The summer edition of the SYSDEM Trends (no. 32. 1999) gives its undivided attention the issue of these groups, which are excluded not only as "strangers", "the others" etc. living in a unfamiliar society but as well from their efforts to integrate themselves into these societies. Besides a global overview the situation in the 15 member states of the EU is outlined.

Under this heading we published in the September update a note on a series of conferences and workshop meetings, which take place in preparation of the Swedish Presidency in early 2001. One of the recent workshops was titled Child care, domestic services, employment and gender equality (Brussels, June 1999) The debate concentrated on the role of child care services in regard of making women’s participation in the labour market possible. The actual interesting results concentrated, however, not least on a slightly different issue, namely the cultural understanding of child care services particularly in the Nordic countries, the UK, France and Germany. In regard of the employment issue the question had been raised if the new employment opportunities, which are created especially in Germany in the domestic sector are valuable at all. The question had been ‘Are they mainly to be seen as a new way of discriminating against women by locking them into reproduction, enabling them neither to take part in the labour market on equal terms or to be equal in their own homes?’ (quoted from the summary: 4)

Experts from all over Europe gathered in Delft this week to discuss the new economy. They designed local action plans for creating sustainable jobs and businesses.

The new social economy or third system addresses neglected needs and delivers services that are not met by the mainstream economy. The third system regards the economy, the community and environment as equally important. It operates whenever disadvantaged groups are to be found, it does not depend solely on private or public funding and it emphasises smallness of scale, innovativeness and partnership.

The following key points were reported during the closing session of the meeting on Friday 24:

* the third system offers sustainable local economic development

* the flexibility of Third System can help to generate jobs

* the third system provides work of real community benefits

From 18 to 24 September 40 young professionals, including third system practitioners, coming from 12 different EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) gathered in Delft (the Netherlands) for a seven-day summer school. The objectives of the summer school were:

* to enable the participants to learn from each other's experience in the development of third system management and in devising action plans for local sustainable jobs

* to develop further third system networking around Europe

* to recognise that local economic development can also strengthen communities and enhance the environment

The programme of the summer school, organised by the IIUE and INTA consisted of experts' presentations followed by working groups.

The summer school covered issues such as:

* objectives and action plan-making (presentations and cases from Italy, Bath, Finland and Belgium)

* the conceptual background of third system (presentations and cases from Ireland, the International Labour Organisation, the UK and the European Commission)

* building partnership and support structures (presentations from the European Commission DG XXIII, Germany and the UK)

* funding instruments for third system (presentations INAISE and the Industrial Common Ownership Finance)

* communication and marketing (presentations from Manchester, Bath, Venice, Genoa, Leicester and West Yorkshire)

Seminal keynote addresses were given by Wim Hafkamp, who led a national expert group to advise the Netherlands Government on integration of ecology and economy, and Marius de Geus, University of Leiden, author of "Ecological Utopias".

"I have been impressed by how hard the group worked, how the course increased the professionals' understanding of the potential of the third system" said Steve Wheeler from Bath and North East Somerset Council.

"It was evident that EC and national governments are anxious to involve people with decisions about the future of local communities, these professionals will have greater insight and a range of instruments for empowering local communities" said Michel Sudarskis, the course co-director and secretary general of INTA.

"Presentations by five working groups have revealed the importance of participation and partnership in local development, which integrates higher living standards with healthier and more attractive environments" said Tjeerd Deelstra, the course co-director and director of IIUE.

On Friday 24 the International Institute for the Urban Environment (IIUE) also celebrates its 10th Anniversary together with the diploma ceremony at the Wallonian Church in Delft.

The IIUE is an independent organisation with expertise and experience in the field of sustainable urban development. IIUE aims towards sustainable urban development in which a pleasant home and work environment are created without having too great an impact on the natural environment.

The activities of the IIUE concentrate on three main themes:

* sustainable living and working within the city

* environmentally sound (urban) development

* policy instruments for sustainability

INTA is an International Association of public and private organisations and individuals dedicated to promoting and improving urban development. INTA focuses its programme on shaping appropriate policy for urban development and regeneration. The Association promotes the sharing of information and experience through conferences, study tours, the publication of documentation and advisory services.

The Summer School concluded an European Commission (DG Employment and Social Affairs) supported project, in which seven local communities co-operated to develop and test the Third System concept. These seven are Bath, Genoa, Leicester, Leipzig, Lundby, Venice and West Yorkshire.

Recently Aghabullogue – the little village in the south of the Republic of Ireland – launched with support of ESOSC a homepage on the World Wide Web. The role of the Institute had been just an initial one, aiming on the provision of a framework for further work in particular of the children of the National School. After consultation with the headmaster of the school it had been agreed upon an approach, which combines

* the exploration of the natural and social environment (including the history of the place in its societal embedding);

* the inclusion of the local population as information providers and as consumers;

* the presentation of the information on the Internet and via print media, presentations in the village or similar methods (by far not everybody has a PC and let alone all are connected to the Internet);

* localisation of children living in a very remote area and at the same time near to a rapidly urbanising district in a larger world by continuing appreciation of the community, and supporting a sustainable development of the area (and, actually, the own life);

* finally the co-operation with schools in other countries all over the world – which of course means the building up of targeted partnerships between schools.

