The Olivia Framework:Concepts for Use in Finely-Grained, Integrated Social Policy Analysis (Working Paper 45)

The Olivia framework is a set of concepts and measures that, when mature, will allow users to describe, in a consistent and integrated manner, everything about individuals and institutions that is of potential interest to social policy. The present paper summarizes the current stage of development in achieving this highly ambitious goal. The current version of the framework supports analysis of social trends and policy responses from many perspectives: • The point-in-time, resource-flow perspectives that underlie most traditional, economics-based policy analysis. • Life-course perspectives, including both transitions/trajectories analysis and asset-based analysis. • Spatial perspectives that anchor people in space and history and that provide a link to macro-analysis. • The perspective of the purposes/goals of individuals and institutions, including the objectives of different types of government programming. The concepts of the framework, which are all potentially measurable, provide a language that can support integrated analysis in all these areas at a much finer level of description than is customary. It provides a language that is especially well suited for analysis of the incremental policy changes that are typical of a mature welfare state. It supports both qualitative and quantitative analysis, enabling some integration between the two. It supports citizen-centric as well as a government-centric view of social policy. In its current version, the concepts are most highly developed as they related to social policies as they related to labour markets, equality and social integration, care-giving, immigration, income security, sustainability, and social and economic well-being more generally. However the paper points to likely extensions in the areas of health, justice and safety.

Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State (Working Paper 33)

The past 30 years have witnessed a dramatic change in the way Western democracies deal with ethnic minorities. In the past, ethnic diversity was often seen as a threat to political stability, and minorities were subject to a range of policies intended to assimilate or marginalize them. Today, many Western democracies have adopted a more accommodating approach. This is reflected in the widespread adoption of multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and selfgovernment rights for indigenous peoples. We refer to these policies as “multiculturalism policies” or MCPs. The adoption of MCPs has been controversial, for two reasons. The first is a philosophical critique, which argues that MCPs are inherently inconsistent with basic liberal-democratic principles. Since the mid-1990s, however, this philosophical debate has been supplemented by a second argument: namely, that MCPs make it more difficult to sustain a robust Welfare State (hereafter WS). Critics worry that such policies erode the interpersonal trust, social solidarity and political coalitions that sustain a strongly redistributive WS. This paper reviews the reasons why critics believe that MCPs weaken political support for redistribution, and then examines empirically whether the adoption of MCPs has, in fact, been associated with erosion of the WS. This examination involves two steps: we develop a taxonomy of MCPs and classify Western democracies as “strong”, “modest” or “weak” in their level of MCPs. We then examine whether the strength of MCPs is associated with the erosion of the WS during the 1980s and 1990s. The evolution of the WS is measured through change in four indicators: social spending as a percentage of GDP; the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers; levels of child poverty; and the level of income inequality. We find no evidence of a consistent relationship between the adoption of MCPs and the erosion of the WS. Our analysis has limits, and we hope it stimulates further research. Nevertheless, the preliminary evidence presented here is clear: the case advanced by critics of MCPs is not supported. The growing ethnic diversity of Western societies has generated pressures for the construction of new and more inclusive forms of citizenship and national identity. The evidence in this paper suggests that debates over the appropriateness of multiculturalism policies as one response to this diversity should not be pre-empted by unsupported fears about their impact on the WS.

Social Policy in Canada – Looking Back, Looking Ahead (Working Paper 46)

This paper discusses recent policy trends, the changing role of the various actors in the system, international comparisons and a range of other social policy topics. The immediate purpose of the paper is to examine the reasons why social policy analysts need to look into the future, and to explore ways of managing the inevitably large risks associated with such future-looking exercises. The underlying purpose, however, is simply to introduce a range of important Canadian social policy topic to students and others who are interested in social policy, but without much previous background in the area.

A Framework for Citizen-Centred Social Statistics and Analysis (Working Paper 48)

Economic policy-making has long been more integrated than social policy-making in part because the statistics and much of the analysis that supports economic policy are based on a common conceptual framework – the system of national accounts. People interested in economic analysis and economic policy share a common language of communication, one that includes both concepts and numbers. This paper examines early attempts to develop a system of social statistics that would mirror the system of national accounts, particular the work on the development of social accounts that took place mainly in the 60s and 70s. It explores the reasons why these early initiatives failed but argues that the preconditions now exist to develop a new conceptual framework to support integrated social statistics – and hence a more coherent, effective social policy. Optimism is warranted for two reasons. First, we can make use of the radical transformation that has taken place in information technology both in processing data and in providing wide access to the knowledge that can flow from the data. Second, the conditions exist to begin to shift away from the straight jacket of government-centric social statistics, with its implicit assumption that governments must be the primary actors in finding solutions to social problems. By supporting the decision-making of all the players (particularly individual citizens) who affect social trends and outcomes, we can start to move beyond the sterile, ideological discussions that have dominated much social discourse in the past and begin to build social systems and structures that evolve, almost automatically, based on empirical evidence of ‘what works best for whom’. The paper describes a Canadian approach to developing a framework, or common language, to support the evolution of an integrated, citizen-centric system of social statistics and social analysis. This language supports the traditional social policy that we have today; nothing is lost. However, it also supports a quite different social policy world, one where individual citizens and families (not governments) are seen as the central players – a more empirically-driven world that we have referred to as the ‘enabling society’.