The multidimensional politics of social investment in conservative welfare regimes: family policy reform between social transfers and social investment

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 862-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silja Häusermann
2018 ◽  
pp. 223-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Collado ◽  
Bea Cantillon ◽  
Karel Van den Bosch ◽  
Tim Goedemé ◽  
Dieter Vandelannoote

Available evidence suggests that social investment and employment strategies are important but not sufficient for poverty reduction. Thus, European Union countries must not only develop effective employment policies but also ensure adequate social protection. This would require increasing social transfers for working and nonworking households, while protecting work incentives. In this chapter, we show that this is not an inexpensive option. We calculate the hypothetical cost of closing the poverty gap while maintaining the existing average labor-market participation incentives at the bottom of the income distribution. We do so in three types of welfare regimes, namely those of Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Results show that this would require around two times the budget needed just to lift all disposable household incomes to the poverty threshold. The cost would obviously be lower in countries with smaller poverty gaps and with weaker participation incentives.


Author(s):  
Silja Häusermann ◽  
Bruno Palier

Recent research on the development of social investment has demonstrated reform progress not only in different regions of Europe, but also in Latin America and South-East Asia. However, the specific substance of the social investment agendas varies strongly between these regions. Why have social investment ideas and policies been more developed in some regions and countries than in others? Building on the theoretical framework of this volume, our chapter suggests that the content of regional social investment agendas depends on policy legacies in terms of investment vs consumption-oriented policies and their interaction with structural pressures. In a second step, we argue that the chances of social investment agendas to be implemented depend on the availability of political support coalitions between organizational representatives of the educated middle classes and either business or working-class actors. We illustrate our claims with reference to family policy developments in France, Germany, and Switzerland.


Author(s):  
Timo Fleckenstein ◽  
Soohyun Christine Lee

The welfare states of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were built by conservative elites to serve the project of late industrialization, and for this reason the East Asian developmental welfare state focused its resources on those who were deemed most important for economic development (especially male industrial workers). Starting in the 1990s and increasingly since the 2000s, the developmental welfare state has experienced a far-reaching transformation, including the expansion of family policy to address the post-industrial challenges of female employment participation and low fertility. This chapter assesses social investment policies in East Asia, with a focus on family policy and on the South Korean case, where the most comprehensive rise of social investment policies were observed.


Author(s):  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Traditionally Germany has been categorized as the archetypical conservative welfare state, a categorization not systematically questioned in much of the comparative welfare state regime literature. For many scholars Germany was largely stuck and unable to reform its coordinated market economy and welfare state arrangements at the turn of the twenty-first century, due to a large number of veto points and players and the dominance of two ‘welfare state parties’. More recent research has highlighted a widening and deepening of the historically institutionalized social protection dualism, whilst at the same time significant family policy transformations, which can be considered as partially in line with the social investment paradigm, have been emphasized. This chapter sets out to sketch the main policy developments and aims to identify political determinants of social policy change in Germany.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-267
Author(s):  
Sonja Blum ◽  
Tatjana Rakar ◽  
Karin Wall

The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the ‘Great Recession’, and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to ‘crowding out’ of other policy approaches and ‘leaner’ forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis. Key words: family policy; crisis; social investment; austerity; case studies denoted as the end of the ‘golden age’ of the welfare state, putting a halt to its expansion in post-war prosperity. Faced with low growth rates and rising unemployment, the recipe chosen by many countries was to ‘relieve’ labour markets. Alongside such measures as early retirement schemes, family policy was a key part of the reform programme and recourse to parental leave


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Lise Ellingsæter
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Lyn Craig ◽  
Myra Hamilton ◽  
Judith E. Brown

Grandparents are important providers of childcare while their adult children participate in work and other activities. The literature suggests that grandmothers are more likely than grandfathers to provide care for their grandchildren, and that the prevalence and intensity of grandparent childcare provision varies by country. But research is lacking on the composition of grandparent childcare time, and whether this varies across countries. What patterns do we see in the gendered distribution of childcare tasks among grandparents? To what extent does this vary across countries with different employment patterns, family policy regimes and norms of familial obligation? Using Time Use Surveys of Australia, Korea, Italy and France this chapter will explore how grandparents are spending their time with grandchildren. It reveals cross-national similarities and differences in the gendered distribution and relative composition of care and discusses the implications for grandmothers and grandfathers in the four different welfare regimes.


2011 ◽  
pp. 77-93
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Boje ◽  
Anders Ejrnœs

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document