Keywords

Introduction

Conceptualising the ‘welfare state’ may be a challenging, if not impossible task (yet see, for example, Esping-Andersen, 1990). This anthology analyses European welfare state transformations and practices related to social rights. Across national differences and divides, welfare states, in different ways, distribute and allocate resources to persons considered eligible for state assistance. As welfare states differ, so, too, do their distribution schemes, level of social security and eligibility criteria for support. As an umbrella term, social rights refer to rights that are formulated to support individuals’ social inclusion in society (European Social Charter, 1996). Social rights may be the right to assistance for unemployed persons to re-enter the labour market (ibid., Article 10), for persons in homelessness to find temporary shelter and adequate housing (ibid., part I) and for victims of crime to access protection and receive justice through welfare state institutions (Directive 2011/36/EU, Article 11). Social rights also encompass economic rights, for example, access to social security when individuals cannot provide for themselves (and their potential families), sickness benefits and early retirement pension.

This anthology analyses individuals’ access to these rights, including transformations of unemployed persons’ access to social security and assistance to re-enter the labour market (Chapter 3), ex-prisoners’ right to support to re-integrate into society (Chapter 4) and access to housing assistance for young persons in homelessness (Chapter 10). On EU level, an increasing political awareness of social rights as means to address social inequality is manifested in the European Pillar on Social Rights that outlines EU and Member State responsibility to support social inclusion through the transformation of social rights into practice. The process of transforming these rights from paper to practice is to a large extent of Member State concern, stressing the relevance of focusing on nation-state level when analysing welfare state transformations of social rights. Spurred by increasing social exclusion and inequality following financial crises (Aranguiz, 2022), and later COVID-19 (Valadas, 2021), EU emphasis has been put on supporting social inclusion through access to rights. With its Pillar on Social Rights, EU politically cemented its social focus. The Pillar may be read as a normative compass, indicating the political priorities of both the EU and its Member States. In some cases, European institutions are indeed central actors for transforming social rights into practice, as also illustrated in this book’s Chapter 2 by Eule who analyses different interpretive approaches applied in the contexts of the Swiss Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

A common denominator across European welfare states is the regulation of social rights through framework law. Thus, it is relevant to take the character of framework law into consideration when analysing and discussing social rights in a welfare state context. Framework law outlines aims and purposes to categorise which social situations that are to be considered socially problematic and thereby potentially may be addressed through law (Westerman, 2018). By categorising social situations as social problems, law reflects normative understandings of social inclusion and equality which are of significance for interpreting individuals’ social needs and eligibility for social support. Moreover, framework law delegates authority and, in some cases, outlines overall procedures whereby it structures a potential scope for different actors and different practices. Framework law has been appreciated for its inclusive character, emphasising the active involvement of citizens and its responsiveness as it, on paper, allows for solutions tailored to the individual person’s social needs (Dalberg-Larsen, 1984). These features may, however, be challenged or questioned as existing research stresses that some groups in society, especially socially marginalised persons, are often not aware of or capable at actively engaging in welfare systemic processes of accessing social rights (Nielsen and Hammerslev, 2018). As encounters and interactions, in a framework law context, are pivotal for assessing persons’ social needs, individuals who are unable to engage in these practices may fall short in processes of realising their social rights unless support from social network or intermediaries is present to mitigate such shortcomings. With its delegation of authority, framework law potentially invites for multiple actors to enter the field of social rights. In a Danish welfare state context, as illustrated in Chapter 10, the responsibility to offer support to young persons experiencing homelessness rests primarily with the 98 municipalities, and the law emphasises that the municipalities are obliged to enter cooperation with both state and non-state actors to transfer this responsibility into practice. In this context, the process of transforming social rights into practice potentially involves not only the individual person who experiences homelessness and the municipality in which they reside but also non-state actors as private organisations, such as NGOs and other third sector initiatives. As framework law outlines aims and purposes rather than detailed processes, it offers room for discretionary practices, often guided by law’s purpose as well as informed by factors such as organisational, political and economic priorities and normative understandings of addressing social needs. From this, it follows that both ordinary persons and welfare professionals may encounter varying procedures and interpretations that in different ways influence assessments of social needs and thus also the allocation of social rights. Despite these differences, similarities are identified as well across Danish municipalities. These concern welfare systemic standardisation of demands for documentation and active involvement by the individual persons, for instance that persons must meet welfare systemic demands for documentation to prove their social needs based on which their eligibility is assessed (Nielsen and Hammerslev, 2022). In addition, these documentation processes take place in interactions between the individual and welfare system, either facilitated online by the submitting of forms and papers or physically in encounters between persons and welfare professionals. Documentation and interaction are thus central for assessing social needs and eligibility without which allocation of social rights cannot take place.

