scholarly journals Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies, 1975–2001

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 921-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brady ◽  
Jason Beckfield ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
State Expansion ◽  
State Variation ◽  
State Models ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Previous Scholarship ◽  
The Welfare State

Previous scholarship is sharply divided over how or if globalization influences welfare states. The effects of globalization may be positive causing expansion, negative triggering crisis and reduction, curvilinear contributing to convergence, or insignificant. We bring new evidence to bear on this debate with an analysis of three welfare state measures and a comprehensive array of economic globalization indicators for 17 affluent democracies from 1975 to 2001. The analysis suggests several conclusions. First, state-of-the-art welfare state models warrant revision in the globalization era. Second, most indicators of economic globalization do not have significant effects, but a few affect the welfare state and improve models of welfare state variation. Third, the few significant globalization effects are in differing directions and often inconsistent with extant theories. Fourth, the globalization effects are far smaller than the effects of domestic political and economic factors. Fifth, the effects of globalization are not systematically different between European and non-European countries, or liberal and non-liberal welfare regimes. Increased globalization and a modest convergence of the welfare state have occurred, but globalization does not clearly cause welfare state expansion, crisis, and reduction or convergence. Ultimately, this study suggests skepticism toward bold claims about globalization's effect on the welfare state.

5. Varieties

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Garland
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regime ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Government Involvement ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Welfare State

Every developed country has a distinctive welfare state of its own. Welfare states generally rely on the same basic institutions, but these institutions can operate in different ways. Welfare state programmes are government programmes, but while public authority is necessary to establish, fund, and regulate these programmes, the nature of government involvement varies. Three worlds of welfare have been identified: social democratic; conservative; and liberal. ‘Varieties’ describes the welfare state regimes that developed in Sweden, Germany, and the USA, each of which exemplifies one of these ‘worlds’ of welfare. It goes on to consider briefly the welfare regimes beyond the ‘three worlds’ and how Britain’s welfare regime has changed over time.

How does the welfare state model influence social political attitudes? An analysis of citizens' concrete and abstract attitudes toward poverty

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Toikko ◽  
Teemu Rantanen
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Political Attitudes ◽  
European Social Survey ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
State Model ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
State Models ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Welfare State

AbstractThis study examines the relationship between the welfare state models and social political attitudes. The data are based on the sixth round of the European Social Survey. The study revealed a mechanism of how the relationship between concrete and abstract attitudes differs between the welfare states. In the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic welfare states the relationship is a positive one, which indicates that the welfare state has a broad support among citizens. In the Continental, Eastern and Southern welfare states the relationship is a negative one. This means that the less satisfied citizens are with governmental measures, the more positive their attitudes are regarding protecting citizens against poverty. Also the study showed that the welfare state model directly influences citizens’ concrete attitudes and indirectly influences abstract poverty attitudes. In this sense, the welfare state model is seen more as an attitudinal perception than an actual social policy.

Liberalism and the Welfare State

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Welfare Provision ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Welfare State

The welfare state has, over the past 40 years, come under increasing attack from liberals who consider comprehensive welfare provision inimical to liberalism. Yet many of the architects of the post–World War II welfare states were liberals. Taking as examples three cases not often considered together—Britain, Germany, and Japan—this volume investigates the thinking of liberal economists about welfare. The first part explores the early history of welfare thinking, from the British New Liberals of the early twentieth century, to German ordoliberals and postwar Japanese liberal economists. This is followed by four chapters on neoliberalism under British Conservative and New Labour governments, after German reunification, and under Koizumi in Japan. The final two chapters explore neoliberal ideas on federalism and the response of neoliberal think tanks to the global financial crisis. These are some of the most important findings: Across the different countries, support emerged very early on for social minimum standards, but strong disagreements quickly developed, dividing economists into pro and contra camps, shaping the different regimes. In the age of retrenchment, means-tested programs, private insurance, and temporary relief in times of crisis appear to have become the norm. The strong impact of efficiency-related critiques of welfare regimes has crowded out more nuanced and complex discussions of the past. Yet neither liberalism nor economic ideas in general can be considered inimical to well-designed welfare provision. The debate on economics and welfare can be improved by considering different lineages of both liberal and neoliberal lines of economic thought.

Development, Welfare Policy, and the Welfare State

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gyu-Jin Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Political Factors ◽  
Welfare Capitalism ◽  
State Expansion ◽  
Intellectual Interest ◽  
Economic Inquiry ◽  
The Welfare State

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.

