Rethinking Retrenchment: North American Social Policy during the Early Clinton and Chrétien Years

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Bashevkin

Since the mid–1990s, comparative research on welfare state evolution has contrasted the contours of postwar social policy expansion with the parameters of contemporary programme retrenchment. Paul Pierson's 1994 account of pension, housing and income support policies in the United Kingdom and the United States during the Thatcher and Reagan years proposed two core arguments with this literature: first, welfare state expansion and contraction were governed by fundamentally different dynamics; and second, even conservative, ideologically committed political executives found it hard to impose radical social policy changes. Because “the welfare state has proved to be far more resilient than other key components of national political economies.” Pierson has maintained, “retrenchment is a distinctive and difficult political enterprise.”

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-404
Author(s):  
Oldrich Bubak

The disruptions of the recent global financial crisis intensified a number of industrial and economic challenges and brought forward a set of often contradictory solutions. Here, we focus on two alternative views on how to (re)establish economic competitiveness and enable growth – flexicurity and austerity. There is much to be learned about the future of these conflicting recipes across changing political economies, particularly considering the importance of the social partners in the development of flexicurity, and their differential ability to influence welfare state outcomes more broadly. Two questions emerge. Attentive to the role and capacity of the social partners, what can we learn about the dynamics of the ongoing welfare state adjustments? How do we make sense of labour market politics in this paradoxical environment? In order to help answer these, we visit the United Kingdom and Denmark – one state offering modest social and employment security, the other a paragon of flexicurity – and find their divergent philosophies, institutional development, and organisational interactions explain not only their respective choices in the aftermath of the crisis, but also their prospects for socially oriented labour policies.


2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID STOESZ

The triumph of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election is further evidence of the waning viability of the American welfare state. Since 1980 various strains of conservatism have vied for control of domestic policy through the Republican party, the most recent variant being ‘compassionate conservatism’. Democrats have responded by disavowing their liberal heritage and moving toward the centre. This reflects the replacement of a ‘social model’ with an ‘economic model’ for social policy. The Left can be rejuvenated by adopting three themes for domestic policy: mobility, empowerment and restructuring. These are consistent with the ‘third way’ in social policy, as centrists have advocated in the United States and the United Kingdom.


2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1439-1451 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAUL HIGGS ◽  
CHRIS GILLEARD

ABSTRACTThe British welfare state is over 60 years old. Those who were born, grew up and who are now growing old within its ambit are a distinctive generation. They have enjoyed healthier childhoods with better education than previous populations living in Britain. That they have done well under the welfare state is accepted, but some critics have argued that these advantages are at the expense of younger cohorts. The very success of this ‘welfare generation’ is perceived as undermining the future viability of the welfare state, and some argue that the current levels of income and wealth enjoyed by older cohorts can only be sustained by cutbacks in entitlements for younger cohorts. This will lead to a growing ‘generational fracture’ over welfare policy. This paper challenges this position, arguing that both younger and older groups find themselves working out their circumstances in conditions determined more by the contingencies of the market than by social policy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 38-52
Author(s):  
Christopher Pierson ◽  
Matthieu Leimgruber

This chapter considers the intellectual roots of the welfare state in changing views about states and their competences from the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth centuries. This happens in particular national contexts, with differing patterns of both democratization and bureaucratization. From the beginning, we can observe patterns of international learning and policy transfer. This process is traced through a number of national cases: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the English-speaking nations, Sweden and the United States. Although the welfare state has come to be identified with social citizenship and ‘social justice’, its ideational and normative roots are much more diverse and contested than this. And although the welfare state came to be identified with social democrats, especially after 1945, its origins more usually lie with liberal, or even conservative, forces and ideas.