Persons’ access to social rights in European welfare states is influenced by structural as well as individual factors and by interactional dynamics between ordinary citizens in need for social support and welfare professionals who perform discretion. Of structural relevance is, for example, legal sources that outline which social problems that may be addressed and the criteria for persons’ eligibility as well as the organisation of the welfare state and its cooperation with and dependence on other actors to provide social services. Individual factors of relevance may be awareness of rights, knowledge of processes to invoke rights, language skills and a resourceful social network to offer support in these processes. For persons who experience problems with meeting welfare systemic demands, such individual aspects are often decisive for whether they recognise their situation as potentially legal and have adequate resources to mobilise their rights (Olesen and Hammerslev, 2023). Existing literature refers to ‘state abdication’ to describe the processes where the welfare state, in different areas, would traditionally offer support and help but has increasingly stepped down, and the space for practice has been taken over by NGOs and private actors (Bourdieu, 2016; Hammerslev, 2015; Sommerlad and Sanderson, 2013). In some cases, individuals’ access to these actors are decisive for accessing social rights whereby the transformation of social rights appears to be increasingly arbitrary and contingent, shaped by social and professional relations and resources—own as well as others.

Though social law generally has the character of framework law in the European welfare states, it differs across Europe. In some countries and cases, there are more room for discretion for welfare professionals than in other (see, for example, de Winter’s Chapter 6 and Hertogh’s Chapter 9 on the harsh and punitive Dutch welfare state). As all other legislation, framework law is by no means a static phenomenon. Rather, it is dynamic and subjected to change. Welfare law outlines situations that may call for social support, such as homelessness and unemployment. It, too, categorises potential solutions to such problems, such as in a Danish context stressing the relevance of access to temporary stay as legal means to address homelessness. By textualising situations that can resolve welfare support and eligibility criteria, law reflects normative understandings in society related to, for instance, deservingness and social constructions of ‘victims’ and ‘rights holders’. These social constructions may be interpreted as products of the political environment of the welfare states, and law contributes to the reproduction of these understandings as it through its regulation reflects negotiated knowledge on right and wrong behaviour, indirectly providing moral judgements on good and bad citizens, meaning those who deserve the help and support of the welfare state and those who do not.

In the following, we unfold the anthology’s tripartite approach which is structured around, firstly, a macro level focus on state regulation, transformation and reconfiguration influencing the role of non-state actors. Secondly, we focus on a meso level which analyses the relevance of encounters between welfare professionals and individuals in need of welfare help for the latter’s access to social rights. Thirdly, the micro level of legal mobilisation from a bottom-up perspective is examined, analysing the relevance of individual and structural resources for processes of mobilising law to transform rights into practice.

