‘119 million people live in poverty and the European Commission prefers cricket’- 3500-FAKL-WUBU
This course addresses the use of poverty indicators as a tool for EU poverty
policy-making. We will analyse them as part of a broader 'governance laboratory'
(Bruno 2008) - the instrumentarium used by different EU agendas to negotiate
the content of this policy and to pursue their own interests. We will look at both
the consensus-building process around the definitions of the different indicators
and what the indicators tell us about poverty in the EU, and what elements of the
phenomenon they fail to capture; and how the indicators are used to put
pressure on Member States to improve their performance on poverty. No
advanced knowledge of statistical methods is necessary to attend this course - we
will work on critical analytical competences universal to social scientists.
The course is divided into two blocks. The first block will aim to provide
participants with a basic understanding of how to define and measure poverty.
We will explore the definitional dilemmas and the methodological and normative
choices involved in measuring this phenomenon. We will also look at indicators of
extreme poverty, trying to get to the assumptions they make about the
phenomenon and consider what dimensions of poverty are not visible through
the lens of these indicators. We will jointly consider whether it is possible to
speak of the universality of these definitions, given the differences between
countries in terms of overall well-being and the degree of social security
institution development. In the second block, we will focus on the tensions and
dilemmas evident in EU anti-poverty policy and the changing role of indicators in
its design and implementation. We will address the problem of negotiating its
content in the context of the limited competences of EU bodies in the field of this
policy and the fact that most of the prerogatives here are retained by EU Member
States.
During the course, participants will be introduced to both the literature on
defining and measuring poverty and EU poverty policy, as well as the literature on
the sociology of quantification and science and technology studies (STS). We will
also be analysing excerpts from the research material available from the research
project 'The making of anti-poverty policy in the European Union using
quantitative measures' funded by an OPUS NCN.
During the course, students will work on their analytical skills by learning to look
critically at indicators, therefore: (i) reconstructing the assumptions about the
phenomenon of poverty underlying their development; and (ii) looking for
dimensions of poverty that remain invisible through the prism of indicators but
can be considered relevant to understanding the phenomenon; (iii) analysing the
interests surrounding the development and use of indicators in policy. Emphasis
will also be placed on practising the skill of argumentation - students' tasks will
include defending/criticising a selected concept on poverty.
Type of course
Mode
Prerequisites (description)
Course coordinators
Learning outcomes
Has basic knowledge about local, domestic and international institutions and the
problems of European integration
Is aware of social differentiation and existing social inequalities, as well as their
impact on the life of individuals and the functioning of social groups
Has basic knowledge about the tools and goals of social policy
Can independently form simple judgments on the causes of selected social
processes and phenomena
Can comprehend a scientific text and identify its main theses and the author’s
arguments, as well as discuss them
Can participate in a discussion
Can argue a thesis
Can critically assess sources
Can present results of his/her own research
Assessment criteria
Assessment is based on active participation in discussions (30% of the mark),
completion of planned tasks (35%) and giving a presentation (35% of the mark).
Two unexcused absences are allowed.
Re-sit rules - the same as in the first term.
Bibliography
Arrowsmith, J., Sisson, K., & Marginson, P. (2004). What can ‘benchmarking’ offer
the open method of co-ordination? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2),
311–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000194458
Bruno, I. (2009). The “Indefinite Discipline” of Competitiveness Benchmarking as a
Neoliberal Technology of Government. Minerva, 47(3), 261–280.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9128-0
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public
measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A Sociology of Quantification. European
Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 401–436.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of
Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669
Jessoula, M., & Madama, I. (2018). Fighting poverty and social exclusion in the EU.
A chance in Europe 2020. Routledge.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers
through society. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Sage.
Porte, C. de la, Pochet, P., & Room, B. G. (2001). Social Benchmarking, Policy
Making and New Governance in the Eu. Journal of European Social Policy, 11(4),
291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/095892870101100401
Saltiel, D. (2022). Poverty (2nd edn), Ruth Lister. The British Journal of Social
Work, 52(5), 3047–3049. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab010
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human
condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Shore, C. (2000). Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration.
Routledge.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit Culture Revisited: Rankings, Ratings, and the
Reassembling of Society. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 421–444.
https://doi.org/10.1086/681534
Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. The American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326
Thedvall, R. (2006). Eurocrats at work: Negotiating transparency in postnational
employment policy. Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Vanhercke, B., Ghailani, D., Spasova, S., & Pochet, P. (2020). Social policy in the
European Union: 1999-2019: The long and winding road. OSE, ETUI.
Vanhercke, B., & Lelie, P. (2012). Benchmarking Social Europe a Decade on:
Demystifying the OMC’s Learning Tools (pp. 145–184).
Vetterlein, A. (2012). Seeing Like the World Bank on Poverty. New Political
Economy, 17(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2011.569023
Zeitlin, J. (2009). The Open Method of Coordination and reform of national social
and employment policies: Influences, mechanisms, effects. In M. Heidenreich & J.
Zeitlin (Eds.), Changing European Employment and Welfare Regimes: The
Influence of the Open Method of Coordination on National Reforms. Routledge.
Additional information
Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system: