Supply-side approaches – active labour market policies and activation of the jobless

ALMPs aim to move unemployed working-age beneficiaries off their passive benefits, and into the labour market. The content of ALMPs differs from country to country, as do their underlying assumptions (Armingeon, Reference Armingeon2007; Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, Reference Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer2004; Immervoll and Scarpetta, Reference Immervoll and Scarpetta2012). Active Labour Market Programmes also differ in their focus on target groups (Kenworthy, Reference Kenworthy, Castles, Leibfried, Lewis, Obinger and Pierson2010: 438). In principle, the target group for ALMPs are the unemployed (or as framed in a workfare perspective, those receiving social benefits). In practice, those considered only short-term unemployed, with attractive skills and education in the labour market, are not seen as in need of help from Active Labour Market Programmes. Locking individuals into Active Labour Market Programmes can even be seen as detrimental to the ability of the short-term unemployed to secure paid employment at the own volition. The main target groups of ALMPs are therefore groups with low employment rates over time: women, low skilled or poorly educated individuals, the young, the disabled, immigrants, or those near the retirement age. A common trend in international activation across various regimes is the inclusion of new and more marginalised target groups in activation and labour market policies (van Berkel et al., Reference van Berkel, Caswell, Kupka and Larsen2017a).

Scholarly discussions about ALMPs and activation have produced several conceptualisations and classifications to describe policies (and/or activation approaches). Often the aim has been a comparison across countries intended to detect and explain cross-national variation (Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, Reference Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer2004; Bonoli, Reference Bonoli2010; Clasen and Clegg, Reference Clasen and Clegg2003, Reference Clasen and Clegg2006; Dingeldey, Reference Dingeldey2007, Fossati, Reference Fossati2017; van Berkel et al., Reference van Berkel, Caswell, Kupka and Larsen2017a). A widely used distinction is between approaches that mainly rely on incentives and sanctions, and approaches that advance human capital investment (Bonoli, Reference Bonoli2010, Reference Bonoli, Clasen and Clegg2011, Reference Bonoli, Morel, Palier and Palme2012; Brodkin and Marston, Reference Brodkin and Marston2013; Dingeldey, Reference Dingeldey2007; Filges et al., Reference Filges, Smedslund, Knudsen and Jørgensen2015; Kenworthy, Reference Kenworthy, Castles, Leibfried, Lewis, Obinger and Pierson2010; Lødemel and Moreira, Reference Lødemel and Moreira2014; Lødemel and Trickey, Reference Lødemel, Trickey, Lødemel and Trickey2001; Smedslund et al., Reference Smedslund, Dalsbø, Hagen, Johme, Rud and Steiro2006; Welshman, Reference Welshman, Fitzpatrick, Kwon, Manning, Midgley and Pascall2010; Williams, Reference Williams, Fitzpatrick, Kwon, Manning, Midgley and Pascall2010). This distinction is conceptualised in several different ways.

One conceptualization is between a liberal ideal-type of activation, which restricts itself to encouraging individuals to seek paid work, through the provision of quick information, simple matching services and short-term vocational training; and a universalistic type, which provides complex services to all citizens, while simultaneously guaranteeing relatively high standards of living (Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, Reference Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer2004). Another distinction is between workfare states and enabling states (Dingeldey, Reference Dingeldey2007). Workfare states place pressure on (or even compel) the unemployed, particularly welfare recipients to (re-)enter the labour market, even with low-income jobs. In contrast, enabling states form policies that involve social programmes aimed at enhancing human capital and helping the unemployed to adjust to labour market requirements, participate actively and take responsibility for themselves.

Yet another distinction can be seen between work-first approaches and human capital development (Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, McQuaid and Dutton2007). ‘Human capital’ is most commonly defined as ‘knowledge, skills, capabilities, competencies and other attributes embodied in individuals that are relevant to economic activity’ (Walker, Reference Walker, Fitzpatrick, Kwon, Manning, Midgley and Pascall2010). Human capital development approaches aim to develop such capacities in the jobless. ‘Work-first’ refers to programmes that focus on compulsory job seeking and short-term interventions to facilitate a quick return to paid work, rather than long-term tailored services to promote skills and personal development (Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, McQuaid and Dutton2007).