A Three-level Perspective on Transformation of European Welfare States and Social Rights

The Macro Level of State Regulation

The anthology’s first section, Chapters 2–4, focuses on state regulation, transformation hereof and on agents acting on behalf of the welfare states. In Chapter 2, Tobias Eule draws historical lines to the development of social rights in the European welfare states. He takes a starting point in the conceptualisation of deservingness to analyse and illustrate how deservingness has been and is constructed as means to rationalise welfare law. Deservingness thus becomes a filtering mechanism for assessing who is eligible for social rights. In addition, Eule identifies an individualisation turn in social rights regulation, stressing individual responsibility for social disintegration and exclusion which influences subjective and systemic constructions of deservingness. Eule argues that to understand welfare states’ interpretation of deservingness and how the interpretation is applied to assess eligibility, the organisational context of the interpretive practices must be taken into consideration. He illustrates the relevance of the organisational context through the case of Beeler v. Switzerland where Mr. Beeler’s social rights claim was first rejected by the Swiss Supreme Court on rather traditional paternalistic interpretive grounds. Mr. Beeler then brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights on grounds for discrimination and rights to family life. The grand chamber then rejected the ruling by the Swiss Supreme Court. Drawing lines to the above-mentioned common themes and tendencies, Eule’s chapter manifests the significance of deservingness for constructing access to welfare rights, and it illustrates how legitimate knowledge is negotiated differently, depending on the context in question.

Inger-Johanne Sand’s contribution in Chapter 3 examines the role of contemporary welfare law and the dilemmas facing the welfare state. She takes her starting point in the Norwegian welfare state and focuses on tendencies of labour market inclusion and ‘work-line’ policies. In her analyses, Sand argues that the strong focus in welfare state regulation on re-integrating unemployed persons into the labour market is sparked by discourses related to a ‘sustainable welfare state’ and a ‘meaningful’ life for the welfare state’s citizens. The dilemma of the welfare state consists in, on the one hand, mitigating increasing public expenditures caused by social service demands, while, on the other hand, respecting the individual’s right to welfare support. Thus, there is a dilemma between ‘macro-economic and labour market economic aspects of welfare rights’ and the ‘care-taking, ethical and social protection functions of welfare by political authorities and legislators’. The welfare state navigates in these dilemmas by discursively constructing labour market participation as ‘meaningful’. This discourse reflects the ethical concern of the welfare state for the well-being of its citizens while it also allows for understandings related to citizens’ contribution through active labour market participation. Thus, Sand’s contribution illustrates how discursive changes may be sparked by dilemmas of general concern to all European welfare states, and how these discourses are permeating policies and legal regulation, thereby creating real effect for the citizens and their access to social rights.

Chapter 4 by Annette Olesen, Maija Helminen and Emy Bäcklin examines penal voluntary sector organisations’ (PVSOs) challenges in providing social support to prisoners and ex-prisoners as means to facilitate processes of their re-integration into society post imprisonment. Following state reforms leading to cuts in public services, third sector actors such as the PVSOs play an increasingly important part in transforming social rights into practice. Thus, the chapter offers insights into the links between state reforms, reconfigurations of state and non-state actors and the provision of social rights. The authors draw comparisons between PVSOs in the Danish, Finnish and Swedish welfare states and offer insights into the welfare states’ different organisation affecting these third sector actors’ scope for practice. Despite national differences, the authors identify a common challenge facing the PVSOs in these three different national contexts on the basis of their so-called ‘shadow state’ position. This position indicates that the organisations are subjected to the state’s agenda-setting of political priorities and regulations which affects their scope for practice. Though the PVSOs as third sector actors play a crucial role, the authors illustrate that, in practice, relations between PVSOs and state institutions may be challenged by ‘disorganised co-operation’, which negatively affect PVSOs’ opportunities for transforming social rights pertaining to the principle of normalisation into practice. Moreover, though these third sector actors play a pivotal role in transforming state responsibility into practice, they generally rely on external funding which leaves them in a precarious economic state, negatively impacting their scope for practice.

The Meso Level of Welfare Professional-Citizen Encounters

In the second section of the anthology, the focus is on encounters between welfare professionals and citizens. The contributions constituting this section are Chapter 5 written by Pete Sanderson and Hilary Sommerlad, Chapter 6 written by Paulien de Winter and Chapter 7 written by Martin Joormann.

