Introduction

This chapter reflects upon the results of INPART from the perspective of social policy. What could be the implications of these results for current and future activation policies? We present recommendations for activation policies based on the findings presented in the earlier chapters of this book. In order to understand the origins of these recommendations, it is important once again to make explicit some characteristics of our research (also see Chapter Five).

The research project, INPART, was not a systematic evaluation of activation programmes, but rather a study into the inclusionary and exclusionary potentials of different types of work. The case studies on which we reported in Chapters Five to Seven were not limited to activation programmes, even though quite a few focused on these programmes. We also focused on regular work – the ‘participation’ or ‘inclusion standard’ – and on unpaid and informal work that, up until now, have hardly played any serious role in policies that aim to promote inclusion. The experiences of the respondents did tell us a great deal about the contribution of types of work to inclusion, and about aspects of the policy context that may increase this inclusionary potential. In this chapter, these lessons are translated into recommendations for social policies.

In the case studies we were interested in mapping people's experiences and situations in terms of inclusion and exclusion, both within and across the types of work under investigation. In terms of representativeness, we were interested in the variety and diversity of experiences and situations rather than in their precise frequency or incidence. A range of quantitative and qualitative research methods has been used to gather the empirical data.

In assessing the inclusionary potential of types of work and activation programmes, we did not use the usual, institutionally defined criteria for evaluation. That is, we did not focus on input–output ratios, savings on expenditures on income protection schemes, regular labour-market outflow of participants, and so on. Instead, we were interested in participants’ perspectives and priorities that can be, but certainly not always, similar to those of the institutions involved in activation. In fact, the tension between institutional aims and objectives on the one hand, and target groups’ or policy clients’ aims and objectives on the other was an important motivation for instigating INPART, and will be a core issue in our recommendations.