The welfare state and social capital in Europe: Reassessing a complex relationship

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Ferragina
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Exceptional Case ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
State Size ◽  
The Welfare State

The article investigates the relationship between the welfare state and social capital in Europe during the 1990s and the 2000s using structural equation modelling (SEM). By formulating and testing the hypothesis that welfare state generosity and welfare state size have different effects on social capital, we reassess the explanatory power of the main theories in the field and the findings of previous empirical work. We strongly support the contention of institutional theory that there is a positive association between high degrees of welfare state generosity and social capital. Moreover, we partially confirm the concern of neoclassical and communitarian theories for the negative correlation between large-size welfare states and social capital. The positive relationship between welfare state generosity and social capital is much stronger than the negative association observed with welfare state size. Finally, we interpret the considerable cross-country variation using welfare regime theory and several country cases. We illuminate different mechanisms linking welfare state development and social capital creation, discussing the Danish and Dutch third sector experiences and pointing to Sweden as an exceptional case of decline. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of regional variation in Belgium, Germany and Italy and complement the analysis also briefly discussing the Austrian, French, Irish and British cases.

scholarly journals When Explanations for Poverty Help Explain Social Policy Preferences: The Case of European Public Opinion Amidst the Economic Recession (2009–2014)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Marquis ◽  
Jan Rosset
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Economic Recession ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Unemployment Benefits ◽  
European Public ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
The Welfare State

AbstractIndividuals hold beliefs about what causes poverty, and those beliefs have been theorized to explain policy preferences and ultimately cross-country variations in welfare states. However, there has been little empirical work on the effects of poverty attributions on welfare state attitudes. We seek to fill this gap by making use of Eurobarometer data from 27 European countries in the years 2009, 2010 and 2014 to explore the effects of poverty attributions on judgments about economic inequality as well as preferences regarding the welfare state. Relying on a four-type typology of poverty attribution which includes individual fate, individual blame, social fate and social blame as potential explanations for poverty, our analyses show that these poverty attributions are associated with judgments about inequality and broadly defined support for the welfare state, but have little or no effect on more concrete policy proposals such as unemployment benefits or increase of social welfare at the expense of higher taxes.

Individual Attitudes toward the Welfare State: A Test of the “Crowding Out Hypothesis” across European Countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durmus A. Yuksek ◽  
Ozgur Solakoglu
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Crowding Out ◽  
Welfare Policies ◽  
Crowd Out ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Welfare State

Abstract Although numerous studies have confirmed the relationship between welfare states and social capital, their arguments have been contradictory. Some argue that strong welfare states crowd out social capital, while others consider the welfare state as a stimulator of social capital. However, research focusing on both the arguments simultaneously and considering whether or not welfare states can both make and break social capital is almost unavailable. Also, individual attitudes toward the welfare state have mainly been the neglected part of this research tradition. Concordantly, findings of this study suggest that regardless of the strength of the civil society, a welfare state can both crowd out and crowd in social capital. While the comprehensiveness of the welfare state plays a part in stimulating or rather unlikely destroying social capital, it is actually the particular design, implementation of the welfare policies, and legitimacy of the state officials that make or break social capital.

The welfare state criticism of the losers of modernization: How social experiences of resentment shape populist welfare critique

2021 ◽  
pp. 000169932199419
Author(s):  
Arno Van Hootegem ◽  
Koen Abts ◽  
Bart Meuleman
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Relative Deprivation ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
Social Criticism ◽  
Social Experiences ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Working People ◽  
Paradoxical Finding ◽  
The Welfare State

This article aims to explain the paradoxical finding that socio-economically vulnerable groups express more economic, moral and social criticism of the welfare state. As these groups generally benefit more from the welfare state and hold more egalitarian world views, their stronger criticism cannot be explained by the traditional frameworks of self-interest and ideology. As an alternative, we highlight the importance of social experiences of resentment as a source of discontent with welfare state performance. Our contribution argues that the dissatisfaction is embedded in a broader welfare populist critique that pits the hard-working people against the deceitful elite and welfare abusers. This welfare populism emerges from experiences of resentment related to the restructuring of group positions in the process of modernization. We differentiate between three types of discontent: economic status insecurity, group relative deprivation and social distrust. By applying structural equation modelling, we test whether resentful experiences mediate the relationship between the social structural position and welfare state criticism. Results indicate that relative deprivation consistently leads to more economic, moral and social criticism. Social distrust, moreover, stimulates a higher level of moral criticism. This study illustrates that resentment is indeed an important element for understanding the paradoxical relationship between social class and welfare state criticism.

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 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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document