The chapter by Sanderson and Sommerlad contributes to the anthology by illustrating the significance of welfare state transformations for encounters between welfare professionals and citizens; encounters which aim to support citizens’ access to law. The authors trace neo-liberal transformations in England and Wales seen in relation to welfare professionals’ ability to provide services to citizens in need. Sanderson and Sommerlad zoom in on the welfare systemic context for encounters between legal aid providers and individuals who seek out legal advice. They compare data from four empirical studies conducted in England and Wales from mid-1990s to 2015 and examine the discursive construction of citizenship to analyse its relevance for citizens’ access to law. The chapter illustrates how activist legal professionals use law to improve citizens’ social well-being, for example, by calling upon local administrations’ duty to provide support ‘to get people what the government has said they’re entitled to’. The chapter offers empirical examples to analyse the significance of encounters between legal aid providers and citizens for the latter’s access to the rights they are entitled to. The encounters are pivotal for citizens’ rights claiming and access to law. However, as the authors also illustrate, the working conditions of the legal aid providers are under pressure as a result of welfare systemic reforms and public expenditure cuts which negatively affect the encounters’ potential for supporting citizens’ access to law.

De Winter analyses the relevance of Dutch welfare professionals’ perceptions of rules and regulations for their performance of discretion in encounters with citizens. The chapter thereby contributes to the anthology as it, for example, offers analytical insights into the link between welfare professionals’ perceptions and practices, and how this link has real effect for citizens who in different ways interact and engage with the welfare professionals. As de Winter stresses, the welfare professionals are located in a ‘paradoxical reality’ following their obligation to treat citizens alike yet act responsively in individual cases. This reality constitutes a potential challenge between standardising and individualising welfare support. The chapter draws on empirical data from interviews with welfare professionals working at municipal agencies and employment insurance agencies with the purpose of supporting unemployed persons’ re-entry to the labour market and it illustrates differences in welfare professionals’ perceptions, motivated by, for example, individual factors and organisational context. Concerning the former, the author argues that age and gender appear to be of significance for welfare professionals’ perceptions and interpretations of rules and regulations, and related to the latter, organisations’ approaches to law and enforcement seem to trickle down to the welfare professionals who internalise their organisation’s approach. As exemplified in the chapter, welfare professionals’ interpretations and perceptions influence their enforcement styles whereby perceptions and interpretations have real effect in encounters between welfare professionals and citizens.

Martin Joormann’s chapter on Swedish judges’ interpretation and decision-making processes related to asylum cases contributes to the anthology as it, for example, analyses the relevance of knowledge production for the outcome of asylum seekers’ cases. The chapter draws on interviews with Swedish judges to examine how they assess who is eligible for asylum and who is not. A common factor of relevance for the respondents is the so-called country of origin information (COI) which outlines relevant information on asylum seekers’ home country whereby the COI serves as producing knowledge on the state of stability of the given country and the safety of the individual asylum seeker. Joormann points to the fact that COIs are generally written up in and by actors representing refugee-receiving countries rather than in and by actors representing refugee-sending countries. Thus the knowledge produced in the COIs may be reflecting different epistemic realities, causing ‘epistemic violence’, as conceptualised by Spivak (see Chapter 7). The COIs are decisive elements in encounters between judges and asylum seekers as they form a written exchange of knowledge, however this knowledge is not provided by the asylum seekers themselves. As Joormann illustrates by drawing on respondents’ accounts, the knowledge provided through COIs is sometimes considered incomplete or insufficient, for example due to language barriers, as a judge explains: ‘we have to sit and … decide about people’s, well not life and death, but sometimes actually, in another language than our mother tongue’. Joormann’s analyses of the judges’ stories bring insights into the functioning of migration bureaucracy in the Swedish welfare state and its real effect for and of professionals-individuals encounters.