Even the aims are ambitious and could well be positioned in a professional approach the project is not to be understood as an issue of professional social intervention. Thus the voluntary engagement of ESOSC had been mainly limited on the support of initiating the site and thus presenting a frame for further own efforts of the local citizens, which can well be activated to develop the locality. And of course, we are glad if we can be of further assistance on such a level of support.

One point in this regard is that up to now transnational partnership only exists as idea respectively wish. If anybody is interested to go into such a co-operation we are delighted for any expression of interest. And of course, as Europeans we feel that any European perspective means to be open to co-operation with non-EU countries alike – and in fact, every expression from wherever in the world is highly appreciated. A problem might be that the pupils only speak Irish and English. Thus the pupils of a partnering school would have to have basic language skills probably in English. This might be seen as constraint. Nevertheless, a second consideration can easily make out the advantage to strengthen the teaching of the English language.

I Anthony Barnes Atkinson: Poverty in Europe. Oxford/Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers (http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk), 1998 (Yrjö Jahnsson Lectures)

II The End of the Welfare State? Responses to state retrenchment. Eds: Stefan Svallfors/Peter Taylor-Gooby. London/New York: Routledge, 1999 (Routledge/ESA Studies in European Society) ISBN 0-415-20771-1

III European Societies. Fusion or Fission?. Eds.: Thomas P.Boje/Bart van Steenbergen/Sylvia Walby. London/New York: Routledge, 1999 (Routledge/ESA Studies in European Society) ISBN 0-415-19843-7

IV From social exclusion to social integration. Final Report of a research project by the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW). European Region. Project Co-ordination: Linda Horn. Helsinki undated (1999)

V Linking Welfare and Work. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Dublin 1999. ISBN 92-828-5387-X. (contact: teresa.renehan@eurofound.ie or postmaster@eurofound.ie respectively)

VI Brian Nolan/Christopher T Whelan: Loading the Dice? A Study of Cumulative Disadvantage. Dublin: Oak Tree Press in association with Combat Poverty Agency, 1999. ISBN 1-86076-144-5 (http://www.oaktreepress.com and http://www.cpa.ie)

VII Local Partnerships for social exclusion? Jim Walsh et.al. Dublin: Oak Tree Press in association with Combat Poverty Agency, 1999. ISBN 1-86076-119-4 (http://www.oaktreepress.com)

VIII Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): A caring world. The new Social Policy Agenda. Paris: OECD, 1999

IX "Piazza Grande’s laboratories" between work and social action. Pilot action "Third System and Employment" – DG V. Project Leader: Association "Amici die Piazza Grande". Partners: Cile-CGIL and Iress soc.coop.. Eds.: Alessandro Martelli, Maria Teresa Tagliaventi, Paolo Zurla. Milano: FrancoAngeli s.r.l., 1999 (Sociologia del lavoro. Teorie e ricerche). ISBN 88-464-1654-6 (http://www.francoangeli.it)

X Policies for Low Wage Employment and Social Exclusion. Eds.: Claudio Lucifora/Wiemer Salverda (LoWER. European Low-Wage Employment Research Network). Milano: FrancoAngeli s.r.l., 1998, ISBN 88-464-1101-3 (http://www.francoangeli.it and http://www.eco.rug.nl/lower.html)

XI Professions, New Public Management and the European Welfare State. Eds.: Mike Dent/Maggie O’Neill/Carl Bagley. Stoke-on-Trent. Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Press, 1999. ISBN 1 897898 46 0 (contact: C.L.Mason@staffs.ac.uk)

XII Transnational Social Policy. Ed.: Catherine Jones Finer Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1999 (First published as a special issue of Social Policy & Administration. Vol. 32/5. December 1998)

It seems to be somewhat puzzled – on the one hand there is a permanent complain about the lack of a social policy which takes the crossing of frontiers as a positive element and as potential into account. Thus an original EU-social policy (let alone a world social policy) is far out of reach. On the other hand the field of a EU-/world social agenda, a seedbed for social issues and even a European social regime is nevertheless already a very complex field rather than only in embryonic form on the agenda. In fact, scientific research, (by scientific work informed) political visions and political practice alike are well on the way. It is strange enough that the critique is sometimes so tightly caught in a ‘positive vision’ that the existing approach is not seen just as undesirable, fateful and imposing the whole system under threat. Instead it is for many times said that a cross-border and/or international social policy simply doesn’t exist.

