details of the solution seems to vary. Thus, my analysis will use the elements as named by Rochefort and Cobb to highlight these differences. Interpreting these four characteristics of solution construction, the elements availability, agreement and affordability seem to loosely fit with Gusfields cognitive dimension of the problem and solution construction, whereas the acceptability fits more with the moral dimension and is also covered in the analysis. It is important to note that these methods and frameworks for analysis are themselves also framing the empirical material at hand, by emphasizing certain elements of the construction of problems and solutions and policy-making, whilst silencing others.

3. Methods

In this chapter, I will report on the method of research I employ in this thesis. Building on framing theory, in this chapter I will explain firstly how I selected my cases, secondly, how I collected my data on these cases and thirdly, how I analyzed the data. Lastly, I will reflect on potential limitation of the methods used and reflect on my own position as an interpretive researcher. I will finish with explaining how the Covid-19-crisis that occurred during this research project impacted the research as well.

3.1 Case selection

From the preliminary research, I distinguished three prominent “types” of the basic job prevalent in policy ideas and practices. Various actors converge on certain elements, and at first sight seemingly have different problem constructions and solution constructions. This typology is partially inspired by the report by Mosselman et al. (Mosselman, Ravenshorst and Polstra, 2018; Mosselman and Ravenshorst, 2019) who also distinguish three different types of a basic job to inform the direct policy proposals and practices of the municipalities of Groningen and

(20)

20 Assen. Their typology identifies three types of a basic job policy: the basic job as instrument for re-integration, the basic job as instrument for participation, and the basic job as a different way of doing social security. The basic job as an instrument for re-integration is very similar to the proposals of the Scientific Bureau of the CDA and the earlier Melkertjobs, and is practiced in The Hague and Amsterdam (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, p. 182). This will be the first type I distinguish in my thesis. The second type, where participation and structural work is provided, is the policy that is now piloting in Groningen. The last type is not further researched in this thesis, as it is a radical shift in welfare state policy and is more similar to the idea of a Job Guarantee. This policy idea is not practiced or proposed by the main actors in the debate. Instead, I see that the third type of work creation that is practiced, is one that sees (volunteer) work as a way of compensating for receiving income support, valuing reciprocity. This policy is practiced most prominently in Rotterdam, as is analyzed by the WRR (Ibid.) and seen in media materials at first glance10_{. I have mapped these three groups of cases}

in a typology, as a preliminary overview of the existing different policy ideas and practices. Factors on which the policy seems to differ are outlined in table 1.

This typology informs my case selection. There are a limited amount of cases for every of the three types that I have tentatively grouped, which helped with selected the best cases to help me understand the different framings of the problem and solution related to the basic job. The goal of the case selection was to get a wide range of cases and actors, that are selected based on the type of basic job they seem to propose, as to enable this broader debate and be able to see where actors agree or disagree at large. In this thesis, I select one municipality per type, as to inform how the basic job is implemented in practice. As the total sample was limited, I used purposive sampling as a method for choosing cases. Purposive sampling, according to Bryman (2012, p. 418) refers to using a strategic, and not random way of selecting research participants. As a purposive sampling approach (Ibid. pp. 419-424), I used a maximum variance approach, as I tried to obtain variance by selecting based on the typology. Furthermore, my case selection is also a form of theoretical sampling, as I aimed to analyze the variance in order to achieve theoretical saturation to answer my research question.

10_{In the empirical chapter, it turns out that this view of the policy in Rotterdam was based on the older policy of}

the Tegenprestatie, which has been shifted to the Prestatie010 with a different framing of this reciprocity. As the case selection was based on this preliminary research, I chose to leave the ideas I had based on the older policy in the typology and in this methods chapter.