Eichhorst et al. (Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008: 6) introduced a similar distinction, in which demand-based approaches referred to putting pressure on the individual towards labour market integration by cutting the duration and level of benefits, tightening up availability criteria and sanctioning clauses, as well as through individual activity requirements. Other demanding elements can include restrictive definitions of suitable job offers, the monitoring of individual job search efforts, or mandatory participation in active labour market policy schemes (workfare) (Eichhorst et al., Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008).

Enabling approaches refer to policies aimed at improving individual employability and productivity and making jobless individuals more attractive to potential employers. Measures include classic active labour market policies such as job search assistance and job counselling, subsidised employment, startup and/or mobility grants, or fiscal pay incentives like wage supplements (Eichhorst et al., Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008).

More sophisticated distinctions exist (Bonoli, Reference Bonoli2010, Reference Bonoli, Clasen and Clegg2011, Reference Bonoli, Morel, Palier and Palme2012), but our aim is not to compare different supply-side approaches with each other. Rather, we compare supply-side approaches with demand-side and combined approaches and, for that purpose, we find the concepts of Eichhorst et al. (Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008) and the two broad categories of demanding (putting pressure on, forcing) and enabling (supporting, enhancing or facilitating) approaches useful.

The basis of demanding supply-side approaches is that economic incentives and sanctions are required in order to stimulate individuals to take up paid work, or else the individuals will make the rational choice to live on benefits. The more generous the benefit system, the more pronounced this (dis)incentive is likely to be. The aim of workfare policies is therefore to reinforce work ethics and reduce caseloads in the welfare system, to bring an increasing ‘dependency culture’ to an end (Kildal, Reference Kildal2001).

Enabling measures often involve social services such as case management and personalised support, psychological and social assistance, as well as childcare support, or even vocational training and education to enhance the human capital of the jobless (Eichhorst et al., Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008). The assumption behind enabling approaches is that the jobless need upskilling, training and support in order to become employable.

Within both enabling and demanding supply-side approaches, employment is primarily conceived of as the duty individuals have to provide for themselves in order to contribute to the welfare of society. However, ending unemployment is considered important to individuals not only in terms of income and earnings but also in terms of social inclusion and well-being (Eichhorst et al., Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008). The demands of the employers and the labour market are taken as given premises. Work-capacity is viewed as a characteristic of the individual. Supply-side programmes aim at helping jobless individuals adjust to and fulfil the demands of employers, or, in the case of the curtailing of benefits, assign responsibility to the recipients to take available jobs (Bonvin and Orton, Reference Bonvin and Orton2009). Furthermore, supply-side oriented approaches are based on a premise that available jobs exist.

A criticism of both enabling and demanding ALMPs is that they fail to deliver when it comes to inclusion of the most ‘hard-to-place’ individuals (Eichhorst et al., Reference Eichhorst, Kaufmann and Konle-Seidl2008: 441; Hauss, Reference Hauss2014; Martin, Reference Martin2015). ALMPs and activation programmes have also been criticised for being based on a ‘supply-side fundamentalism’ or ‘supply-side orthodoxy’, linking joblessness to individual failure and lack of employability, rather than structural changes and/or problems within the labour markets (Baumberg, Reference Baumberg2014; Bonvin and Galster, Reference Bonvin, Galster, Otto and Ziegler2010; Ingold and Stuart, Reference Ingold and Stuart2015: 446; Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, Greve, Cabras, Ellison and Kellett2015a; McQuaid and Lindsay, Reference McQuaid and Lindsay2005; Peck and Theodore, Reference Peck and Theodore2000; Raffass, Reference Raffass2017).

Demand-side policies: activation of employers

Attention to the impact of employers on the recruitment and retention of workers with disabilities can be found in research on the labour market opportunities of disabled people, and in discussions about disability policy, or occupational or vocational rehabilitation (Graffam et al., Reference Graffam, Shinkfield, Smith and Polzin2002; Gustafsson et al., Reference Gustafsson, Peralta and Danermark2014; Hvinden and Halvorsen, Reference Hvinden and Halvorsen2003; Kaye et al., Reference Kaye, Jans and Jones2011; Sainsbury et al., Reference Sainsbury, Coleman-Fountain, Trezzini, Halvorsen and Bickenbach2017). Although several kinds of measures are aimed at influencing actions of employers, as with the supply-side measures described previously, we distinguish between the two broad categories of demanding and enabling approaches, which of course in actual policies can be combined.

