Social Investment Logics,Potential and Ageing: A Commentary

Social investment potentially presents itself as the sword of Alexander the Great, chopping the Gordic Knot of of how to have both economic growth and social justice, implying that we indeed can have both if only we invest smartly. However, as Ditte Andersen points out in her article, Am I worth it?, social investments have a “darker side”; “[…] that public spending can also be framed as bad investments” (Andersen, 2026).

In her paper, Andersen (2026) presents two cases of young men in drug treatment. While they are both under 20 years of age, and therefore have a significant improvement potential and a potential long life course of return on the social investment by working and paying taxes, Andersen (2026) points to a significant difference between the two young men; that, while Felix is from a stable upper middle-class background, Noah comes from different, socially vulnerable background. Thereby, the framework around the two young men, and the expectations from social workers and drug treatment staff, differ, as do their own expectations of success.

If this is the case for teenagers, what then are the potential consequences of social investment reasoning for people on the other end of the age spectrum who use substances or have other social problems to deal with and need support for?

One dilemma of social investments is which logic, the social or economic, has more weight? If there is no economic return, and maybe even immediate expenditure, but a high social return, is a social investment then a good social investment? Does it have to have an economic return in order to be that or does it become a “bad” investment?

The investment logic obviously forefronts potential and the more potential (time, money, etc.), the better the investment. While the “evidence” logic, which is connected to the idea of social investment (we need to invest in what we know works), similarly favorizes particular types of efforts that “pay off” in the long run, this leaves us with questions on the how we can continually recognize matters of the economically non-productive, of living dignified and comfortable lives, that are different to measure in monetary terms?

While Andersen (2026) is careful not to draw broad conclusions, her aim of highlighting the potentially harmful logic of social investment, if it is transferred from being policy paradigm to being an interaction frame, is an important one. While the social investment logic certainly has its advantages, among them showcasing that social welfare is not an economic black hole, it is important to be mindful of the pitfalls.

The social investment logic is present in Danish employment policies; for example, the recent rolling out of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model, that is targeting the under 30 years age group of unemployed. In a minor project focusing on the use of the method to support people who use substances, one caseworker found it regrettable that the limit to enter the program was 30 years, as she knew other unemployed citizens who could benefit from it (Bach & Vibæk, 2025). Motivation is another marker of inclusion into the IPS programme that speaks into the investment logic; if you are not motivated, you are not entitled to the service. The logic is also present in “age logics”, that govern which types of services are offered to substance using older individuals, as shown by Jönson and Harnett (2024) in a Swedish context.

The logic is also present in how funds are distributed to novel projects. Recently the municipality of Aarhus has introduced a Health Foundation (Sundhedsfonden) which invests in cases promoting healthy ageing in the municipality (Aarhus commune, 2025). While the goal is commendable, there are likely to be types of cases that would not be eligible for support, or that will not show the sufficient economic benefits to secure transfer and implementation into daily operations after a project period, again based on the investment logic. The point here is not that the IPS method or the Health Foundation are not valid and useful ways of employing logics of social investment. However, if we focus primarily on prevention, effect and motivation, we risk “creaming” (Guul et al., 2021), prioritizing those who are able to adjust to demands and are more likely to live up to our bars of success and leaving the rest on the platform.

That is why we need more solid research on the effects of social investment not only for those who fit into the investment programmes, but also for how the potential transformation of our welfare systems to a larger emphasis on social investment cases affects the people who potentially feel left out or, like Noah in Andersen's paper, “feel like ‘a waste of money’” (Andersen, 2026). While some politicians may consider it viable to say that money are “wasted” on some forms of social welfare as the recipients are “unmotivated”, “unthankful”, actively avoid, or are not immediately helped by particular social efforts, it should not be a justification for not offering social welfare to people in need.

For a person like 17-year old Noah from the case material in Andersen (2026), the first, second, fifth or eight attempt in drug treatment may be unsuccessful, while the ninth might be the opposite. He may not be able to leave the drugs behind when he is 17 or 30 years old, but he may be in a situation where he will succeed at age 40 years. This is important to keep in mind if we wish to uphold the universality of our welfare services; that we are obliged to try to help the people who are in need, also if it may seem to have limited chances of success; that we are obliged to try to help people who are in need, even when there seems to be limited chances of success.