(21)

21

Table 1: Typology of three types of the basic job

Type Underlying values

Problem construction

Target group Public or private sector Main proponents/ policy Case examples Type 1: Basic job as an obligation for your income support Work as an obligation Long-term unemployed income support beneficiaries have to return labor for this support Income support beneficiaries that can work Public sector Participation law for income support Municipality of Rotterdam Type 2: Basic job as structural work Work as a right Long-term unemployed are deprived of the benefits that a job can provide Long-term unemployed, income support beneficiaries Public sector WRR, Commission on the Regulation of Work Municipality of Groningen Municipality of Assen Type 3: Basic job as a means for re-integration in a regular job Work as an obligation and a right Long-term unemployment and bad re-integration in the regular labor market for this group

Long-term unemployed, income support beneficiaries Private sector, or public sector to re-integrate Scientific Bureau of CDA Municipality of Amsterdam Municipality of The Hague Municipality of Heerlen

For the first type, I have selected Rotterdam, as it is one of the municipalities in which the Participation Law is more strictly enforced. Actors as the WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, p. 47) and reviews in specialist media (Kremer et al., 2017) underline this. Additionally, Rotterdam has experience with the policy since 2010 and has conducted extensive evaluations, including interviewing the recipients of the policy, which helps to inform my analysis and gives me more available data to work with (Callenfels et al., 2015; Anschütz et al., 2016; Bus, De Vries and Van Zeele, 2017; Batenburg, 2019; Gemeente Rotterdam, 2019). For the second type, I choose to analyze Amsterdam’s Werkbrigade (Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam, 2019). Unlike other potential cases of the second type, such as The Hague’s StiP-jobs and Heerlen that started more recently, Amsterdam’s Werkbrigade has already been evaluated (Lubbe and Larsen, 2018; Burgemeester

(22)

22 en Wethouders van Amsterdam, 2019; Van Kempen et al., 2019) and has recently been implemented structurally. The Hague furthermore differs from Amsterdam as it creates jobs with non-governmental organizations such as sport clubs, whereas Amsterdam provides public jobs themselves (Burgemeester en Wethouders van Amsterdam, 2019). Given its evaluation, as well as it being named as an example of both a basic job and a Melkertjob in the WRR report and national media, here too the availability of data makes the Werkbrigade best to work with for the scope of this research project. For the third type, the choice was between Groningen and Assen. These municipalities both propose a basic job and both commissioned reports by Mosselman et al. to inform their policies (Mosselman, Ravenshorst and Polstra, 2018; Mosselman and Ravenshorst, 2019). However, Groningen started their pilot on March 1st 2020, whereas Assen has no clear policy proposal yet. Therefore, I will analyze the case of Groningen. reached out to the municipalities with a research proposal in order to find the right policymakers working on this specific policy, emailing the teams working on the specific policy solution. Through these contacts, I interviewed one municipal official per case. These municipal officials will not be named in this thesis, as they wished to be anonymous representatives of their municipalities. For this thesis, I chose to view the municipality as an unitary actor – I refer to the municipalities themselves as changing policy. I chose to employ this method, as it enables to see shifts in policy within the municipality as a governmental actor, whereas a focus on individual policy makers or officials, would create a more divergent analysis that does not suit the purpose of this thesis. The municipality at-large frames the problem and solution construction in their policy practices, and the interviews, policy materials and media materials provide an overview of the overall framing of this municipality. (Former) aldermen are named when applicable, but due to the influence of their framing on the overall framing of the municipality, their views are not analyzed as framings by individual actors alone. Additionally, interviewees themselves did not refer to their own beliefs, but acted as representatives of the policy in their municipality, which also informs this decision.

I also selected two scientific bureaus of political parties CDA and GroenLinks as actors to analyze in this research, as their policy proposals fall into different types and are coming different party ideologies also provide a broad perspective of the construction of the problem and solution that are present. I interviewed the two people, Arjen Siegmann and Hans Rodenburg, that were the main authors of the reports proposing a basic job for these scientific bureaus.