Demanding approaches include social regulations in the form of legal provisions, aimed at influencing employers’ decisions regarding recruitment, termination or advancement. These include legal obligations and requirements that place responsibilities on employers to avoid discrimination, provide equal opportunities, or to have a certain number (quota) of disabled workers in their work force (Greve, Reference Greve2009; Sainsbury et al., Reference Sainsbury, Coleman-Fountain, Trezzini, Halvorsen and Bickenbach2017). Anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, of which disability is one, meaning that legislation makes discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability illegal. The legislation also includes a duty on the side of the employer to provide ‘reasonable adjustment’ (UK-term) or ‘reasonable accommodation’ (US-term).

Such regulative approaches are based on the assumption that discrimination by employers gives rise to joblessness. These approaches are founded on civil rights and values, such as equal treatment and equal worth. Work – understood as employment or paid work – is perceived of as a right, belonging also to disabled people, although a right which many persons with disabilities are denied (Sainsbury et al., Reference Sainsbury, Coleman-Fountain, Trezzini, Halvorsen and Bickenbach2017). Understanding employment as a civil or human right implies that employment is a desirable and beneficial good.

In scholarly discussions about anti-discrimination legislation, an assumption appears present that employers will hire or retain an employee only if the benefits from doing so outweigh the costs (Bell and Heitmueller, Reference Bell and Heitmueller2009). Employers are thus modelled as rational actors whose actions are based on economic calculation of gains against costs (Schwochau and Blanck, Reference Schwochau and Blanck2000). Similar to benefit recipients, sanctions and enforcement are needed to press employers to contribute to the goal of labour market integration (Hvinden and Halvorsen, Reference Hvinden and Halvorsen2003).

For the purposes of this article, enabling approaches include financial incentive structures for employers as well as voluntary agreements and commitments encouraging a corporate culture that promotes diversity through progressive recruitment and accommodation measures within the workplace (Halvorsen and Hvinden, Reference Halvorsen and Hvinden2014). Incentives are measures that aim to reduce the assumed risks connected to employing workers perceived to be high-risk recruits, such as lack of productivity, skills, or competencies, or the need for extended follow-up in the workplace (by either managers or human resource management staff). Wage subsidies are forms of financial assistance given to employers who employ people with ‘reduced’ work-capacity, most often as temporary incentives, though sometimes as a permanent support. The aim is to lower the cost for employers. Wage subsidies are seen by employers as compensation for reduced productivity of lower skilled staff, and as a reduction of employment costs associated with hiring people with disabilities (Gustafsson et al., Reference Gustafsson, Peralta and Danermark2014). Likewise, funding for in-work training is an encouraging factor (Ingold and Stuart, Reference Ingold and Stuart2015: 452).

A range of other efforts also exist aimed at increasing employers’ willingness to include individuals that are marginalised in relation to the labour market by supporting, underpinning or stimulating employers’ own actions. They aim to motivate or address the efforts of employers to develop ‘equal opportunity policies’, and/or ‘diversity (or disability) management’ strategies, instigated by anti-discrimination legislation (Dobbin, Reference Dobbin2009), or efforts to align with ideas of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Barak, Reference Barak2000; Mandal and Ose, Reference Mandal and Ose2013). Diversity training and disability training to raise awareness of prejudice and enable employers to enhance diversity has become common practice in the corporate arena (Anand and Winters, Reference Anand and Winters2008). Increased focus is on ‘employer engagement’ in promoting the labour market participation of vulnerable groups as part of their human resource management (van Berkel et al., Reference van Berkel, Ingold, McGurk, Boselie and Bredgaard2017b).