The Micro Level of Mobilising Social Rights

This section consists of Chapters 8 to 10 and applies a bottom-up perspective to analyse and illustrate citizens’ experiences of welfare encounters and of mobilising social rights. In Chapter 8, Isabel Schoultz and Polina Smiragina-Ingelström examine the case of access to rights for victims of human trafficking in the context of the Swedish welfare state. Drawing on interviews with both welfare professionals and victims, the analysis illustrates challenges related to processes of victim identification and the relevance of these processes for accessing rights. The authors examine how law’s formulation and categorisation as well as state institutions, such as the police, influence the subjective construction of ‘victims’ and ideas of ‘ideal victims of crime’. These constructions may hinder access to rights for persons who do not perceive themselves as victims or are not perceived as victims by relevant welfare professionals. Categorisation and perception are thus crucial elements in legal mobilisation processes. Here, NGOs may play a decisive role because they, as expert and third sector actors, have resources available to identify and support their target group and work on other terms than state institutions. Victims may benefit from NGOs and other third sector actors’ more flexible and responsive contexts whereas encounters with the police may have negative connotations, as a respondent accounts for: ‘I had to talk about things I had forced myself to forget […] Interviews went on for hours, sometimes until I broke down’. The chapter thereby provides analytical insights into the relevance of law’s categorisation and the welfare state set-up for individuals’ ability to claim rights.

Chapter 9, written by Marc Hertogh, focuses on how welfare clients’ perceptions of welfare professionals’ understandings of law influence the clients’ own practices. The chapter thereby contributes with insights into relational aspects between these welfare clients and professionals in regard to citizens’ access to social rights, in this case social security and social welfare. Taking a starting point in the distribution of social security and social welfare in the Netherlands, Hertogh accounts for a so-called ‘punitive turn’ of the Dutch welfare state, reflected in strict rules and harsh sanctions. Drawing on empirical data from surveys on welfare clients’ ideas of welfare professionals’ perceptions of law, the chapter illustrates that these ideas have real effect for clients’ behaviour and practices related to the claiming of social welfare and social security. From this, it follows that there are strong interactional and relational links between citizens and state officials that influence citizens’ approaches to the mobilisation of rights. Drawing attention to these links contributes with analytical insights into both interactionist and individual elements of concern for the micro level of accessing rights. Moreover, with the chapter’s unfolding of ‘the punitive turn’, it exemplifies the interlinkages between the macro level of state transformation, the meso level of welfare professional-welfare client encounters and the micro level of clients’ access to rights.

In Chapter 10, Stine Piilgaard Porner Nielsen and Ole Hammerslev focus on access to social rights for young persons experiencing homelessness in the Danish welfare state. The interviews with the young persons illustrate the diverse and subjective processes of mobilising law and the varying experiences of the young persons. Nielsen and Hammerslev identify common elements of relevance for the legal mobilisation processes: rights awareness, social network and sense of the welfare state bureaucracy. Young persons with a greater level of rights awareness, that is, an understanding of the law and sense of themselves as rights holder, with a supportive social network and with a sense of the welfare state as entry point for social support display what is referred to in the chapter as active agency. The authors draw an analytical distinction between active and passive agency, the first relating to the display of practice by the individual to pursue social rights whereas the latter refers to lack of the young persons’ own actions to exit homelessness through welfare support. For some of the young persons, their social network may instead perform these practices, for example, by acting as intermediaries between the young persons and relevant welfare professionals. The chapter thereby contributes to the anthology with a micro level perspective on challenges and opportunities for the ability of socially marginalised citizens, in this case young persons in homelessness, to transform social rights into practice.

Across the diversity of the anthology’s chapters, we identify common features in tendencies in transforming European welfare states and social rights. These common features concern state transformations and reconfigurations resulting from neo-liberal reforms that, in some cases, lead to state abdication and entry of third sector actors, changing political priorities reflected in ‘punitive turns’ where welfare states prioritise workfare over welfare, focusing increasingly on activation schemes and sanctions, often with the result of individualising social problems, such as unemployment and homelessness. In addition, common features concern the discursive construction of deservingness based on political priorities and formulation of legal sources, the production of legitimate knowledge following law’s categorisation of eligibility and responsibility as well as structural and individual factors of relevance for citizens’ opportunities of transforming welfare rights into practice.

Common Features in Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights

In this section, we unfold the above-mentioned common tendencies, themes and aspects as they appear in the analyses of the book’s chapters.