(23)

23 Lastly, I selected three experts on the basic job. Here, I define experts as people that are not directly related to policy practices or proposing a certain policy, but rather research the topic of the basic job or have insight into the basic job from a larger professional expertise background. I selected these experts based on my preliminary research and used purposive sampling as a method of selection. The experts were not selected based on the typology, but were rather selected for their ability to provide a larger framework and broader perspective on the basic job. First, I selected Kees Mosselman, as author of the research reports informing the typology of this case selection, who studies the basic job in his PhD project. Secondly, I selected Menno Fenger, a professor at the Erasmus University Rotterdam who specializes in reintegration and labor market policies. I selected him, as he placed a mildly critical review of basic job proposals in the magazine of De Helling, using arguments that provided a broader view on the basic job. Lastly, I selected Margriet Jongerius, who works as a senior policy advisor at public policy and research bureau Movisie. She recently started an expert group on income support and re-integration policies, which has a focus that includes the basic job, but also focuses on the practical implementation. As she recently started this expert group and has written about the basic job in practice on the website of Movisie, I selected her to provide some insight on these practical implications.

The cases or actors I selected for this research all provide different insights on the topic of the basic job and were selected to provide a broad view of the topic, in order to be able to highlight key agreements and disagreements amongst actors on the construction of the problem and the solution.

3.2 Data collection

The collection of data for my research is divided into three parts, focusing on data that is text or can be converted to text, in order to be able to conduct a framing analysis. In order to get in-depth knowledge from all the actors, I interviewed all actors. Additionally, I looked at policy papers and policy reports, and finished with analysing media materials for the purpose of triangulation. According to Bryman (2012, p. 392), triangulation refers to the research using multiple sources of data in order to cross-check the findings. This method is used to create more certainty that the findings are credible. In this case, the materials were also used, in the case of the municipalities, to validate if the interviewees statements were similar to the municipalities’ policies, in order to avoid that personal opinions of the municipal officials may skew the data on how municipalities frame the basic job in their practices.

(24)

24 For the interviews with all 8 actors, I created an interview guide (which is added to the appendices) for a semi-structured interview based on the aforementioned materials and the theoretical framework of problem construction and solution construction, in order to gain the most specific information that cannot be gained from the policy papers. The interviews were semi-structured, as to give interviewees the opportunity to bring up own framings of the problem and the solution and to be able to get the most in-depth knowledge needed to answer my research question. The interviews lasted from 30 minutes to 75 minutes, about 1 hour one average. The interviewees were consulted through (video)calling, as the current Covid-19-crisis does not allow to safely meet these policymakers. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed and sent to interviewees for checking when requested by interviewees. For the three municipalities, I triangulated the interview data by looking at policy documents and policy reports. These were found by searching for the main papers presented in debates in municipal councils on the policies, but were also provided by the interviewees when asked. Some policy documents, however, were unavailable due to municipal policies on the distribution of internal documents. Nevertheless, the key policy documents as presented helped to inform the analysis and cross-reference interview materials.

In addition to this triangulation with policy materials, I used media material as a way to further broaden the scope of data. This was especially helpful for the media articles that provided insights into the change of policies over time. In analyzing the data and sampling articles, I focused on articles that provided direct quotations from alderman or municipal officials, as to prevent interpreting a journalists’ interpretation of the topic, rather than the municipalities’ framing of a problem and solution.

For the collection of media materials, I chose to use newspaper sources as found in newspaper database Nexis Uni. This database does not encompass all media sources and types of media materials, but easily provides with enough data for the purpose of cross-referencing data. I did not select specific newspapers or news magazines for the purpose of this analysis, as it seemed that insightful articles were published in all sorts of newspapers. I searched for the terms used by the municipalities themselves combined with the name of the municipality. The timeframe used was from 1/1/2014 to 1/6/2020 and 1/1/2010 to 1/6/2020 for Rotterdam. Most of the articles were more or less equally distributed over this time period.

For Groningen, I searched for the term “Basisbaan” or “Basisbanen” and “Groningen”. This provided with 43 articles. I manually selected 5 most relevant articles, as many articles only mentioned the policy briefly, for example when citing this policy in a different municipality.

(25)

25 For Amsterdam, I searched for the term “Werkbrigade” and “Amsterdam”. This provided with 38 articles. I manually selected 7 most relevant articles, as many articles only mentioned the policy very briefly, when citing the policy in a different context.

