Der US-amerikanische Wohlfahrtsstaat: Strukturen und Trends

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (136) ◽  
pp. 401-416
Author(s):  
Michael B. Katz
Keyword(s):  

The vast and complicated welfare state of the USA, which is not usefully understood as either public or private, is presented. Its changing structure is a a result of three forces that may be called dependence, devolution, and markets. Those changes have profound implications for citizenship and democracy in the USA.

2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Hay

AbstractThe appeal to globalization as a non-negotiable external economic constraint plays an increasingly significant role in the linked politics of expectation suppression and welfare reform in contemporary Europe. Yet, although it threatens to become something of a self- fulfilling prophecy, the thesis that globalization entails welfare retrenchment and convergence is empirically suspect. In this paper it is argued that there is little evidence of convergence amongst European social models and that, although common trajectories can be identified, these have tended to be implemented more or less enthusiastically and at different paces to produce, to date, divergent outcomes. Second, I suggest that it is difficult to see globalization as the principal agent determining the path on which European social models are embarked since the empirical evidence points if anything to de-globalization rather than globalization. The implications of this for the future of the welfare state in Europe and for the USA as a model welfare state regime are explored.


Author(s):  
David Garland

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneta Spendzharova

Before the covid-19 pandemic, significant advances have been made in the advanced industrialized economies toward greater gender equality in the workplace, especially since the 1990s. However, the first year of the pandemic has led to dramatic backsliding in gender equality even among countries that have adopted sizeable relief packages to combat the devastating economic effects of the pandemic. This commentary argues that the pandemic has reinforced existing vulnerabilities in IPE. The essay takes stock of government economic support measures in selected OECD economies. It then compares the government responses in two representative cases with very different welfare state legacies—Denmark as a case representative of the Nordic welfare state model and the USA as a case representative of the liberal welfare state model. The main finding is that the Nordic welfare state model has been more successful in protecting vulnerable social groups, such as women, in times of severe crisis. The contrast is especially visible if we compare the performance of Denmark in terms of maintaining female labor force participation during the pandemic with that of the USA, where women as a social group have been set back decades in terms of exit from the formal labor market as well as loss of job and career opportunities.


2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
KIRK MANN

AbstractThis article revisits Titmuss's essay on the Social Divisions of Welfare (SDW) and reflects on its continuing relevance. Titmuss first presented the SDW in an Eleanor Rathbone Memorial lecture at Birmingham University in 1955, but it is best known from hisEssays on the Welfare Statepublished in 1958. Titmuss challenged the stereotype of ‘welfare’ as simply public welfare dependency and illustrated the different elements of the SDW. Some limitations of Titmuss's approach are identified, notably in relation to how he saw dependency arising, and revisions offered. The article provides a number of examples from the UK but also highlights some significant parallels with the SDW in the USA and Australia, the so-called ‘liberal welfare regimes’ (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Finally, it is claimed that 50 years on we need to be reminded of the insights and analytical potential of Titmuss's essay.


2002 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Dryzek ◽  
Christian Hunold ◽  
David Schlosberg ◽  
David Downes ◽  
Hans-Kristian Hernes

Modern states underwent two major transformations that produced first, the liberal capitalist state and second, the welfare state. Each was accompanied by the migration of a previously confrontational movement into the core of the state. In the creation of the liberal capitalist state, the bourgeoisie could harmonize with the state's emerging interest in economic growth. In the creation of the welfare state, the organized working class could harmonize with the state's emerging interest in legitimating the political economy by curbing capitalism's instability and inequality. We show that environmental conservation could now emerge as a core state interest, growing out of these established economic and legitimation imperatives. This examination is grounded in a comparative historical study of four countries: the USA, Norway, Germany, and the UK, each of which exemplifies a particular kind of interest representation. We show why the USA was an environmental pioneer around 1970, why it was then eclipsed by Norway, and why Germany now leads in addressing environmental concerns.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ulrika Mårtensson ◽  
Mark Sedgwick