As said it is a very complex field, indeed. And thus the literature, which realises the international dimension, is complex alike. This means in particular that it is necessary to approach the issue from various and different angles. Mostly there is in the existing literature a kind of fear to paint a complex picture, which reflects fundamentally the interweaving of the different levels. Of course, it is not simply a fear on subjective grounds but a consequence of the high differentiation of the social sciences. Nevertheless, the differentiation brings a paradox consequence with it. The borders between different disciplines, in broad terms namely political science, sociology and social work/social pedagogy are eroding more and more and are blurred. And in part this even true for organisational respectively sciences of administration (and to a lesser extent economics and law). To mention these difficulties right at the beginning is not to say that this is solely a negative development. Instead there are advantages and disadvantages of the lack of such generalist approaches, a missing grand theory and the high specialisation and differentiation. To mention it only means that caution is necessary not to take the tree for the forest.

An adequate starting point is probably the work on concrete problems respectively challenges as any social action is confronted with. Three v books of our list here are in particular concerned with these issues. Poverty is in one or another form at the centre stage of concern. It has especially to be mentioned here that in the literature of social science there are two major distinguishing marks. First and foremost poverty and social exclusion is a matter of original concern rather than being seen as a simple appendix of the debate on (un-)employment. The latter view is, however, taken by the most official announcements – beginning latest with the Essen summit in 1994 the official EU (social) policy is more and more narrow minded concerned only with (un-)employment, linking any other issue of ‘the social’ to this moment. Even if we won’t object in any way the importance of the matter of employment it is important to recognise the meaning of poverty and exclusion issues "in their own right". As close as the connection between unemployment and poverty is it is by no mean the only issue. And this is – in general – a fact, which is more or less out of debate in social science. Second scholars of poverty and exclusion – and in tendency social policy issues in general – are more and more aware of the actors.

Nevertheless, even if some fundamental consensus is reached the battleground is still open for review of the details.

A broad discussion of the poverty debate particularly in regard of the measurement of poverty is undertaken by Atkinson (I). The author himself favours an approach which is based minimum rights, in part modelled on Sen’s capability concept. According Sen ‘poverty is an absolute notion in the space of capabilities but very often it will take relative form in the space of commodities or characteristics.’ (26; Sen quoted)

Atkinson is mainly concerned about the methodical questions, in other words the questions which indicators should be taken for exactly which definition of poverty. Part of this is as well to draw a border between poverty, social exclusion and inequality, the drawing of national and/or Europe-wide standards or the question of defining a minimum standard. However, in focusing on methodological and measurement problems doesn’t neglect to provide interesting substantial insights in the development of poverty in the recent past. And this makes the book a very important contribution for the further debate on an issue, which becomes more and more important again. Atkinson combines in an excellent way substantial issues on the national level with those in a EUropean perspective. And at the same time he combines these substantial debates with the definitional and measurement issues. Many of those who followed the debate on poverty in the recent years will know too well that there had been always the negative tension between boring discussions of methods and the somewhat unsatisfactory dealing with substantial poverty issues – unsatisfactory because of an unclear and even dubious methodological basis. Atkinson – as economist – overcomes this difficulties and makes clear that a clear definition and the pointing out of all implications for and of measurement are not least a political issue. He himself – and I agree fully – comes to the conclusion that only a wider range of poverty lines can serve the interest in an analysis, which enlightens the debate of the complexity of the problem. In other words the complexity and the relativity of the problem itself has to be reflected in the definition itself. Thus, it is closely connected with the minimal rights approach.

In particular the problem of complexity is focused by Nolan and Whelan (VI). However, the approach goes beyond many other undertakings in the field. Instead of simply describing the multidimensionality as a more or less unconnected coexistence of various factors the authors here are concerned with just the interconnections between the different factors. ‘This study has critically examined the thesis that emerging patterns of cumulative disadvantage produce outcomes relating to marginalisation and social exclusion which are qualitatively different from traditional patterns of class stratification. We have distinguished between two different but related concepts of cumulative disadvantage. The first relates to accumulation of disadvantage over time, and the second relates to the notion that geographical concentration of disadvantage generates vicious circle processes whereby existing individual or household disadvantages are reinforced by neighbourhood effects.’ (109)

The introduction of Goldthorpe’s class schema is – coming from a classical sociological approach – a little bit confusing because it is actually blurring the lines between class and social strata. The advantage of this easy manner of mixing different approaches (which, actually can be traced back to Max Weber’s introduction of his definition of classes) is the stress of the fact that poverty and social exclusion are interwoven and that there is no border between both phenomena. ‘While learning from these debates, our view is that distinctions between the concepts of poverty and social exclusion have often been rather too sharply drawn. Discussions of poverty have focused primarily on lack of resources, while those relating to social exclusion have directed attention more towards barriers to full participation in society.’ (18)

Above all the debate on the term of classes and strata is, of course, a different debate. Nevertheless, the immediate relevance comes to the fore when the authors discuss for example the question of the working poor.