For Rotterdam, I searched for the term “Prestatie010” and “Rotterdam”. This provided with 3 documents. From these 3 documents, I selected 2 relevant articles. As the policy recently was renamed, I also searched for “Tegenprestatie” and “bijstand” or “participatiewet” and “Rotterdam”. As this policy was started in 2010, the timeline for this search was 1/1/2010 to 1/6/2020. This provided with 384 results. In order to receive comparable results, I manually selected about 7 articles per year over this time period, in order to collect a similar sample size relative to the timeframe as the other searches. Then, I manually selected the 15 most relevant articles from this sample as I did with the other cases. There were significantly more relevant articles in this sample as were for the other cases, perhaps as this case was relatively well-known in the Netherlands and often used to describe the merits or negative consequences of the Participation Law as a whole, or used in comparison to the policies on the Tegenprestatie in Amsterdam. When I found relevant articles in these searches that gave a more broad perspective on the topic, I also analyzed those. This was the case for 12 articles. This brings the total of analyzed articles to 41.

This study is not likely to raise any particular ethical issues that require clearance or need more careful further consideration, as this thesis uses mostly publicly available data. With regards to the interviews, the privacy of the aforementioned municipal officials is protected by anonymizing their views. As the experts and the employees of the scientific bureaus have published on this topic in reports and proposals under their name, they did not wish to be anonymous. As I also refer to these reports in my analysis, I chose to name the individuals from these two groups of actors in my analysis, as to be able to clarify that the writers of these cited sources are the same person as the interviewees. The interview data that was recorded and transcribed will be stored securely.

For analytic purposes, I used Atlas.ti to code all the data gathered. I created codes based of my topic list and theoretical framework, highlighting the different aspects of the framing of problem construction and solution construction that Schön and Rein, Gusfield and Rochefort and Cobb name in my codebook. I also created several inductive codes, when the theoretical framework does not allow to analyze key parts of the policy practices or policy proposals or did not seem to be precise enough. In doing so, I was able to group certain ways of framing of the problem construction and solution construction, which allowed for a detailed analysis of the differences

(26)

26 and similarities in framings. These framings were often not explicit (e.g. “the problem is caused by Y, with problem population X”), but more implicit (“e.g. “in practice, we see the majority of people have health problems”). After the first coding process, I turned to axial and selective coding, grouping certain codes together as to be better able to analyze the framing. In the analytical process, I also looked at the occurrence of certain frames throughout the data by using Atlast.ti’s data analysis tools, in order to see if certain framings were more present in certain actors or co-occurred often. When applicable, interesting findings based on these occurrences will be named in the empirical chapter, but most frames were more or less equally distributed amongst actors.

3.4 Limitations and reflexivity

For the purposes of this research, which is explorative, I will not be able to highlight the positions of the people on the “receiving” end of the basic job policy yet, but will use their perspectives when used in policy evaluations and proposals, as it is important to see how policy practice and experiences with policy may differ from the paper to the street-level. With regards to the power dynamics, as a student I will not be in the relative position of power to gain information due to limited time and resources, which may in turn lead to me unconsciously silencing certain voices in the analysis.

Also, I would like to add that all quotes were translated by me as author, and most of the numbers mentioned by the interviewees and in policy reports were the numbers as they were before the Covid-19-crisis, which heavily influences the amount of people and types of people in the income support system.

Using these methods to analyze the research puzzle are thus by no means providing the full “film” of diverse policy situation, but rather helped to guide what elements there were to watch out for in this film – and my analysis made screenshots of this film to highlight certain elements. I reflected on the use of these methods whilst analyzing and during the coding process, and also watched out for inductively occurring potential defining elements of these problem and solution constructions during my research, as to do the best possible to not overlook crucial other parts of the puzzle.

