MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280166608

The Myth of more Social Inclusion through Activation Reforms - The Case of Germany

2015· preprint· en· W2280166608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sigrid Betzelt

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentSocial securityEntitlement (fair division)Agency (philosophy)Political scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Labour economicsPromotion (chess)StatuteGermanDemographic economicsEconomicsSociologyEconomic growthPoliticsSocial scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents new findings on a specific 'gendered' problem resulting from 'activation policies' and a certain group of unemployed which has been widely neglected so far in public and academic discourse although it is both quantitatively significant and reveals systematic failures of activation strategies: In contrast with claims of greater social inclusion through 'activation, it can be seen that currently nearly a quarter of a million people in Germany are registered as unemployed without any entitlement to unemployment benefits or any individual social protection like health care. These 'unemployed non-beneficiaries' (UNB), currently account for a quarter of those registered as unemployed within the statutes of the German Social Code Book III (SGB III). Their situation is problematic for two reasons: First, their significant number is evidence of a severe social security gap which has existed before the 'Hartz reforms' but has grown more acute by the new, stricter eligibility rules to unemployment benefits introduced with the reforms. This re-familisation of social security stands in contrast to the more precarious employment structures on the labour market on the one hand, and the more egalitarian gender norms of an individualised society on the other. Second, our recent research findings show that unemployed non-beneficiaries are practically even excluded from active employment promotion services of the Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, BA), despite the fact that they have the same obligations to prove active job search and mostly are not able to find jobs by themselves. The German activation regime even systematically pushes them to de-register as unemployed (to 'improve' the labour market statistics). The paper argues that this can be explained by the business management principles of cost-efficiency introduced with the 'Hartz reforms' as the primary guideline for the Federal Employment Agency. Performance measurement tools which prioritize short-term job insertion and the cost-efficient allocation of the BA-budgets to the more 'marketable' groups of unemployed override social, labour market and political equality targets. This is detrimental for vulnerable groups like unemployed non-beneficiaries, and also contrary to the macro-economic goal of counteracting the reputed skill shortages. The paper is based both on secondary analyses of official statistics and own empirical panel data (GSOEP) and some qualitative findings, derived from own research projects funded by different sources.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207