Stretching the Limits of Solidarity

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Ocko Heuer ◽  
Steffen Mau
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Private Pensions ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
The Social ◽  
And Training ◽  
Very High ◽  
Precarious Jobs

Germany had already made major reforms to social policy before the Great Recession. It had moved away from the traditional corporatist breadwinner welfare state model towards greater individual responsibility (private pensions and workfarist reforms, with sharp benefit cuts), and much more extensive support for childcare. Social investment and training measures have been much strengthened. These measures, carried out within a general framework of austerity and retrenchment, had increased employment, although the expansion in work since the early 2000s was mainly in low-skilled precarious jobs. The country weathered the recession successfully. New pressures are from the deepening divisions between those advantaged by the new regime (highly skilled middle-class people in secure jobs) and outsiders in an increasingly dualized labour market. Very high levels of immigration have led to further tensions. Germany has successfully transformed its welfare state, but faces further challenges from the social and political consequences of those reforms.

The Truncated German Social Investment Turn

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
First Century ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Political Determinants ◽  
The Social ◽  
State Regime ◽  
Policy Transformations ◽  
Veto Points

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.

scholarly journals Social Investment in an Age of Austerity: A Comparison of Family Policy Reforms in Four European Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-267
Author(s):  
Sonja Blum ◽  
Tatjana Rakar ◽  
Karin Wall
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
Parental Leave ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Crowding Out ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
The Social ◽  
Post War

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

Fiscal Squeeze in Germany:

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lodge ◽  
Kai Wegrich
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Social Democratic Party ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Financial Arrangements ◽  
Government Level

Decisive fiscal squeeze might surprise observers of the German political system, insofar as party political dynamics, welfare state complexity, and intergovernmental financial arrangements are commonly said to inhibit decisive reforms. This chapter traces the fiscal squeeze carried out in post-unification Germany in the 1990s and 2000s and highlights how the politics of fiscal squeeze had damaging political consequences for the Social Democratic Party. Squeeze at the federal government level was largely about ‘natural wastage’ in staff numbers and targeted cutbacks. The welfare state witnessed considerable reform as a result of cumulating pressures resulting from unification, triggering significant political consequences. Finally, squeezing at the level of the intergovernmental fiscal transfers reflected attempts to contain fiscal pressures on local governments, and wider pressures within the system of German federalism, leading to the creation of a constitutional ‘debt brake’ on public budgets.

scholarly journals Three Shortcomings of the Social Investment Perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bea Cantillon ◽  
Wim Van Lancker
Keyword(s):  
Capital Investment ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
The Social

In this article we critically assess the social investment perspective that has become the dominant paradigm in European social policymaking. We identify and discuss some of its shortcomings that may hamper social progress for all. In doing so, we focus on three pillars central to the idea of social investment: social inclusion through work, individual responsibility and human capital investment. We find that the social investment perspective has some serious flaws when it comes to the social protection of vulnerable groups. This is strongly related to the continuing relevance of social class in explaining and remedying social inequalities. We conclude that investment cannot be the only rationale for welfare state intervention and that protecting people should remain equally high on the policy agenda.

Accelerator or Brake?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurizio Ferrera
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Focused Attention ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Grass Root ◽  
Grass Root Level ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Welfare State

Reorienting the welfare state towards social investment constitutes a complex and multidimensional challenge of policy recalibration and raises daunting political problems. The chapter analyses the strategy pursued by the EU, with a view to assessing its degree of ‘conduciveness’ to social investment recalibration at the domestic level. It is argued that the EU has indeed stimulated policy change, but that its potential as a social investment facilitator has been hamstrung by a number of weaknesses and shortcomings, especially on the discursive front. A more convinced and articulated endorsement of the social investment paradigm and a more focused attention to ‘capacity’ at the subnational and grass-root level should be the fronts to prioritize.

Social Investment

2021 ◽  
pp. 187-205
Author(s):  
Julian L. Garritzmann
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Knowledge Economy ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Investment Policies ◽  
Policy Paradigm ◽  
The Social ◽  
Human Skills

This chapter reviews the paradigm and spread of social investment policies, which come in many variants, and discusses them as key elements of the ‘knowledge economy welfare state’. Social investments are policies that aim to create, preserve, and mobilize human skills and capabilities. The chapter discusses the emergence of social investment as a new social policy paradigm, presents different variants of the social investment approach, provides a mapping of social investment policies around the globe, discusses effects of social investment policies, and weighs in on important debates regarding the politics of social investment. The chapter then closes with an outlook on avenues for future research.

Changing labour markets, changing welfare across the OECD: the move towards a social investment model of welfare as a response to competition

2017 ◽  
pp. 33-52
Author(s):  
Naomi Finch ◽  
Dan Horsfall ◽  
John Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Investment Model ◽  
Labour Markets ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Economic Competition ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Expenditures

This chapter examines in more depth one of the attempts to develop a ‘progressive’ modernisation of welfare: the social investment model. The notion of a ‘social investment welfare state’ has gained increasing ground over recent years, playing an important role in the discourse of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and EU. It forms a part of a number of concepts — others include ‘active social welfare’, the ‘new welfare state’ and ‘new risk welfare’ — that might be grouped under the label ‘new welfare’. All are based around a shared view that developed welfare states have begun to place less emphasis on income protection and more emphasis on investing in human capital. Put differently, they stress the growing importance of the ‘productive’ elements of social policy, chiefly on the basis that this may square the circle of maintaining social expenditures while responding to increased economic competition. The chapter then reviews how far reform agendas match the reality of the social investment model theory and, moreover, evaluates the effectiveness of the approach in reconciling social and economic pressures.

When voters favour the social investment welfare state

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-205
Author(s):  
Marc Brazzill ◽  
Hideko Magara ◽  
Yuki Yanai
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Investment Strategy ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Investment Policies ◽  
High Productivity ◽  
Developed Economies ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
The Social

AbstractWe investigate when voters favour social investment. Welfare states have transformed their core policies as a result of low economic growth and fiscal pressures. The social investment strategy, such as broader education provision and promotion of women's employment, aims at shifting the economy from the traditional Keynesian welfare state to the high-productivity economy by encouraging long-term and inclusive human capital formation. Social investment is popular among citizens in many developed economies, especially in the EU where governments promote social investment as part of their welfare policy packages. However, in Japan, the term ‘social investment’ is rarely used in policy discussions. Consequently, we ask what levels of voter support social investment policies have in such an environment; which voter characteristics are associated with social investment support; and whether voter support for social investment differs when placed in a broader policy context. To answer these questions, we conducted an online survey with a conjoint experiment. Our data analysis shows that social investment policies are popular among Japanese people, despite a lack of familiarity with the concept of social investment. We find that social libertarians and female respondents are more likely than social authoritarians and male respondents to support social investment. In addition, there is some evidence that higher income voters are favourable to social investment policies. Furthermore, voter support for social investment depends on the policy context. Support becomes weaker when social investment policies are presented in combination with decreasing levels of social security spending. Our results highlight what kinds of social investment policies could be achieved without damaging electoral fortunes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document