Schön and Rein introduce a couple of potential difficulties when conducting a framing analysis (Schön and Rein, 1994). I will explain these three difficulties and explain how I dealt with these issues during my analysis. Firstly, “rhetorical frames that shape the public utterances of policy

(27)

27 makers may be incongruent with the frames implicit in their patterns of action” (Ibid. 35), meaning that the framing of an issue for an outside public may differ from the action frames that are practiced. I did not directly encounter this issue, as I did not directly analyze rhetoric to a larger public. In my analysis, I looked for incongruences in the logic of action and underlying values in the data to counter this potential issue, but these incongruences were not found in my empirical data. Secondly, it may be the case that “the same course of action may be consistent with quite different policy frames” (Ibid.). To explain this further, they use the example of welfare state policy in the USA, which was largely similar under very different administrations with a very different rationale. This element was not be a main “difficulty” in my analysis, but highlighted the interesting differences in framings of the basic job. As the research puzzle and typology already indicate, it seemed that different actors have a very similar course of action, that is consistent with different underlying values and beliefs. This potential difficulty was be countered by becoming a focal point of my analysis, as from the empirical data, it seemed that different courses of action were consistent with similar beliefs and values amongst actors. Lastly, Schön and Rein state that “meanings of policy made by a central governmental body in the early stages of policy formation may be transformed at local levels at the stage of policy implementation” (Ibid.). I countered this issue largely by analyzing both the larger policy proposals and policy ideas, such as the WRR report, but also analyzing municipalities that are already practicing versions of the basic job to see how the policy proposals were transformed in the implementation. For the cases where data was available, analyzed the policy evaluations of these municipalities, that included existing analysis of the implementation of the policy.

In an interpretive analysis, the inherent subject position of the researcher is also paramount – as everyone “frames” the puzzle differently. As a researcher interpreting data, one is never “objective”, but instead reflects on their subject position as to guide the analysis towards one that is supported by evidence and can be represented in an academic debate, leaving room for alternative interpretations as well. As Yanow (2007, p. 111) notes on analysis: “analysts-researchers, themselves meaning-makers, are also actors in these meaning-making practices as they conduct their analyzes”. She further guides the ways to deal with these issues, by using the concept of reflecting on the positionality of the researcher: “such reflexivity includes a consideration of the power and politics of the researcher or analyst's relation to the setting and actors on which the analysis focuses.” (Ibid. p. 116). It is thus important to note that I have not had the experience of being long-term unemployed or having a long-term unemployed person

(28)

28 close to me, and do not have experience of being on income support. I have not professionally dealt with this public problem or related issues of work and income policy before. I do not have a particular position on the desirability of the basic job or similar policy positions. Nonetheless, in the process I checked that my personal beliefs will not interfere with the analysis of the data.

(29)

29

4. Empirical Analysis

In this chapter, I will present and analyze the empirical data I collected by using the framing analysis categories that I introduced in the theoretical chapter. Throughout this chapter, I will demonstrate how the problem and solution are framed by actors in their interviews, reports, policy documents and media material. I will analyze the empirical material with additional theoretical material when applicable. Actors themselves articulated the larger frameworks of institutional and metacultural frames in which their policy practice or idea operates sometimes, which is used in the analysis and the conclusions as well. From the empirical data, it turns out that some parts of the more strict division of categories within the problem construction and solution construction in the literature were not applicable and some elements needed to be grouped together. It is also important to note that often, the construction of the problem and solution were intertwined, so they will be analyzed with that perspective in mind.

In this empirical chapter, I will analyze the framing of the problem and solution separately, despite them being largely intertwined by the actors, in order to gain more insight into specific elements of the framings. I will start by analyzing the problem construction, then the solution construction and finish with some conclusions.

4.1 Same causes, different problem population: the problem construction

In this section, I will analyze the framing of the problem by using different elements of the problem construction as presented by Rochefort and Cobb (1994). They highlight that a problem construction is never just “technical”, but rather incorporate underlying values – so these will be part of the analysis. Rochefort and Cobb also state that often, these underlying values may be implicit and go unnoticed. These elements need to be analyzed in-depth, as the construction of the problem is rather implicit and sometimes, as one of the actors states, it is unclear:

“for what problem exactly is the basic job a solution, the basic job is now being presented as the solution of all problems on the labor market, specifically at the bottom of the labor market” (Fenger, interview).

