Part A - Feantsa - Horus

Part A _ Articles
147
divergence in welfare regimes between the two countries as a higher proportion
among the most marginalised groups are covered by permanent economic support
and are not required to be at the disposal of the labour market in Denmark. However,
the fact that some of these individuals are still homeless suggests that there remains
a challenge to provide sufficient social support for this group, many of whom are
mentally ill substance users.
Though homeless persons are to a large extent excluded from the labour market,
they are highly susceptible to changes in labour market policies due to their general
dependence on public transfer benefits and the conditions placed on receiving
them. Examples from policy developments in both Denmark and Germany illustrate
the possible adverse effects of changes in labour market policies on socially
marginal groups. Active labour market policies have the potential to foster social
inclusion, as the enabling elements of such policies may bring new possibilities and
resources to individuals with a weak attachment to the labour market. However,
increased emphasis on workfare elements and reforms of social benefit systems
run the risk of increasing social exclusion for those individuals with the weakest
chances on the labour market.
The way in which housing costs are covered within the social benefit system is a
crucial aspect when it comes to the risk of homelessness. The comparison of
Denmark and Germany shows how both a unitary benefit system (in Denmark) and
a system that separates payment of housing costs and other living expenditure (as
in Germany) can lead to unintended consequences in terms of how housing costs
are met by benefit recipients. Both systems are susceptible to local variations in
housing costs. In Denmark the system does not take into account the considerable
variations in rent levels between urban centres and provincial areas, and in Germany
the system is vulnerable to local variations in administrative practices in setting
what are deemed to be appropriate housing costs. The examples also show how
adverse effects may work on different levels ; from direct structural effects such as
the difficulties of finding affordable housing on reduced benefits, to more subtle
mechanisms and the interplay of individual vulnerabilities such as the example in
the Danish case of a possible disincentive for rough sleepers to use hostels.
In both countries particular labour market policies have been aimed at the young
and reduced benefits apply to the young unemployed. The aim is to provide
increased incentives for young people to participate in the labour market or educational
activities. This paper does not assess the broader success of these policies
for the young, but shows that for young people in a socially marginal situation the
question may be raised of whether these policies actually increase the risk of