Enabling measures can be seen as an answer to shortcomings of regulation, and increased attention to the ways in which corporate culture creates or reinforces obstacles to employment of marginalised groups: specifically how these obstacles can be removed or overcome (Schur et al., Reference Schur, Kruse and Blanck2005). Whereas anti-discrimination legislation can provide an entry ticket for jobless individuals into the labour market, investment in employers may help provide necessary changes at the workplaces to help them stay there. Ideas of diversity management and inclusive workplaces address organisations and employers directly to help in administering their employees. Such measures aim to address employers’ assumed moral values and feelings of responsibility, or a company's interest in improving its branding and customer loyalty, enhancing business performance, or presenting it as an attractive employer (Burgess et al., Reference Burgess, French and Strachan2009; van Berkel et al., Reference van Berkel, Ingold, McGurk, Boselie and Bredgaard2017b).

As with anti-discrimination legislation, the reasoning behind such enabling approaches is that discrimination and stigmatization give rise to joblessness. Labour market participation is perceived of as a human right, and employment as a desirable and beneficial good. While the target group of demand-side approaches is employers, those intended to benefit from these approaches are those who are marginalised in relation to the labour market. However, in line with a ‘business case’ reasoning it is argued that even employers can benefit from hiring, retaining, and accommodating individuals with disabilities. By adapting to the needs of workers with disabilities, they acquire quality employees, increase company profitability, avoid costs associated with re-hiring and training future employees, and improve the companies’ organisational culture and climate (Hartnett et al., Reference Hartnett, Stuart, Thurman, Loy and Batiste2011). In this kind of reasoning, diversity in the workforce is beneficial to the employer.

Within both kinds of demand-side approaches, the perception of employers is that they are transformable. Through regulations, obligations, financial incentives, appeals to values and profit maximising objectives, employers can be motivated to recruit or retain individuals whom they otherwise would have considered high-risk employees. Furthermore, demand-side approaches rest on an assumption that even jobless individuals who are considered high-risk employees have a work-capacity that can be made use of when stigmatizing prejudice is removed and reasonable accommodation is undertaken.

A criticism of social regulation geared towards employers is that there are not sufficient measures put in place to ensure that regulations are implemented or obeyed. While some critics emphasise the negative sanctioning of those employers who fail to undertake what is demanded of them, others underline also monitoring and funding (Barnes and Mercer, Reference Barnes and Mercer2005). Furthermore, the need to alter attitudes and combine anti-discrimination legislation with not only economic sanctions, but also social and cultural measures, is emphasised (Maroto and Pettinicchio, Reference Maroto and Pettinicchio2014; Stein and Stein, Reference Stein and Stein2007).

A criticism of enabling approaches is that they fail to deliver what they promise, in particular when it comes to disabled individuals. Equal opportunity policies and inclusive workplace declaration are referred to as ‘window dressing’; symbols of compliance, but decoupled from actual employer practices that exclude workers that do not fit with the ‘ideal worker’ (Edelman, Reference Edelman2016; Foster and Wass, Reference Foster and Wass2013; Hoque and Noon, Reference Hoque and Noon2004). Although employers may describe positive attitudes towards people with disabilities these attitudes are not reflected in actual recruitment practice, and a minority of employers are committed to active involvement in labour market inclusion (Bredgaard, Reference Bredgaard2017; Burke et al., Reference Burke, Bezyak, Fraser, Pete, Ditchman and Chan2013; Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Keys and Balcazar2000). Furthermore, disability is linked to individual defects rather than social conditions, and inclusion is therefore not seen as the responsibility of the whole workplace (Dobusch, Reference Dobusch2017).

Another criticism is that anti-discrimination legislation, wage subsidies, and individual rights to accommodation are based on an individual model of disability – understanding disability as an individual deficit or in terms of lost productivity (as supply-side approaches also do), rather than as socially or structurally created as in the social model of disability (Barnes, Reference Barnes2000; Lunt and Thornton, Reference Lunt and Thornton1994). Furthermore, a criticism of both demand and supply-side approaches towards employment of disabled people is that the policies are based on a hegemonic discourse with an implicit orthodox association of work with waged labour and paid employment. Such an association contributes to a systematic exclusion of people with impairments, because barriers linked to the social organisation of the labour market is rarely touched upon (Barnes, Reference Barnes2000; Barnes and Mercer, Reference Barnes and Mercer2005; Grover and Piggott, Reference Grover and Piggott2015a). Rather than promoting equality through labour market participation, there is a need for a fundamental re-evaluation of different forms of human activity and for a reconceptualisation of the meaning of work (Barnes and Mercer, Reference Barnes and Mercer2005). Researchers have also argued that a ‘right to work’ for people with disabilities, should be complemented with a ‘right not to work’ (Grover and Piggott, Reference Grover, Piggott, Grover and Piggott2015b).

