In her lecture Towards a New Imagination of Citizenship in Social Assistance, she shows how the strong focus on labor activation has changed the meaning of social citizenship - and what consequences this has for people receiving welfare benefits.
Eleveld opens her lecture with an example from her own research. A welfare recipient had to pick up litter as part of her activation program. She said she would rather be seen as someone performing community service as punishment than as someone receiving welfare benefits. According to Eleveld, this raises a fundamental question: how can social policy be experienced in such a way that people prefer to identify as someone serving a sentence rather than as a welfare recipient?
From social right to work obligation
According to Eleveld, this is related to the way Dutch welfare policy has increasingly focused on labour activation over time. The right to social assistance has been ever more strongly linked to the obligation to work or actively work toward employment.
As a result, the meaning of social citizenship has also changed. Whereas it originally referred to participation in society in various ways, it is now often understood as a moral duty to perform paid work. In this context, sociologist Willem Schinkel speaks of a society in which a distinction arises between “active” citizens who meet this ideal and “inactive” citizens who are seen as problematic.
A persistent policy logic
Eleveld examines why labour activation continues to play such a central role, even though research shows that this approach often does not lead to sustainable exits from welfare. According to her, an important explanation lies in dominant policy ideas that make alternative approaches less visible.
Power relations and stigma
At the same time, according to Eleveld, the activation regime has important social consequences. It creates a strong power imbalance between welfare recipients and the institutions responsible for administering benefits.
In practice, welfare recipients are also often categorized into groups such as “unwilling” and “unable.” According to Eleveld, such labels fail to do justice to the complex circumstances people face, such as health problems, caregiving responsibilities, or bureaucratic barriers. They contribute to stigma and undermine people’s dignity.
Relational citizenship as an alternative
Eleveld therefore advocates a different approach: relational citizenship. In this vision, paid work is not the central focus; instead, it emphasizes mutual dependence, care relationships, and social connectedness.
From this perspective, welfare policy should once again primarily focus on guaranteeing livelihood security. This means, among other things, that policies should better align with people’s needs, sanctions should only be applied in exceptional cases, and caregiving and other forms of social contribution should receive greater recognition.
The role of the judiciary
Finally, Eleveld examines whether change is possible within the existing legal framework. Judges sometimes have discretionary space to interpret open legal norms differently and take individual circumstances more into account. However, research shows that they often make limited use of that space.
According to Eleveld, change therefore requires judges who are both empathetic and inventive, and who dare to develop alternative interpretations within the law. Small shifts in case law can ultimately contribute to broader institutional changes. Doctrinal legal research can make a difference here by offering judges new ways of thinking and argumentative frameworks.
The ultimate goal, Eleveld concludes, is a society in which livelihood security forms a foundation and people’s value is not determined solely by their participation in paid work.
Anja Eleveld will deliver her inaugural lecture on March 19 at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.