Am I Worth it?

Aim: Social investments are strategic allocation of resources to welfare programs, such as education or health care, expected to generate social and economic returns. In Europe, social investment has become a well established policy paradigm, yet research has rarely examined how it impacts how state-citizen relationships are understood. This article explores how the social investment discourse functions as a frame of interaction within welfare programs for young people with drug problems in Denmark.

Design: Theoretically, the article draws on Foucault's concept of discourse, Goffman's theory of frames and Hacking's notion of looping effects. Empirically, it presents two contrasting cases of young people with drug problems who position themselves as, respectively, good and bad investments.

Results: The social investment discourse provides some youths and their relatives with means to legitimize requests for help; it enables a selfpresentation as "a good investment", which can strengthen their sense of entitlement to welfare. In contrast, others come to view themselves as "bad investments". For them, the discourse frames programs as a waste of money, which risk to undermine the sense of entitlement among individuals who fear they might fail to benefit from welfare programs.

Conclusions: Social investment is a policy paradigm; it is not designed as a frame of self-presentation. Nevertheless, once its rationality enters public discourse, it produces new interactional frames and subject positions. An unintended but significant effect is that the discourse may stigmatize marginalized citizens, undermine their sense of entitlement to welfare, and weaken the universal, normative and rights-based principles underpinning the Nordic welfare states.