Supported employment: combining supply- and demand-side components

Lindsay et al. (Reference Lindsay, Greve, Cabras, Ellison and Kellett2015b) point towards the need for a new policy agenda in order to reach sustainable employment for vulnerable populations: in order to meet the complex barriers to work and social inclusion, there is a need to address both ‘health limitations and disability, but also structural labour market and workplace factors’ (Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, Greve, Cabras, Ellison and Kellett2015b: 141). Within the field of vocational rehabilitation for the disabled, approaches to labour market integration have been developed with some of the most disadvantaged groups in mind, for example those with developmental disabilities, autism, or severe mental illness. The major target groups are those whom employers consider risky to employ for a number of reasons (Kaye et al., Reference Kaye, Jans and Jones2011). This development has taken place seemingly in isolation from social policy, activation policies or ALMPs.

One of these approaches is ‘Supported Employment’ (SE). The term ‘supported employment’ refers to both a type of employment status and to a type of employment programme (Bond, Reference Bond2004). Bond et al. (Reference Bond, Becker, Drake, Rapp, Meisler, Lehman, Bell and Blyler2001) defines SE as an ‘approach to helping people with disabilities participate as much as possible in the competitive labour market, working in jobs they prefer with the level of professional help they need’ (Reference Bond, Becker, Drake, Rapp, Meisler, Lehman, Bell and Blyler2001: 313). While rapid labour market integration is a major characteristic of this approach, according to its adherents, advocates of SE aim wider and describe SE as a ‘true way to help those with disabilities who are unable to successfully gain or retain employment on their own to enter the labor force with dignity and inclusion with others in society’ (Wehman, Reference Wehman2012: 139).

SE developed as a reaction to (supply-side) ‘train-place’ models that dominated the field of vocational rehabilitation in the 1980s (Drake et al., Reference Drake, Bond and Becker2012). Such stepwise vocational rehabilitation models assumed that individuals would benefit ‘from some form of training, instruction, or practice in a protected setting before entering a competitive work role’ (Drake et al., Reference Drake, Bond and Becker2012: 24). Contrary to this perspective, pioneers of SE described SE as a ‘place-train’ approach to vocational rehabilitation (Bond et al., Reference Bond, Drake, Mueser and Becker1997; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Bond and Becker2012). They aimed to demonstrate that the approach of seeking rapid placement into competitive employment followed by specifically targeted job training and support was superior to pre-employment ‘train-place’ approaches. SE represents a shift away from a gradual and stepwise process, where individual characteristics were considered important predictors of vocational rehabilitation success, towards an approach where there is a focus on the vocational services being provided (Waghorn et al., Reference Waghorn, Lloyd and Clune2009).

Supported Employment has developed into different versions. Current versions of SE include an 8-principle model called Individual Placement and Support (IPS), a five-stage process developed by the European Union of Supported Employment (EUSE – a Non-Government Organisation that was established in 1993 to develop SE throughout Europe), and a model called Customized Employment (CE). Among the SE-models, IPS is the most evaluated. Three recent reviews describe IPS as an emerging approach as most studies have been published within the last 15 years (Bonfils et al., Reference Bonfils, Hansen, Dalum and Eplov2017; Kinoshita et al., Reference Kinoshita, Furukawa, Kinoshita, Honyashiki, Omori, Marshall, Bond, Huxley, Amano and Kingdon2013; Rinaldi et al., Reference Rinaldi, Miller and Perkins2010).