The Second Marriage of Justice and Efficiency

1990 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe van Parijs
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Postwar Period ◽  
Basic Income ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Major Reform ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
The Welfare State

ABSTRACTNo major reform of the welfare state has a chance of going through unless one can make a plausible case as to both its ‘ethical value’ and its ‘economic.value’, that is, that it would have a positive effect in terms of both justice and efficiency. In this essay, this rough conjecture is first presented, and its plausibility probed, on the background of some stylised facts about the rise of modern welfare states in the postwar period. Next, the focus is shifted to the current debate on the introduction of a basic income, a completely unconditional grant paid ex ante to all citizens. It is argued that if basic income is to have a chance of meeting the strong twofold condition stipulated in the conjecture, some major changes are required in the way one usually thinks about justice and efficiency in connection with social policy. But once these changes are made, as they arguably must be, the chance that basic income may be able to meet the challenge is greatly enhanced.

scholarly journals Invited Commentary: Social Cohesion, Depression, and the Role of Welfare States

2019 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-357
Author(s):  
Mikael Rostila
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neighborhood Disorder ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract In this issue of the Journal, Baranyi et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;000(00):000–000) examine the longitudinal associations of perceived neighborhood disorder and social cohesion with depressive symptoms among persons aged 50 years or more in 16 different countries. An important contribution of their article is that they study how neighborhood-level social capital relates to depression in different welfare-state contexts. Although the authors provide empirical evidence for some significant differences between welfare states in the relationship between social capital and depression, they say little about potential explanations. In this commentary, I draw attention to welfare-state theory and how it could provide us with a greater understanding of Baranyi et al.’s findings. I also discuss the potential downsides of grouping countries into welfare regimes. I primarily focus on the associations between social cohesion and depression, as these associations were generally stronger than those for neighborhood disorder and depression. Finally, I provide some suggestions for future research within the field and discuss whether the findings could be used to guide policies aimed at increasing social cohesion and health.

scholarly journals Social innovation as a policy response to restructure the welfare state

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 269-276
Author(s):  
Doğa Başar Sariipek ◽  
Gökçe Cerev ◽  
Bora Yenihan
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The State ◽  
Welfare Provision ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Welfare State

The focus of this paper is the interaction between social innovation and restructuring welfare state. Modern welfare states have been reconfiguring their welfare mixes through social innovation. This includes a productive integration of formal and informal actors with support and leading role of the state. This collaboration becomes significantly important since it means the integration of not only the actors, but also their capabilities and resources in today’s world where new social risks and new social challenges have emerged and no actor can overcome these by its own. Therefore, social innovation is a useful tool in the new role sharing within the welfare mix in order to reach higher levels of satisfaction and success in welfare provision. The main point here is that this is not a zero-sum competition; gaining more power of the actors other than the state – the market, civil society organisations and the family – does not necessarily mean that the state lost its leading role and power. This is rather a new type of cooperation among actors and their capabilities as well as their resources in welfare provision. In this sense, social innovation may contribute well to the debates over the financial crisis of the welfare state since it may lead to the more wisely use of existing resources of welfare actors. Thanks to social innovative programs, not only the NGOs, but also market forces as well as citizens are more active to access welfare provisions and social protection in the broadest sense. Thus, social innovative strategies are definitely a solid step taken towards “enabling” or “active” welfare state.

Ethics

2021 ◽  
pp. 22-38
Author(s):  
Stuart White
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Basic Needs ◽  
Political Context ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The Core ◽  
National Welfare ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
The Welfare State

This chapter seeks to clarify some of the core ethical arguments surrounding welfare states. The analysis focuses on three key values. First, we will consider the concept of need. What are basic needs? How do we conceptualize and measure them? Do citizens have rights to what they need? Second, we focus on principles of equality and, third, we look at arguments surrounding the implications of the welfare state for liberty. A final section concludes by noting some normative issues moving increasingly to the forefront of debate. A changing global political context raises new issues about the international salience of these issues, questions which national welfare states have found it difficult to address.

Models of the Welfare State

2021 ◽  
pp. 786-802
Author(s):  
Philip Manow
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Short Discussion ◽  
The West ◽  
Welfare Capitalism ◽  
European Model ◽  
The Past ◽  
State Research ◽  
The Welfare State

IN 1990, Gøsta Esping-Andersen published The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, a work which has turned out to be the single most important and decisive contribution to welfare state research in the past thirty to forty years. In essence, Esping-Andersen argued that we can observe systematic variation in the character of the developed welfare states of the West, which he grouped into three distinct welfare state models: a Scandinavian social democratic model, a conservative continental European model, and a liberal Anglo-Saxon model. This chapter provides a short description of Esping-Andersen’s three regimes; introduces a fourth, Southern European model, which will then be described in somewhat more detail; and outlines a historical and genealogical account of the development of all four models. Finally, the chapter briefly expands on the comparative perspective with a short discussion on whether the regime concept or the understanding of distinct welfare models can also be applied to other regions, such as Latin America and Asia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document