Public debate emphasises individual deficits rather than structural problems in society – are there alternatives?
Public discussion about those who are in the most vulnerable positions in society, such as people who use alcohol or drugs, recipients of food aid or people in need of social security benefits, is quite individual-centred and negative, as the following news headlines show:
Even a defibrillator bolted to the wall was taken when theft began in Tripla’s new residential block (HS 17 Feb 2026)
A clothing store entrepreneur stated in an interview with Yle that it is not nice when “park chemists” hang around in the city centre (Yle 30 Oct 2024)
Drug users took over a housing company in Vantaa – “Everyone is afraid” (Ilta-Sanomat 3 Oct 2025)
In public debate, disadvantage appears largely as an individual characteristic that is due to a person’s own shortcomings. In this so-called deficit thinking people in a weak position are seen as being to blame for their own situation.
Deficit thinking turns attention away from structural factors
When attention is directed at the behaviour of “park chemists” or people stealing defibrillators, there is no need to discuss whether there are shortcomings in societal structures, such as substance abuse services or social security benefits.
A typical example of shifting the focus to the individual is setting obligations and sanctions for unemployed jobseekers – even though the real reason for unemployment is the lack of jobs.
At its worst, deficit thinking crystallises into a sense of there being no alternatives (TINA, There is No Alternative). For example, cuts to social security have often been framed with rhetoric that no other options exist.
Why focusing on the individual does not work?
There is quite a lot of evidence that measures based on deficit thinking are quickly exhausted. When there are no jobs, it is not effective to punish an individual for not having a job.
According to studies, eligibility requirements for benefits also cause stress and thereby weaken a person’s functional capacity. This is why reducing or losing a financial benefit does not motivate people to seek employment.
In Finland, cuts to social security have mainly led to increasing poverty. The number of recipients of social assistance is growing after the cuts. The number of people at risk of exclusion and facing financial difficulties is at its peak.
Long-term effectiveness requires structural measures
An alternative way of thinking would mean recognising that there are structural problems behind individual distress. This would mean, for example, strengthening services that support people’s agency and shifting resources from monitoring sanctioning measures to the participation of people and communities.
For example, in South West England, the evidence-based Three Conversations (3Cs) model has been introduced, in which people’s resources are strengthened by utilising community resources and personal strengths. The use of the model has been found to reduce the need for long-term support.
The model used in South West England resembles the Participatory Social Security municipal pilot carried out in Finland in 2018–2019, where wellbeing was pursued holistically based on the client’s needs. Financial support was used as an incentive, not as a punishment. As a result of the pilot, information was also produced for the first time on the effectiveness of adult social work using the AVAIN indicator.
Experimentation and research provide more information on effectiveness
Bold experiments are also needed in today’s world, as human behaviour cannot be predicted solely on the basis of economic calculations.
Through experimentation, elements could be added to social security benefits that would better support people’s opportunities to act and progress in their lives. For example, combining part-time work, studies or rehabilitation with benefits should be more flexible, and even a small amount of earned income should not immediately lead to a significant reduction in benefits. Effectiveness should be assessed using the AVAIN indicator integrated into client information systems.
Through experimentation, it would be possible to monitor whether people’s functional capacity changes during unemployment if social work focuses on strengthening people’s agency and opportunities to use their own resources.
There are alternatives
It is important to introduce alternative discussions alongside and instead of deficit thinking, and to pilot new models that combine social security and services.
Through experimentation, we would gain information on how benefits and services could be developed more appropriately so that the funding and legitimacy of the entire social security system would be based on diverse research evidence – not solely on limited cost calculations, whose benefits usually remain short-term.
Read more
Osallistavaa aikuissosiaalityötä: Osallistavan sosiaaliturvan kuntakokeilun tulokset (Julkari)