This section will aim to unravel this unclarity, which is mainly caused by the actors often framing the problem by explaining their solution, and putting less words into clearly defining the problem. The only exception to this was the WRR, that has an extensive problem

(30)

30 construction, but did not point at concrete ways to create and manage basic jobs. In summary, the problem is framed by actors as one that is larger than the one solution of the basic job can solve. There is an overall large amount of agreement on the causes of the problem and its severity, although it differed from earlier problem constructions and policies. A definition of the exact group for which a basic job is a solution or should be a solution remains debated by the actors.

As some aspects of the problem construction as Rochefort and Cobb analyze were intertwined in the data and some were not present at all (such as the crisis-framing), I will analyze the data according to the following categories. I will start the analysis of the problem construction by the description of the problem and its severity. This will be followed by an overview of the framing of three main causes. Thirdly, I will describe how actors had slightly different opinions on the problem population and incidence of the problem, and I will finish by delving into the way actors used historical policy examples to frame the problem in terms of novelty and the institutional framework.

4.1.1 Unemployment is bad for your health, well-being and for society at large

Firstly, it is key to lay out what actors describe the problem to be, and analyze it in terms of severity – how serious is the problem and its consequences? Rochefort and Cobb (1995, p 17.) name applying labels of severity to a problem construction key to "capturing the attention of public attention and the media". From my data, however, it seems that the severity of the problem is clear, and it is not emphasized as reason for why a government should intervene - it rather goes without saying. It is interesting that all actors seem to be more comfortable to conceptualize the problem in terms of other, similar solutions or the solution itself as having good effects, rather than describing the problem in negative terms. The severity of the issue is seen as being negative in a lot of different aspects of life, and therefore, it seems that for actors, it almost goes without saying that these problem should be acted upon. It is viewed that the statement ”unemployment is not good for people themselves and society at large”, is an implicit truth. The problems’ severity is thus constructed in two realms: effects on the individual, and effects on society at large.

The problem, then, is often described in terms of the population and causes, but can be boiled down to the following: a large group of people are unemployed, they are often long-term unemployed, and cannot find a job on the regular labor market, despite past activation policies

(31)

31 and the good economic prospects before the Covid-19-crisis. The WRR describes the problem with most clarity:

“Despite all policy efforts there isn’t work for everyone. A lot of people are still left aside: 1.6 million people receive income benefits, and not all of those are able to work. At the same time we count about 1 million people in the Netherlands that can be characterized as unused labor potential.” (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2020, p. 26)

Aditionally, Siegmann (amongst others) analyzes in his problem description in his report that unemployment leads to a loss of giving meaning to life itself as well:

“Long-term unemployment is a societal and a social problem: it affects people deeply and it effects a large group of people. Not being able to work despite wanting to do so, leads to a loss of meaning and has high ‘human costs’.” (Siegmann, 2018, p. 23)

The conclusion framed throughout the data is, supported by scientific evidence as presented by the WRR (2020, pp. 43–62), from sociology, economics, psychology and other disciplines, that work has a high value for individuals and their well-being, as well as creating value for society at large, as labor potential is not used to the full extent possible. The problem is also considered as larger than the solution the basic job can provide, as there is a large group that is unemployed and unable to work due to health problems, disabilities or other factors. The problem that is to be solved by the basic job is thus smaller, which can be seen from the debate between actors on the solution’s target population in the next section.

Following from this first rough description of the problem, is the severity of the problem. The severity of the problem in the data was often framed when they talk about the “goals” of the solution. These goals roughly fell into two categories: the impacts of unemployment on individual health, wellbeing, self-esteem and meaning-giving, and the impacts of unemployment on society: costs of unemployment and support for the welfare system. Hans Rodenburg adds to this summary of impacts that:

“it is good for individuals, but more from the perspective that it is good for your welfare and well-being and it is the responsibility of society to take care of you as well” (Rodenburg, interview)

He thus connects the severe impacts of unemployment – or the good impacts of employment -, to the responsibility of society to take care of this problem. These positive effects on the individual and society if people are active in for example volunteering or have a (basic) job are widely used as arguments to describe the severity of the problem. The municipality of