An implicit result of the study is the following: the in many cases unexpectedly close results for social groups (namely unskilled and skilled manual workers and employed and unemployed people) mark the importance to overcome the strict division between poverty and social exclusion and, moreover, to consider a swift to measure deprivation instead of poverty according to any poverty lines. This becomes clear as well because Nolan and Whelan can draw on figures over a longer period (ESRI 1987 survey of household income and 1994 Living in Ireland Survey).

By the way, such an orientation would well relate to Atkinson’s minimum rights approach and to Sen’s stress of capabilities as mentioned above.

"Piazza Grande" is first and foremost the name of a streetpaper in Bologna; furthermore it is at the same time a synonym for a wider social approach to combat poverty and overcome social exclusion. As such it is a specific combination of social movement, setting up an alternative economic structure and fitting this into the mainstream economy (IX).

In this book it is made especially and pleasantly clear that we are concerned with a field of various actors. These are basically

* those whose life is shaped by negative economic and social conditions;

* those who set the general framework for economic developments and social policy and who develop concrete measures in the respective field on whichever level;

* those who develop a field for and of action in immediate contact (and with immediate participation with those mentioned at first;

* the public in general;

* and not least the researchers who not just look at what is going on in any field but shape it as well.

Especially in the case study here the latter is important not only as the research approaches a social field already with specific pre-interpretations etc. Rather the here presented study is concerned with an approach of active participation in and support of the project. This is not only important to note as fact of sociology of knowledge. The book thus comprises interesting elaboration of the role of the researchers who are concerned not only with participating observation but as well with a ex ante trust in the specific and valued capabilities of those who are poor, excluded and in this case in particular homeless. Social research, thus, is being obliged to gain a reflexive approach – what postmodernists always challenge and speak about without undertaking it – here a group of scholars simply does it.

Following this approach a theoretically guiding question is formulated in a chapter under ‘The experience of an active minority: cultural and communicative aspects’ (by Pina Lalli): ‘But then, in spite of the fact that it is now possible to see a large number of "poor" in the street, what is it that prevents us from looking at them as people like us? What, in daily life. Prevents us from seeing them as legitimate subjects, entitled to rights and what, instead, makes them appear as a mere index of "urban degeneration" that we generally ask to remove, take out of our sight brushing past them? Maybe precisely the fact that we would expect, once again, a specialised "somebody" to take care of them and to take them away from our disgusted glance.’ (124)

An important consequence of the approach is thus the specific ease with which the book combines the different dimensions of a project, which aims at the improvement of the living conditions. Namely we find a bulk on information on

* the socio-political level;

* the dimension of social work;

* the work of building a sustainable framework and working therein

combined with a view on the different levels of political responsibilities. Thus, even if mainly concerned with the micro level of a (large scale) local project there is a good deal of discussion of the European dimension as well as on the ‘street paper approach’.

What I personally appreciated when I read the book, coming myself not least from the analysis of poverty research in the EU framework (so called EU-[anti-]poverty programmes), is the detailed description of the project with elements like street paper, night shelter, temporary lodging, waste collection and recycling, Street Jazz as self-employment in the area of music and entertainment. Form this side we find several chances and obstacle in developing the necessary organisational framework, which was based on the co-operative idea (including the strict principle of democratic participation). However, the report doesn’t leave off here. Instead it is combined with the analysis of the overall setting, which coins the life of the people under consideration: ‘In disadvantaged subjects the construction of identity is not linked to the excessive possibility of choice for development and role taking (which paradoxically leads to increasing uncertainty and disorientation), but it is mainly configured with reference to the limits of these opportunities, to the impossibility of experiencing the multiple collocations.

Identity is more based on "not being there", on absence, on needs, rather than on belonging, roles, or the relationships with other meaningful elements. In this context of "un-belonging", the non profit group Piazza Grande places itself as an "interstice" of social life, a space "between" subjects and society because, as a meeting place, it once again allows the comparison with others and with otherness.’ (Miaria Teresa Tagliaventi: 94)

The concept of an intermediary role for non profit respectively 3^rd sector organisations is partly replaced by an approach of filling an interstice. This includes a higher degree of autonomy, a higher respect for the own value and alternative capabilities of the chosen approach. The interconnection with the mainstream society and economy is not abandoned; nevertheless the simple integration in to the mainstream is not set as the last end or even as end in itself. The progress in regard of social and individual life is clearly pointed out – even if the problem remains that it is limited to the local dimension. Thus and more broadly the authors point in the final remarks on the serious danger: ‘This "case" in some ways reveals the not unlikely danger that projects for the fight against marginalisation might actually weaken the commitment against social injustices. In this way they would be reduced to nothing more than a measure which attempts to ease the hardship caused by phenomena which have already shown their dramatic effects in cutting social connections and casting a group of individuals out of the community.’ (199)