Author(s):  
Peter Baldwin

If We Turn to Other forms of Social Policy, how does the United States care for its old, its poor, its unemployed, and its disabled? Here, most outcomes place the United States in the lower half of the spectrum, but within European norms and standards. The primary weakness of American social policy is its reluctance to deal resolutely with poverty. If we measure outcomes before redistribution, the United States starts with an economy that produces less poverty than most European nations. According to one calculation, only Finland and the Netherlands have lower “natural” poverty rates. But after taxes, social benefits, and other mechanisms of redistribution have worked their magic, the American poverty rate (as measured relatively, i.e., as a fraction of median income) is higher than anywhere in Western Europe. We will come back in more detail to the question of poverty and inequality. In what one might call the middle-class entitlement aspects of the welfare state, however, America is less of an anomaly. As is widely known, the American state is more modest in size and scope than its European peers. Yet as an employer of civil servants, it ranks in the middle of the European scale (figure 50). France and Finland employ proportionately more civil servants, but at least five other countries, including Germany, hire fewer. Correspondingly, the percentage of America’s GDP spent on government employee salaries is higher than in six of the nations we are examining. The size of the American state, as measured by government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, also fits into the European span. Ireland and Switzerland spend less (figure 51). For most social policies and benefits— which together make up what is usually called the welfare state—the picture is analogous: the United States ranks low, but within the bottom half of the European spectrum. All figures given here and elsewhere (unless otherwise indicated) are phrased in internationally comparable terms. Sometimes this means benefits rates are measured as a percentage of median income, allowing a sense of what proportion of a standard of living is maintained. Sometimes they are calculated in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms, which means that differences between the cost of living in poorer and richer nations have been factored in.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-197
Author(s):  
Christiana Kliková ◽  
Boris Navrátil

Abstract Is the Czech Republic a welfare state? This question is to be answered through this article, whose purpose is to classify Czechia into one of the types of the welfare state. The introduction of the article describes the creation of the welfare state and the main factors influencing its origin. The article also describes the characteristic features of the welfare state and presents its typology. The section entitled “The Czech Republic and the welfare state” expounds on the constituent stages of development of the Czech social policy until the present day. The article concludes with the comparison of some aggregate indicators and characteristics of social policies found in Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom with similar indicators from the Czech Republic; this basis forms the assignment of the Czech Republic to one of the types of the welfare state.


1996 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Pierson

This essay seeks to lay the foundation for an understanding of welfare state retrenchment. Previous discussions have generally relied, at least implicitly, on a reflexive application of theories designed to explain welfare state expansion. Such an approach is seriously flawed. Not only is the goal of retrenchment (avoiding blame for cutting existing programs) far different from the goal of expansion (claiming credit for new social benefits), but the welfare state itself vastly alters the terrain on which the politics of social policy is fought out. Only an appreciation of how mature social programs create a new politics can allow us to make sense of the welfare state's remarkable resilience over the past two decades of austerity. Theoretical argument is combined with quantitative and qualitative data from four cases (Britain, the United States, Germany, and Sweden) to demonstrate the shortcomings of conventional wisdom and to highlight the factors that limit or facilitate retrenchment success.


Author(s):  
Gyu-Jin Hwang

One of the most significant structural transformations in postwar capitalist democracies has been the rise of the welfare state. The theoretical intent of the traditional sociological and economic inquiry into the welfare state has focused less on trying to understand the welfare state itself and more on to what extent and under what conditions welfare provisions influence social and economic outcomes such as equality, employment, and labor market behavior. Over time, however, scholars have turned toward historical and political factors. G. Esping-Andersen identified three types of welfare state that seem incongruent with the real worlds of welfare capitalism: the “liberal,” “conservative/corporatist,” and “social democratic.” In contrast to the period until the mid-1980s that focused on welfare state expansion, the late 1980s saw the emergence of new streams of literature whose emphasis was on welfare state retrenchment. More recently, scholars have advanced the argument that the globalization of capital markets has effectively increased the power of capital over governments that seek to expand or maintain relatively high levels of social protection and taxation. Another notable trend is the increased intellectual interest in the relation between development and social policy and the growing interface between social policy and economic policy. A question that arises is whether distinctive welfare regimes have the ability to survive, particularly if their norms clash with those of the competition, or Schumpeterian workfare state.


2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOB S. HACKER

Over the last decade, students of the welfare state have produced an impressive body of research on retrenchment, the dominant thrust of which is that remarkably few welfare states have experienced fundamental shifts. This article questions this now-conventional wisdom by reconsidering the post-1970s trajectory of the American welfare state, long considered the quintessential case of social policy stability. I demonstrate that although most programs have indeed resisted retrenchment, U.S. social policy has also offered increasingly incomplete risk protection in an era of dramatic social change. Although some of this disjuncture is inadvertent—an unintended consequence of the very political stickiness that has stymied retrenchment—I argue that the declining scope of risk protection also reflects deliberate and theoretically explicable strategies of reform adopted by welfare state opponents in the face of popular and change-resistant policies, a finding that has significant implications for the study of institutional change more broadly.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document