Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social Policy in Development Contexts ? By Ian Gough and Geof Wood, with Armando Barrientos, Philippa Bevan, P. David, and R. Room Globalization and the Future of the Welfare State ? Edited by Miguel Glatzer and Dietrich Rueschemeyer The Decline of the Welfare State: Demography and Globalization ? By Assaf Razin and Efraim Sadka

Governance ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-366
Author(s):  
ALEX HICKS
1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Walker ◽  
Chack-Kie Wong

This article employs case studies of China and Hong Kong to question the western ethnocentric construction of the welfare state that predominates in comparative social policy research. The authors argue that welfare regimes, and particularly the “welfare state,” have been constructed as capitalist-democratic projects and that this has the damaging effect of excluding from analyses not only several advanced capitalist societies in the Asian-Pacific area but also the world's most populous country. If welfare state regimes can only coexist with western political democracies, then China and Hong Kong are excluded automatically. A similar result occurs if the traditional social administration approach is adopted whereby a “welfare state” is defined in terms only of direct state provision. The authors argue that such assumptions are untenable if state welfare is to be analyzed as a universal phenomenon. Instead of being trapped within an ethnocentric welfare statism, what social policy requires is a global political economy perspective that facilitates comparisons of the meaning of welfare and the state's role in producing it north, south, east and west.


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.


1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 71-85
Author(s):  
J. M. Domingues

This article connects the contemporary crisis of modernity to the crisis of the Welfare State in the West and to its so far incomplete establishment in ‘Latin’-America, with special reference to Brazil. The reflexivisation of modernity is thus linked to a discussion of citizenship and social police which harks back to the definition of the principles of social policy, focusing on the possible alternative of ‘generative politics’ as a means of creating new forms of collective solidarity. The crisis of dialectical thought and the problem of social change are thereby tackled and a different way of understanding them is put forward, in accordance with new sorts of contemporary sociability.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
Varvara Lalioti

This article aims to provide a succinct historical overview of comparative social policy. Typified by both challenges and benefits, comparative social policy started to experience a period of growth in the 1960s, a time characterized by the dominance of the socalled Keynesian welfare state. It will be argued that the publication of Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism in 1990, during a period marked by the  omnipotence of the so-called Schumpeterian welfare state, coincides with the beginning of a new era for comparative social policy, one that has resulted in it being recognized as a separate field of study. The article discusses the main characteristics of each evolutionary phase of comparative social policy, as exemplified by the preponderance of descriptive studies and the functionalist family of welfare state explanations in the pre-1990 years and the dominance of the welfare state taxonomies in the post-1990 period. In spite of the challenges that are yet to be overcome, the proliferation of studies in the field transmitspositive messages about the future of comparative social policy.


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.


Author(s):  
Sven Schreurs

Abstract In academia and beyond, it has become commonplace to regard populist parties – in particular, those on the radical right – as the archetypical embodiment of politics of nostalgia. Demand-side studies suggest that nostalgic sentiments motivate populist radical-right (PRR) voting and welfare chauvinist attitudes, yet systematic analyses of the nostalgic discourse that these parties promote have not been forthcoming. This paper seeks to fill that lacuna by analysing how the Freedom Party of Austria, the Dutch Party for Freedom and the Sweden Democrats framed the historical fate of the welfare state in their electoral discourse between 2008 and 2018. It demonstrates that their commitment to welfare chauvinism finds expression in a common repertoire of “welfare nostalgia,” manifested in the different modes of “reaction,” “conservation” and “modernisation.” Giving substance to a widespread intuition about PRR nostalgia, the paper breaks ground for further research into nostalgic ideas about social policy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hüther ◽  
Matthias Diermeier

Abstract Can the rise of populism be explained by the growing chasm between rich and poor? With regard to Germany, such a causal relationship must be rejected. Income distribution in Germany has been very stable since 2005, and people’s knowledge on actual inequality and economic development is limited: inequality and unemployment are massively overestimated. At the same time, a persistently isolationist and xenophobic group with diverse concerns and preferences has emerged within the middle classes of society that riggers support for populist parties. This mood is based on welfare chauvinism against immigration rather than on a general criticism of distribution. Since the immigration of recent years will inevitably affect the relevant indicators concerning distribution, an open, cautious but less heated approach is needed in the debate on the future of the welfare state. In order to address and take the local concerns of citizens seriously, an increased exchange with public officials on the ground is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document