Andrea Lassandari markedly formulates this aspect, namely the connection with the wider social and political system and the acceptance of political responsibility. She writes ‘Piazza Grande, however, represents also an alarm bell: it signals a system which prefers to favour hiring of executives rather than of disadvantaged people, and which devotes attention to the latter especially within policies and initiatives concerning the public order: profound alteration of the welfare logic. It is that approach which, instead of devoting a greater attention to absolutely the weakest people, protects exclusively those who are within reach of the political, electoral game: democracy, in brief, is slowly turning into tyranny.’ (178)

Thus, seen in a wider context the book well lines up with the elaboration of definitional problems and the capability approach as mentioned above (see in this context as well: Herrmann, Peter: Die weite Welt der Ausgrenzung. Erfahrungen aus der Programmarbeit gegen Armut und Ausgrenzung [The Wide World of Exclusion. Experiences from the EU-programme-approach Combating Poverty and Exclusion]. [European Social Impulses, 2] Aghabullogue: ESOSC-publications, forthcoming)

From here we find a turn off to more general issues of social and welfare policy and, even more, to the debate on welfare regimes and social orders of the welfare state. The point in question here is first and foremost the assumption of major changes and challenges. These are at least permanently mentioned, even without pointing clearly and systematically on their character. Hard data go hand in hand with soft data, with approaches pointing on developing emerging different life styles etc. What makes the assessment particularly difficult is not just the variety of the changes but (a) their interconnectedness and (b) the insecurity in regard of the impact of some objective indicators. Moreover, in some cases there are indicators contradicting each other. For instance we are confronted with the increasing number of old and very old people – thus indicating a rise in demand for care. However, on the other side there is the opposing development of a positive development of good health even in the later years of life. Many other examples could be taken from the OECD-study on the Caring world (VIII), and besides the changes due to demographic changes (especially the quantitative and in particular qualitative shift in the dependency ratio) the development of the gender relationship and public behaviour of women (rise in the employment rate, single parent [mainly: mother] households etc.) is characterised as complex and in itself contradicting field.

Nevertheless, the elder people had been taken at the first stance because the report states the generally improved life situation of this group of the population. This goes so far that the report even concludes: ‘This points to the need to adapt social programmes to address shifts in the incidence of low income and poverty among the different population groups. Poverty in old age has been reduced, but remains significant in some countries. A general reduction in public pension programmes may not always be called for. However, there is a case for refocusing resources away from wealthier retired households towards the groups with emerging needs (in particular, families with children).’ (79) (Coincidentally I just come across a German study on the importance of the elderly in economic terms: Der ältere Mensch als Wirtschaftsfaktor. Erstellt im Rahmen der Universität des 3. Lebensalters an der Universität Frankfurt/M.. Robert-Mayer-Strasse 5. Postfach 111932. FRG 60054 Frankfurt/M. Ph.: +353.(0)69.79823084. Telecopie: +353.(0)69.79828975. u3l@uni-frankfurt.de).

The quote marks the openness of the OECD-report and at the same time a major obstacle. The latter is simply the high aggregation of the figures (see for a broad hint: 69 f.), which allow only for broad – and sometimes too broad – descriptions of the social situation.

Nevertheless, the openness makes up for much of the shortfall. This is true for two reasons especially. First we find the frank debate on contradictions and problems of a class society, which many people thought and think as overcome. The document points on the fact that in all countries many of these "old class society features" persist and in some cases even get worse (e.g. 18 in regard of the right for privacy, 32 – social status and health; 66f. – distribution of disposable income). From here on we find as well the important reference in regard of the so called time of poverty, as it dominates the poverty discussion since the study at the University of Bremen. Rather then supporting the meanwhile widely spread thesis of the overwhelmingly short term character of poverty we learn ‘By focusing on low-paid workers at a single point in time, these static measures underestimate the poverty risk faced by low-paid workers. As shown in OECD (1997f), whilst for many low pay is a transitory phenomenon, with a low-paid job being a stepping-stone to higher earnings, the risk of being chronically low-paid or cycling between no pay and low pay is high.’ (76 – referring to: Labour Market Policies: New challenges. Policies for low-paid workers and unskilled job seekers. GD[97]160. Paris OECD, 1997)

The document is full of data and the interpretation of the major trends. Nevertheless, as stated, there is still room for debate. What has to be emphasised in political terms is the following: The political challenges drawn from the report are by no means as simple as we currently learn from the governments in the EU. On the contrary, even if the detailed challenges are debatable the framework given by the report is a slap in the face of many of the current policy-makers. We read:

* There are three pillars in an effective social assistance system: cash assistance; social services; and labour market services. If any one of these pillars fails to provide adequate support, in time the others will probably fail as well.

* …

* Social support must address new social problems, such as household debt, as well as providing the more traditional services.

* Insufficient attention is sometimes paid to labour market reinsertion. If the public employment service is incapable of providing adequate aid to social assistance clients, innovative new arrangements are required.

