Introduction

The contemporary welfare state is undergoing a threefold transformation towards activation of recipients, individualisation or contractualisation of benefits, and territorialisation of modes of governance. Briefly stated, the very aim of the welfare state is tending to evolve from paying cash compensation to restoring acting capacity, mainly working and productive capacity; this in turn requires taking into account individual characteristics within the field of the intervention of the welfare state, by contrast with the conventional social programmes based on categories of risk; it also implies a decentralisation of the modes of operation in order to equip local welfare agents with the abilities to design tailor-made measures. These changes coincide with a redefinition of the assessment criteria used to determine what intervention of the welfare state is right and fair (substantial level) and what procedures ought to be mobilised (processual level). The new framework produces highly contrasted reactions, ranging from resistance to full endorsement, and it is implemented in quite diverse ways and at different paces according to the countries and categories of population concerned. The discussion surrounding the European Social Model (ESM) takes place against this background, and the purpose of this chapter is to assess the distinctive position taken and role played by the ESM in this evolution of the welfare state.

In order to grasp and assess the scope of these transformations, the conventional analyses of the welfare state, centred on statistical indicators and power–resource theories, are not, in our view, adequate. The procedural and reflexive turn of social policies cannot be captured by these tools: indicators are too static, and power–resource theories tend to rely on national-level data about political representation in Parliaments, which are unable to grasp the growing impact of local implementing agents within the course of the policy process. As a valid alternative, we suggest using the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen (for instance, 1992, 1999), which relies on distinguishing three dimensions: (a) the resources in possession of a person (goods or services); (b) their capability set or the extent to which they are really free to lead the life they have reason to value; (c) their functionings or the life they actually lead.