Transforming and Reconfiguring the Welfare State

The European welfare states of today have undergone changes, following diverse political agendas of national as well as international character. The background for these changes has to a large extent been neo-liberal reforms following political priorities to slim down public sector expenses which have real effect for welfare professionals working in and with the public sector and for ordinary persons who are involved herewith. The result of these reforms is, too, reflected in changes in state expectations towards citizens, for example, illustrated in the increased workfare focus rather than welfare focus where access to social security is increasingly linked to activation schemes and reduced social security as means for including unemployed persons into the labour market. The reforms change focus on citizens’ behaviour and shape scope for welfare professionals’ practice where workfare politics may permeate interpretation and performance of discretion. This is illustrated in the chapters by de Winter, Hertogh and Sand. From different perspectives, the authors analyse workfare tendencies’ relevance for the transformation of social rights. In Chapter 3, Sand examines the relevance of the Norwegian welfare state’s political focus on workfare for regulation of access to social security, identifying an increased emphasis on individualisation of responsibility which leads to stricter demands of activation schemes targeted unemployed persons. These tendencies resonate with de Winter’s and Hertogh’s analyses on the Dutch welfare state, in which they illustrate how welfare professionals and clients perceive the stricter legislation. They suggest that the ‘punitive turn of the Dutch welfare state’, as Hertogh refers to, permeates the understandings of the welfare clients and influences their perception of legitimate practices in encounters with job centre professionals. On national level, neo-liberal reforms have caused reconfiguration of welfare states as state abdication has left room for third sector actors’ increased entry into the field of welfare support. This is, for example, illustrated in Chapter 4’s analysis of penal voluntary sector organisations’ (PVSOs) challenges in transforming ex-prisoners’ right to societal re-integration into practice in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. In a UK context, neo-liberal reforms have also caused changes for third sector initiatives, including voluntary organisations as illustrated in Chapter 5 in which the authors argue that state transformations sparked by neo-liberal reforms trickle down to the encounters between welfare professionals and their clients, negatively affecting professionals’ ability to perform adequate support to groups of citizens who need it the most. Chapter 8, too, stresses the relevance of third sector actors, typically NGOs, offering legal and social advice whereby they constitute platforms for trust-based relations to persons experiencing human trafficking. Such platforms are essential for these persons’ processes of claiming rights to protection. European institutions may, too, be pivotal actors for citizens’ access to rights, as illustrated in Chapter 2 which analyses how state figuration, political priorities and normative understandings have real effect for the ordinary persons involved.

Who Deserves Welfare Support?

Are universal rights a real possibility? As outlined in the anthology’s Chapter 1, existing studies, especially in the field of socio-legal research, have for decades been concerned with the relevance and role of rights. Coined in a discourse of universality, social rights have an embedded universalist proclamation, as Eule points to in Chapter 2. Sand and Sanderson and Sommerlad, too, address the universal recognition of citizens and their entitlement to universal social rights in Chapters 3 and 5, respectively. However, both Eule and Sanderson and Sommerlad critically question the universality of social rights, arguing that there are limits to welfare universalism and that the universal character of social rights has to varying degrees been replaced by an increased focus on individualisation of problems and by means and merits testing approaches. This indicates a discursive transformation related to categorisations of deservingness and of the groups of persons who deserve to be allocated social rights. In a welfare state context, deservingness may be understood in a perspective of relativity and comparison where the fact that one is, for example, citizen, does not by default implicate access to welfare rights in one’s respective welfare state. Instead, deservingness is constructed on the basis of welfare state discourses on social problems, social needs and eligibility, contributing to the assessment of citizens’ entitlement to social rights. Actors’ subjective construction of deservingness may, too, have real effect for access to social rights. These constructions are, for example, shaped by available information, as illustrated in Chapter 7, perceptions of eligibility, as outlined in Chapter 8 and understandings of the social situation at hand, as stressed in Chapter 10. Subjective constructions of deservingness are to a large extent dynamic processes, highly influenced by both individuals’ own perceptions of their social situation and professionals’ interpretations of the situations at hand and their scope for practice to remedy social situations through the allocation of social rights.