* Inappropriate financial relations between different institutions involved in social assistance, particularly different levels of government, can warp institutional incentives and prevent effective policy implementation.’ (92)

One particularly interesting point remains to be mentioned. The title of the document in English reads A caring world. In French we read on the other hand Pour un monde solidaire. In fact, this is very sensible point. The (French) term solidaire surely has more of the meaning of caring as the English term solidarity. Nevertheless, even if it is wrong to translate solidaire with solidarity it has as well much more of the mutual character than caring in the English understanding – there we would speak in French in most instances simply of assistance. This is just one example for the difficulties of trans- and international work – terms transport different meanings and different concepts. They are a mirror of different ways of thinking the social. And I presume that the French title Pour un monde solidaire standing side by side with the English title A caring world indicates not least OECD’s insecurity about which further way we should go. This interpretation is backed by the fact that the policy recommendations in this document are opposed to the view in other policy documents, which are submitted by the same organisation at about the same time (e.g. The OECD Jobs Study: Implementing the strategy. Paris: OECD, 1995: 25).

The ICSW-study From social exclusion to social integration (IV) approaches the analysis of current problems and challenges from another angle. The document gives an overview on the situation in five countries, namely [in the order of the contributions] Germany, Spain, Finland, The Netherlands, and Austria respectively. What is most important is that besides the clearly elaborated different traditions and thus the different current systems (problems and interventions) we find some very general trends, which determine the situation in all of them (cf. 105 ff.):

* enormous influence global, and particularly economic influences,

* the necessity for a high priority of cohesive and integrated social policy approaches,

* ‘the importance of civil dialogue as a means to stimulate participation’,

* ‘social services and benefits – the safety net – appear to be not capable reaching out to all persons in need, let alone keeping all out of trouble’,

* the important role of volunteer and consumer organisations in combating a "market trap" for in which way ever needy people, i.e. their role in avoiding that the market makes people to its totally dependent puppets,

* ‘Exchange is crucial for the further development of coherent international socio-economics’,

* the lack of comprehensive and profound data.

Even if the first factor should not be underestimated, indeed, its meaning should not lead into the trap of an affirmative view, as it is expressed in tendency in one contribution. There we read ‘Germany’s welfare state is in a crisis. The cost of reunification and unemployment have caused very heavy increases in social expenditure. The central problem of the crisis of the welfare state can be described briefly as follows: the high cost of unemployment and other social expenditures (retirement insurance, health insurance) have increased social contributions to a present level of more than 42 % of gross earnings and have thus undermined international competition of labour costs. As a result, due to the pressure of the globalised economy, unemployment increases with considerable social consequences.’ (38 f.)

Against such an interpretation I want to highlight another trend and interpretation of globalisation, which is given in the piece on Linking Welfare and Work (V). There we read in the Introduction by Matti Heikkilä ‘All in all, there is relatively widespread agreement about a de facto policy shift. This shift is … from the previous emphasis on equity, freedom of choice and security of income towards various combinations of measures to increase the work incentive and to get and keep people in gainful employment.’ (6) The important emphasis in difference is on the first part, i.e. the point of departure – it is there where we find the fundamental initiation of any of today’s shifts.

Even if the report is a very helpful means to attain an overview in regard of the social situation in the respective countries (more detailed country reports are available), the social (security) system and the social policy trends alike the title is, unfortunately, slightly misleading. It should better be formed as something like The ongoing necessity for social integration in the light of current social policy (in selected countries). As such and thus describing the shortcomings of social and welfare policies the document is a valuable source for further debate.

Another focus on the analysis of the problems and challenges picks up the thread of the issue, which just has been criticised, i.e. the affirmation of the globalisation thesis and of supposedly too high wages. The LoWER-study (X) points on the necessity of a thorough analysis of low-paid jobs – everybody knows that these are a cornerstone of the EU strategy for more employment (even if the policy analysis must take different pathways here into account). Low-paid jobs are not a guaranty for new employment or securing existing jobs. Neither are they a way to provide at least a basic means to overcome poverty. ‘When we look at earnings mobility patterns in countries with large wage inequalities and high incidence of low pay the alleged higher mobility does not emerge.’ (104) And ‘It is overall employment that needs to grow, not specifically low-wage employment. The role of consumption should be viewed (and fully examined) in that perspective – how can it help to further employment growth? General employment growth may possibly bring a rise in low-wage employment in its wake, but this will be more modest and without the concomitant increase in inequality. Finally, given the qualifications of the European labour force it seems better to encourage the development of more sophisticated services for consumers … as well as producers.’ (120)

All in all the contributions of this book make clear that the approach to foster low paid jobs contradicts the broad issue of European Integration, which is proclaimed again and again: a fundamental increase in participation of individuals and groups in society. What gets clear alike is the fact that there are specific cultural patterns, which guide the employment behaviour (a marked example on top of page 119). And again we find a refusal of common pictures, for example ‘It is not the case these very-low-paid workers live in high-income households. This study has revealed that employees earning below the LEL are concentrated in households at the bottom of the household income distribution, in households well below the average household income. In addition, for those individuals living as a couple their partner is much less likely to be in employment than partners of higher paid individuals.’ (160) In this context the thesis in regard of the way out of poverty (‘time of poverty’) is rejected, as well (cf. 162).