One vital characteristic of all SE-approaches is that participation is based on client choice and on the willingness of the jobless individual to find and hold a job (Drake et al., Reference Drake, Bond and Becker2012; EUSE, 2014). They all aim at competitive employment by rapid job search and individualized support from job-coaches or employment specialists. Rather than acting as intermediaries who merely provide information about jobseekers to organisations and about vacancies to people looking for a job (Ingold and Valizade, Reference Ingold and Valizade2017), they collaborate closely with the employers and provide them with sufficient support to contribute to the integration of the disabled workers (EUSE, 2014: 31–33). Customized Employment goes even further into the workplaces to ‘carve out’ or create jobs suitable for the individuals with disabilities (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Hammis, Geary and Sullivan2008). CE is described as a ‘person-centred’ approach that begins with identifying a person's needs, aspirations, talents and skills. Job carving is a strategy that aims to move beyond the demands of job descriptions that might be out of reach for some job seekers (Callahan et al., Reference Callahan, Griffin and Hammis2011).

SE represents approaches that claim that neither supply side nor demand side approaches alone are sufficient to achieve successful integration. Instead, their supporters argue that predictors of vocational success are found in the quality of job matching and in the support from employment specialists to both the employer and the employee in finding jobs or work tasks that represent a match between the interests and skills of the employee and the needs of the employer (EUSE, 2014; Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Hammis, Geary and Sullivan2008). That is why we term them ‘combined’ approaches.

The support system in such approaches is characterised by simultaneous synchronous interventions from several agencies, depending on the challenges of the individual. These interventions target the employee, their co-workers and employer, and aim to facilitate productive and sustainable jobs, which is why we term them ‘workplace oriented’.

Work-capacity is understood as the result of successful job matching, collaboration and coordination between employer, employee and involved support services. In this way, it is understood as a process and as a relational concept, rather than being viewed as a ‘characteristic of the individual’. Work in this instance refers to employment in the ordinary labour market, with competitive wages, and not sheltered employment or sheltered workshops. Integration rather than segregation is a vital dimension of SE (Lunt and Thornton, Reference Lunt and Thornton1994), as supported employment in the ordinary labour market is seen as a reaction to previous policies that segregated many disabled people into special employment programmes. In line with scholars in other fields, SE proponents consider work and well-matched labour market participation beneficial to health and well-being (Waddell and Burton, Reference Waddell and Burton2006). Furthermore, work is seen as a route to possible recovery from mental illness (Corrigan and McCracken, Reference Corrigan and McCracken2005; Tew et al., Reference Tew, Ramon, Slade, Bird, Melton and Le Boutillier2012), as well as to normalisation and equality (Tyree et al., Reference Tyree, Kendrick and Block2011; Wehman, Reference Wehman2012; Wilson, Reference Wilson2003). Workplaces are viewed as flexible, transformable, and adjustable to the needs of employees if, and when, sufficient support is provided.

Combined workplace-oriented approaches seem to quickly address workplaces, but also to combine work placement with long-term support at these workplaces. They primarily include enabling strategies for both the jobless individuals and the employers. Job search assistance, wage supplements and personalised support are common ingredients. In a similar manner, SE-approaches geared towards employers contain enabling elements, including wage subsidies and support in order to help them manage diversity and disability in their workplace, with the goal of increasing their willingness to include marginalised individuals. However, demanding approaches towards employers in the form of legal regulations also seem to be accepted within combined workplace-oriented approaches.

Criticism of combined workplace-oriented approaches addresses inadequate implementation of some central components. Two recent reviews have focused on implementation problems related to attitudes among involved stakeholders. Key hindrances included: fear on the part of professionals, individuals and their families that employment would have a negative impact on well-being; a culture of low expectations, underestimating skills and capabilities; a failure to provide the ‘place-train’ support; problematic collaboration with mental health services; and not enough time to secure local implementation and leadership support (Bonfils et al., Reference Bonfils, Hansen, Dalum and Eplov2017; Rinaldi et al., Reference Rinaldi, Miller and Perkins2010). Numerous studies documenting employer scepticism towards employment of people with disabilities (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Bezyak, Fraser, Pete, Ditchman and Chan2013; Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Keys and Balcazar2000), point to challenges in engaging employers through an approach that does not involve legal demands. In addition, to provide the resource-demanding support necessary to develop sustainable jobs for vulnerable groups is costly and places huge responsibilities on the shoulders of frontline workers.

