Despite the fact that the unemployment rate in the Czech Republic is one of the lowest in Europe, the country suffers from stagnating long-term unemployment. At the same time, there is a large number of people who fall out of the system as a result of harsh sanctions. The article aims to examine how the activation policy is implemented from the perspective of job seekers and to identify street-level activation practices using a micro-institutionalist perspective. To meet the objective, we used a qualitative research strategy and in-depth interviews. The results of the study show how particular levels of activation intertwine and how they strengthen and create a comprehensive normative system around work, unemployment, and financial support, thus enabling the implementation of the street-level activation practices. Street-level bureaucrats pursue formal policy goals that seek to discourage people from entitlement to benefits and services to cut down expenditures and improve statistics.
BaumbergB (2016) The stigma of claiming benefits: A quantitative study. Journal of Social Policy45(2): 181–199.
3.
BonoliG (2013) The Origins of Active Labour Market Policy. Labour Market and Childcare Policies in a Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BorghiVvan BerkelR (2007) Individualised service provision in an era of activation and new governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy27(9/10): 413–424.
5.
BrodkinEZ (1997) Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review71(1): 1–33.
6.
BrodkinEZ (2011) Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(2): 253–277.
7.
ČadaK (2012) Social exclusion of the Roma and Czech society. In: StewartM (ed.) The Gypsy ‘Menace’: Populism and the New Anti-Gypsy Politics. London: Hurst and Company, pp. 67–79.
8.
CashmanL (2017) New label no progress: Institutional racism and the persistent segregation of Romani students in the Czech Republic. Race Ethnicity and Education20(5): 595–608.
9.
ČernušákováB (2020) Stigma and segregation: Containing the Roma of Údol, Czech Republic. Race & Class62(1): 46–59.
10.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.
11.
ElmoreRE (1978) Organisational models of social program implementation. Public Policy26(2): 185–228.
FoucaultM (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
FriedliLStearnR (2015) Positive affect as coercive strategy: Conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes. Medical Humanities41: 40–47.
16.
GiddensA (1981) Agency, institution, and time-space analysis. In: Knorr-CetinaKCicourelAV (eds) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. Boston, MA: Routledge Kegan Paul, pp. 161–174.
17.
GubriumJFHolsteinJA (2003) Analyzing interpretative practice. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. London: SAGE, pp. 214–248.
18.
HasenfeldY (1992) Human Services as Complex Organizations. Newbury Park, CA.: SAGE.
19.
HowardC (2012) The contradictions of individualized activation policy: Explaining the rise and demise of One to One Service in Australia. Critical Social Policy32(4): 655–676.
ImmervollHScarpettaS (2012) Activation and employment support policies in OECD countries. An overview of current approaches. IZA Journal of Labor Policy1(9).
22.
JahodaRKofroňPŠimíkováI (2009) Změny v oblasti pomoci v hmotné nouzi a jejich dopady [Changes in the Field of Assistance in Material Need and Their Effects]. Prague: Research Institute of Labour and Social Affairs.
23.
KallioJBlombergHKrollC (2013) Social workers’ attitudes towards the unemployed in the Nordic countries. International Journal of Social Welfare22(2): 219–229.
24.
KaufmanJ (2020) Intensity, moderation, and the pressures of expectation: Calculation and coercion in the street-level practice of welfare conditionality. Social Policy & Administration54(2): 205–218.
25.
KjørstadM (2005) Between professional ethics and bureaucratic rationality: The challenging ethical position of social workers who are faced with implementing a workfare policy. European Journal of Social Work8(4): 381–398.
26.
KulhavýV (2003) Workfare v sociální politice [Workfare in social policy]. In: SirovátkaT (ed.) Problémy trhu práce a politiky zaměstnanosti [Problems of Labor Market and Employment Policy]. Praha, Brno: FSS MU, VÚPSV, NVF.
27.
Lewis-BeckMBrymanALiaoT (2004) The SAGE Encyclopaedia Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE.
28.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of Individuals in Public Services. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
LødemelITrickeyH (2001) An Offer You Can’t Refuse. Workfare in International Perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.
30.
MarešPSirovátkaT (2008) Social exclusion and social inclusion – Concepts, discourse, agenda. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review44(2): 113–138.
31.
McNeilC (2009) Now it's Personal: Personal Advisers and the New Public Service Workforce. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
32.
MertlJ (2015) Přerozdělování welfare: nástroj pomoci nebo kontroly? [Welfare redistribution: A tool for help or control?] Plzeň: University of West Bohemia.
33.
MoreiraA (2008) The Activation Dilemma: Reconciling Fairness and Effectiveness of Minimum Income Schemes in Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Pérez EransusB (2008) Activation Policies and Minimum Income Schemes. Navarre: Public University of Navarre.
36.
PetersGB (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
37.
PivenFFClowardRA (1993) Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage Books.
38.
PriorDBarnesM (2011) Subverting social policy on the front line: Agencies of resistance in the delivery of services. Social Policy & Administration45(3): 264–279.
39.
RiceD (2013) Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration and Society45(9): 1038–1062.
40.
RubinABabbieER (2011) Research Methods for Social Work. Belmont: Brooks/Cole Cengage.
41.
SadeghiTFekjærSB (2019) Frontline workers’ competency in activation work. Internatioanal Journal of Social Welfare28: 77–88.
42.
ScottW (2005) Institutional theory. In RitzerG (ed.) Encyclopedia of social Theory. Volume. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 409–414.
43.
SirovátkaT (2016) When workfare fails: Post-crisis activation reform in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy36(1/2): 86–101.
44.
StanfieldB (2000) The Art of Focussed Communication. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
45.
SuvarierolS (2015) Creating citizen-workers through civic integration. Journal of Social Policy44(4): 707–727.
46.
ThorénKH (2008) Activation Policy in Action: A Street-Level Study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State. Växjö: Växjö University Press.
47.
TorfingJ (1999) Workfare with welfare: Recent reforms of the Danish welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy9(1): 5–28.
48.
TrlifajováLGajdošA (2019) Zkušenosti dlouhodobě nezaměstnaných [The experience of the long-term unemployed]. Praha: Centrum pro společenské otázky – SPOT.
49.
TrlifajováLHurrleJ (2019) Work must pay: Does it? Precarious employment and employment motivation for low-income households. Journal of European Social Policy29(3).
50.
Van BerkelRMøllerLH (2002) The concept of activation. In: van BerkelRMollerLH (eds) Active Social Policies in the EU – Inclusion through Participation?Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 45–72.
51.
WładyniakLTrlifajováLKudrnáčováM (2019) ‘Voni kvůli tomudle mě nikde nechtěli. . .’ Zkušenosti dlouhodobě nezaměstnaných a příčiny jejich postavení na trhu práce [‘They didn’t want me anywhere because of this. . .’ The experience of the long-term unemployed and the causes of their position on the labor market]. Praha: Centrum pro společenské otázky – SPOT.