What, then, is to do? The small scale projects, as reviewed by the look on the book on the Piazza are valuable but remain, however, very limited. The challenges and answers respectively cannot clearly be assigned to any one aggregate level of policy making. Neither seems a horizontal nor a vertical designation to be possible – subjects, policies and actors alike can unequivocally be made out. The look for a new social policy agenda has to go hand in hand with the search for new politics and polities. The European Foundation for the improvement of Living and working Conditions, Dublin looked at new strategies in a project on local partnerships. The Irish report, written by Jim Walsh, Sarah Craig and Des M^cCafferty from the Combat Poverty agency is now published in book form (previously as Working Paper from the foundation) (VII). ‘The focus … is on the innovative organisational structure referred to as a local partnership. This structure is a new public policy construct and reflects both EUI and national government influences. For the purpose of this research, a local partnership is defined as: a formal organisational framework for policy making and implementation, which mobilises a coalition of interests and the commitment of a range of partners, around a common agenda and multidimensional action programme, to combat social exclusion and promote social inclusion.'’(3, acc. to working paper)

In connection with the other main subject of the study, i.e. social exclusion, we find a broad overview, providing information on the main lines of the economic development in Ireland and some of the main lines in policies and especially in politics. Interesting is the view on the dichotomous Irish approach to work in a very centralised setting and combine this with a very localised and community oriented focus of social policies. ‘In effect, reform of local administration [currently – again – a major and still uncompleted issue of the political agenda; P.H.] is a project of central government which seeks to mobilise local initiative while retaining a large degree of central control.’ (15)

The case studies, following this general introduction digest some major partnership projects, partly having a fairly long time span of experience. The authors follow a categorisation given in another context: community social services; community economic and employment initiatives; community anti-poverty projects; and community information and advice projects.

Especially here in Ireland we find for considerable time already a marked influence of community oriented EU initiatives, which links up with the national system, characterised by a high degree of centralisation, a [not only, but strongly church influenced and parish based] community integration [it is an interesting feature how this influence of the church and the tie to the parish combines historically and contemporarily with the centralised Irish nation and her clientelism] and "social policy by donation". Against this background the authors provide not least valuable information on how EU-politics matter. The description and analysis of the projects itself shows that in individual cases it is well possible to establish formal, nevertheless non-bureaucratic structures, which can – after some time at least – have a major impact on a sustainable development of a region. At the same time even in a local and temporary dimension scepticism is advisable. For instance one experience is summarised with the words ‘Both employers and trade unions are sceptical of the emphasis n local partnerships on social exclusion. Employers’ main interest is in promoting enterprise and creating jobs. This is where they see their expertise and their contribution to local partnerships, though they acknowledge the importance of social-type programmes to prepare the long-term unemployed for work. Trade unions, meanwhile, are concerned that an emphasis on social exclusion may dilute what they see as the primary motive for local partnerships – to target long-term unemployed males, both those over 35 years and early school leavers. The gender dimension is justified because most new employment is benefiting women. The Enterprise Trust is especially concerned that by having an exclusive focus on the long-term unemployed and similar groups, local partnerships may overlook the potential contribution of local entrepreneurs in stimulating economic development and employment. A wider focus on the whole community is its preferred option, and one on which it feels the EU is in agreement.’ (75)

Of course the approach has something charming. Nevertheless, as we know at latest form the OECD report the old patterns of dividing lines along class affiliation are still awake. Thus it is dubious if such a concept of partnership really will work. Or if it is, on the other hand, just another stone in the patchwork of communitarism as a nice dream by few which forgets the harsh reality for many, another fashionable notion covering up a variety of ideological and practical "solutions". Admittedly, such partnerships may work for neglected and backward areas/regions – this is a result we can learn from the overall project and the reports from the other countries (even if it is rarely explicated). But it seems that the limits are reached where prosperity or even a seed of it sets free the dog-eat-dogs-nature of the current society (thanks to Brendan Hennessy – he reminded me that dogs can be as bad as wolves – in German it would be the "Wolfsgesetz"). Much of the talk about such partnership reminds me at the Western German development after World War II. First there had been the word of partnership – and it remained the agenda setter as power was not obviously unequally distributed and the sharing of profit could easily be undertaken yet to increase the margin. But as soon as the question of maximising profit stood against social freedom and justice the latter was set aside and the power structures had been frankly used as servant for one side only. The soft and einschmeichelnd xzy word of the beginning had been replaced by the harsh reality in the end.