There is also criticism of the importance placed on mainstream employment, understood as ‘real’ or ‘normal’ jobs. This is on the grounds that, for individuals with learning difficulties, cognitive impairments or developmental disabilities, support will be insufficient to compensate their degree of impairment to the extent that they will be able to perform all the required tasks of a ‘real job’ (Wilson, Reference Wilson2003). Grover and Piggott (Reference Grover and Piggott2013) also criticise the insistence on the benefit of paid jobs for all. This criticism applies to all labour market integration approaches, arguing that such a view results in shaming and a treatment of those out of work as idle and of low worth (Grover and Piggott, Reference Grover and Piggott2013: 373).

Comparing supply-side, demand-side and combined workplace-oriented approaches

Supply-side, demand-side and combined workplace-oriented approaches all share the aim of work integration of jobless individuals. They have some common components, but differ with respect to others.

Combined workplace-oriented approaches and demand-side approaches (present in anti-discrimination legislation) share a perception of employment as the normal state of participation in society. Therefore, equal access to participation in the labour market is framed as a matter of civil rights. Supply-side approaches, however, conceive of work as a duty to provide for oneself. Combined workplace-oriented approaches share the perception of labour market participation as an opportunity to enhance social inclusion, well-being and self-respect with supply-side approaches. Furthermore, combined workplace-oriented approaches share the aim of developing inclusive workplaces with demand-side approaches. Combined workplace-oriented and demand-side approaches thus share the view that both employers and workplaces are transformable. In combined workplace-oriented approaches, labour market integration is accomplished through collaborating with and supporting employers. In this respect, the concept of employers diverges from the concept contained in anti-discrimination legislation, namely that employers need to be persuaded through regulation to employ jobless people with disabilities. While regulation is also included in combined workplace-oriented approaches, it is not regarded as sufficiently encouraging. Combined workplace-oriented approaches also contain incentives similar to those present in enabling demand-side approaches (such as wage subsidies).

With the exception of demanding supply-side approaches that primarily address the (lack of) willingness of the unemployed population to seek employment, all the other approaches described here operate on the assumption that a gap exists between the work-capacity or employability of the jobless, and the requirements of the labour market and employers. Supply-side approaches locate the solution to this gap solely on the side of the jobless individuals, and demand-side approaches place the solution on the side of employers. In combined workplace-oriented approaches, however, joblessness and reduced work-capacity are seen as consequences of this gap between the resources (capacities) of the jobless and the demands from employers and the labour market. In order to close the gap, the human capital of the jobless must be enhanced and the demands of employers must be adjusted. This adjustment can be achieved by matching individuals and work tasks. The focus therefore shifts from the individuals and their ‘un-employability’, or failure to live up to the demands of the labour market, to a strategy that addresses the employer as well as the individual; one in which support services play a vital role, a need which van Berkel et al. (Reference van Berkel, Ingold, McGurk, Boselie and Bredgaard2017b) also address.

Combined workplace-oriented approaches aim to close the gap by altering the perceptions of employers, and by creating or developing jobs with demands that jobless individuals are capable of fulfilling. They accomplish this through the identification or creation of tasks that represent a fit between the skills of the jobless and the demands of the work tasks. Furthermore, if job matching does not close the gap between the capacity of the individual and the needs of the employer, wage subsidies or reduced working hours typify additional appropriate measures.

Rather than taking the existence of a demand-driven labour market as a given premise, the combined approaches adopted from the disability field and vocational rehabilitation presume that it is possible (with high-quality support) to intervene in the organisation of workplaces and the attitudes of employers. They suggest that the structure, culture and values that exist within the labour market can be reshaped, and that sustainable jobs can be developed with disadvantaged jobseekers in mind. In this way, such approaches combine supply-side and demand-side measures as a strategy that uses workplaces as instruments of integration. Furthermore, they address larger goals of social inclusion, normalisation, social role valorisation, equality and equal worth in a more comprehensive way than supply-side and demand-side measures do.