Negotiating Legitimate Knowledge

Perceptions of legitimacy feed into processes of negotiating legitimate knowledge which may influence approaches to and practices in processes of transforming social rights into practice. A striking example of the relevance of negotiated legitimate knowledge is provided in Chapter 7 by Joormann who illustrates how country of origin information and information from asylum seekers provide knowledge, based on which judges negotiate asylum seekers’ right to asylum. Processes of negotiating legitimate knowledge is influenced also by contextual factors as illustrated in Chapter 2 where knowledge is produced and applied to legitimate adjudications made in the Swiss Supreme Court and in the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, respectively. Organisational context is as well of relevance to consider for understanding processes of negotiating legitimate knowledge, as it is reflected in Chapter 6 that illustrates how organisational practices and interpretations influence welfare professionals’ knowledge negotiation related to legitimate practices. Legitimate knowledge is also constructed on the macro level of welfare states reforms and transformations, as illustrated in Chapters 3 and 5. On the micro level of individuals' access to social rights, processes of negotiating legitimate knowledge often take place between individuals and intermediaries, such as NGOs and other expert actors, as Chapters 8 and 10 outline.

Structural and Individual Factors

In various ways, structural and individual factors in the European welfare states are decisive for transforming social rights into practice. From a structural perspective, access to welfare institutions and to intermediaries, such as NGOs, is crucial for persons’ access to support and help. Also, NGOs, legal aid offices and voluntary organisations may be considered platforms of structural relevance for bridging gaps between individuals and welfare state institutions as official entry points for social support. This is, for example, outlined in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 and Chapter 8. In addition, institutional options for support, such as shelters to offer temporary stay to persons experiencing homelessness may be considered structural factors of importance for transforming social rights into practice, as illustrated in Chapter 10.

Though access on institutional and structural level is pivotal, it is not in itself sufficient. Individual factors must be taken into consideration as well; factors such as persons’ awareness of rights, their categorisation of their situation and perceptions of options for support. As illustrated in Chapters 2 and 10, individuals’ understandings and perceptions of themselves as rights holders, generally sparked by rights awareness and senses of the welfare state, inform practices related to rights claiming. Yet, these processes may be highly demanding in regard to, for example, economic, educational and social resources. Easy access to intermediaries and experts may mitigate individuals’ experiences of exhausting rights claiming processes, thereby increasing the likelihood of transforming their welfare rights into practice.

A Concluding Remark

As illustrated in the anthology’s contributions, understanding European welfare states and social rights calls for analytical approaches that consider the interlinked character of welfare state organisation and law’s formulation of welfare professionals’ work context and citizens’ processes of accessing social rights.

On a macro level, European welfare states face dilemmas related to state limitations and universalism, and state abdication may be considered a response to overcome these dilemmas. When the state retrieves from its generally traditional responsibilities, it allows for other players to enter the field. Here, third sector actors, such as voluntary organisations and NGOs, are potentially decisive for transforming individuals’ social rights into practice, yet these actors operate on other terms than state institutions and often their work conditions are restricted due to precarious funding, limited resources available and/or poor coordination with pivotal state collaborators. In encounters between welfare professionals, be they, e.g. voluntary legal aid providers or state judges, understandings of eligibility and deservingness influence decision-making processes. Here, knowledge exchange and organisational approaches to interpretation of rules and regulations that permeate welfare professionals’ work contexts influence perceptions of individuals’ eligibility and deservingness. These aspects thus create real effect for the transformation of social rights into practice, stressing the relevance of analytically examining the meso level of welfare transformation and social rights. From a micro perspective, perceptions of eligibility and deservingness are as well of relevance as these inform subjective constructions of rights entitlements that are of significance for initiating legal mobilisation processes. Access to supportive social networks may be particularly important for especially socially marginalised citizens’ processes of mobilising social rights, and without intermediaries to help initiate and/or facilitate such processes, this group of citizens may be left in increasingly vulnerable situations.