1. Redesigning citizenship regimes after neo-liberalism: Convergence around the idea of social investment Jane Jenson www.cccg.umontreal.ca Presentation to CINEFOGO, Paris 14-16 February 2008 Canada Research Chair in Citizenship and Governance

2. Argument The substitution of the discourse and instruments of “social investment” for those of “social protection” is more than a European story. –Intended for a service economy that is “informalised,” precarious, and without job security –Goals of social policy are creation of capabilities and capacity to adapt and to break intergenerational transmission of disadvantage Institutionalisation of social investment marks a significant change in social citizenship and citizenship regimes more generally Identifiable mechanisms are spreading this new understanding of social citizenship

3. Why emphasise social investment? Social inclusion, anti-poverty and / or pro-poor are too limited concepts –Not simply who but also how… –“child-centred investments” and “human capital push” Moving away BOTH from notions of social protection (risks, rights, delivery) for social security from “safety nets” to those of social investment … –Emphasis on new social risks, different rights, and new forms of delivery Ex: break the intergenerational cycle of poverty rather than protect against poverty

4. Another notion of time Not here-and-now of trente glorieuses Not the present is mortgaging the future via debt and dependency Rather : 1.Legitimate role for state if the payoff is in the future 2.Spending is not for “insuring against misfortune” but for pro-active capability building 3.Instruments of policy evaluation and life-course perspective: “The life course perspective is highly relevant from a practical policy point of view. Indeed we should keep firmly in mind that good pension policies – like good health policies – begin at birth.” Frank Vandenbroucke

5. Citizenship regime - a tool for observing change Responsibility mix Rights and responsibilities Governance arrangements Belonging Three moments market family community state

6. Responsibility mix Post-1945: market + family + community + state Neo-liberalism: market + family with state to be only a safety net + community as safety net of last resort Social Investment: market + community + family + state But state follows precepts of social investment Examples: –early childhood education and care “not whether to invest but how much and at what level” (OECD) –asset-building

7. Rights and responsibilities Post-1945: Rights acquired by contributions, by citizenship or by need Neo-liberalism: Rights to be retrenched and social inclusion to be the goal, to be achieved by inclusion into the labour market Social investment: social inclusion via strengthening of capabilities to learn how to make work pay –Examples: from decommodification to workfare to investments in activation –From education and training to investments in human capital

8. Social investment’s “big idea” – investing in children and in parents of young children From family policy to family responsibility to investing in children Social investment means: 1.Investing in human capital, starting with pre-school 2.Investing in parents of young children via income supplements and “making work pay” 3.Limiting child poverty and its effects.

9. Governance arrangements Post-1945: Weberian state and accountability for spending Neo-liberalism: displace the central state and rely on local government and communities ; break “monopoly providers” Social investment: “the new orthodoxy of local partnerships” to increase social cohesion and citizen engagement. Accountability for “outcomes.”

10. Why convergence around social investment? May be a local story… –But how to account for adoption and remaking of neo-liberalism as its limits were rendered obvious in Latin America as in Europe May be convergence (common outcomes) without being diffusion (process of spread from one to another) Need to identify the mechanisms leading to convergence (when usually we look for divergence)

11. Three mechanisms Legitimation of alternatives –Does not account for why social investment Rallying around an “idea” –The advantages of “social investment” in a post- neoliberal world Crossing boundaries –By networks of academics and policy-makers –Across sub-disciplines (ex: developmental and “mainstream” economics) –By international organisations, supranational organisations and NGOs blur the boundaries of governance and carry ideas.