What, then, are the perspectives? Here we come to the necessity to draw a closer link between local or subject-oriented approaches and the questions concerned with welfare state regimes. The book edited by Mike Dent, Maggie O’Neill and Carl Bagley (XI) is employed by just this, establishing the view on the strong links between concrete policy measures and the wider framework. Such an approach employs the analysis of the link between theory and practice as well as that between the regime subject and the self-understanding of the actors, here the professionals of the social field. In fact the book opens the eye for a currently for many times neglected aspect, i.e. that reality is even under the conditions of globalisation and the supposed "end of history" still shaped by actors, by people who are acting in their very own domain. This is not to be mixed up with voluntarism. Nevertheless it is important to understand current shifts in the welfare state as matter of professional action rather than just a matter of politics and policies. This is even more so since the debate on marketisation, social service delivery as process of choice, the rights of the ‘customers’ etc. are ambiguous, indeed. Even if we don’t agree with the main stream debate in welfare policy development we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thus there is surely much food for thought in the remark ‘Marshall charged these state institutions with managing the tension between the democratic political system and the inegalitarian economic system, regarding welfare as distinguished from, but potentially in conflict with, democracy and capitalism. Nevertheless, he argued that democracy, capitalism and welfare co-existed in a more or less functioning system, with social services as the material expression of the social rights of citizenship, representing a decommodifying response to the social consequences of capitalism.’ (54)

And from here it is not far to see that social policy is not least concerned with the question of social rights, social needs and help as well in the context of culture. Since we are not concerned anymore just with the broad division between "systems" respectively "regimes" we have to recognise the in depth structures of a ‘cultural citizenship [which] involves the right to be different, to re-value stigmatised identities, to embrace openly and legitimately hitherto marginalised lifestyles and to propagate them without hindrance.’ (63, quote from Pakulski, J. Cultural Citizenship. In: Citizenship Studies, 1: 73-86; here 83)

And – as pointed out in the contribution Professional Boundaries Re-defined – this debate is of crucial importance for the contextualisation of EU-integration. On the one hand the development is open ended, indeed. However on the other hand we are confronted with an overall development, which is lead by the strict employment orientation of social policy. Thus it neglects any cultural citizenship (respectively leaves to any mysterious free game of the market). On the other hand the debates on the role of NGOs, the clumsiness of the EU-institutions in this regard [by the way, it is just at the time of writing anew a matter of intensified debate, as we will tackle in the next update in the continuation of the article on A concerted strategy for Modernising Social Protection] and the initiation of a so called civil dialogue there seems to be some space for manoeuvre.

Somewhat disappointing, however, are contributions, which are more or less simply a summary of other documents. Thus it is probably more stimulating – and makes more aware of the concept’s shortcomings – to read Power’s text itself than the contribution on the Implications of the Audit Society?: The case of higher education. This is true not least because of the fact that the link to the Case of HE is only loosely drawn.

Besides many critical points in detail the conclusion can fully be accepted. We read under the heading Professions, Markets and Public Responsibility the words of Mike Saks just at the beginning – important enough to keep them in mind while reading further on. ‘Aside from acting as bulwarks for the individual against the state in liberal democracies, the professions today could also be seen as having the ability to bind the social order of modern societies together in neo-Durkheimian fashion through the very strength of their now well-developed, but shifting, professional identities – built around the altruism ideal and other prominent aspects of their professional codes.’ (22)

Managing Editor: François Nectoux, Professor of Contemporary European Studies, Kingston University. Published under the auspices of Kingston University and in association with the European Foundation of Social Quality, Amsterdam

Each issue is devoted to a theme selected from key issues, especially those of the evolving new stage of the European Union. Discussions are wide-ranging but will focus on social and political questions, social attitudes and cultural issues. Forthcoming themes include: Age and Autonomy and Health and Work.

The first issue of The European Journal of Social Quality will be a double-issue including articles as follows:

Professor Chung-Si Ahn, Seoul National University; Professor Jean L. Cohen, Columbia University, USA; Nr Nick Hewlitt, Oxford Brookes University, UK; Professor Jane Jenson, Université de Montréal, Canada; Dr Feiwel Kupferberg, University of Aalborg, Denmark; Professor Dr Graham Lock, Nijmegen University, The Netherlands; Laurent van der Maesen, Vrije Universiteit; Professor Elisabeth Meehan, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland; Professor Anne Showstack Sassoon, Kingston University, UK; Professor Carlota Solé, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain; Fleur Thomese, Vrije Universiteit; Professor Alan Walker, University of Sheffield, UK; Professor Sophie Watson, University of East London, UK.

The European Journal of Social Quality welcomes submissions for consideration.

In the run-up to the revision of the Directive on European Works Councils (1994), on the EU agenda for autumn 1999, contributors to the latest edition of the ETUI quarterly journal TRANSFER assess the experience gained since 1994. Hardly surprisingly, it emerges that developments with EWCs have differed quite considerably from one country to another and from one sector to another. Yet nowhere have the hopes and expectations linked to adoption of the Directive been fully realised.

Contributors to this issue of TRANSFER offer a range of proposals as to how the revision might be used for the introduction of new or amended provisions that could help to remedy some of the shortcomings observed.

Brussels, 29/9/99