This special issue is the outcome of a generous invitation by the Center for Islamic Studies of Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, to arrange a seminar on Nordic Islam at Youngstown State and to publish the proceedings in the Center’s journal, Studies in Contemporary Islam. To make the proceedings available to Nordic audiences, the proceedings are also being published in the Tidsskrift for Islamforskning. The seminar was held on 25–26 October 2010, and was highly rewarding. The contributors are grateful for the hospitality they received during their stay in Youngstown. They are also grateful to Professor Rhys Williams, Director of the McNamara Center for the Social Study of Religion at Loyola University Chicago, for contributing to the seminar and the special issue. Rhys Williams’ perspective is that of an experienced researcher of religion in the USA, and represents the logical opposite of the Nordic state model and its way of organizing welfare, civil society, and religion. Dr. Williams’ perspective helps to highlight the specifics of the Nordic context. Last but not least, the contributors wish to thank the editors of the Tidsskrift for Islamforskning.The fact that this special issue about Islamic institutions and values in the context of the Nordic welfare state is intended for both American and Nordic readers has inspired the framework that introduces the issue. The first three contributions constitute one group, as they each deal with the significance that the two different welfare and civil society models represented by the Nordic countries and the USA may have for the institutionalization of Islam and Muslims’ public presence and values. First, Ulrika Mårtensson provides a historical survey of the Nordic welfare state and its developments, including debates about the impact of neoliberal models and (de)secularization. This survey is followed by Rhys Williams’ contribution on US civil society and its implications for American Muslims, identifying the significant differences between the US and the Nordic welfare and civil society models. The third contribution, by Tuomas Martikainen, is a critical response to two US researchers who unfavorably contrast European ‘religion-hostile’ management of religion and Islam with US ‘religion-friendly’ approaches. Martikainen , with reference to Finland, that globalized neoliberal ‘new public management’ and ‘governance’ models have transformed Finland into a ‘postsecular society’ that is much more accommodating of religion and Islam than the US researchers claim.The last seven contributions are all concerned with the ‘public’ dimensions of Nordic Islam and with relations between public and Islamic institutions and values. In the Danish context, Mustafa Hussain presents a quantitative study of relations between Muslim and non-Muslim residents in Nørrebro, a part of Copenhagen, the capital, which is often portrayed in the media as segregated and inhabited by ‘not well integrated’ Muslims. Hussain demonstrates that, contrary to media images, Nørrebro’s Muslim inhabitants feel that strong ties bind them to their neighborhood and to non-Muslims, and they trust the municipality and the public institutions, with one important exception, that of the public schools.From the horizon of the Norwegian capital, Oslo, Oddbjørn Leirvik explores public discourses on Islam and values with reference to national and Muslim identity and interreligious dialogue; Leirvik has personal experience of the latter since its start in 1993. From the Norwegian city of Trondheim, Eli-Anne Vongraven Eriksen and Ulrika Mårtensson chart the evolution of a pan-Islamic organization Muslim Society Trondheim (MST) from a prayer room for university students to the city’s main jami‘ mosque and Muslim public representative. The analytical focus is on dialogue as an instrument of civic integration, applied to the MST’s interactions with the church and the city’s public institutions. A contrasting case is explored in Ulrika Mårtensson’s study of a Norwegian Salafi organization, whose insistence on scriptural commands and gender segregation prevents its members from fully participating in civic organizational activities, which raises questions about value-driven conditions for democratic participation.In the Swedish context, Johan Cato and Jonas Otterbeck explore circumstances determining Muslims’ political participation through associations and political parties. They show that when Muslims make public claims related to their religion, they are accused of being ‘Islamists’, i.e., mixing religion and politics, which in the Swedish public sphere is a strong discrediting charge that limits the Muslims’ sphere of political action in an undemocratic manner. Next, Anne Sofie Roald discusses multiculturalism’s implications for women in Sweden, focusing on the role of ‘Swedish values’ in Muslims’ public deliberations about the Shari‘a and including the evolution of Muslims’ values from first- to second-generation immigrants. Addressing the question of how Swedish Islamic schools teach ‘national values’ as required by the national curriculum, Jenny Berglund provides an analysis of the value-contents of Islamic religious education based on observation of teaching practices. In the last article, Göran Larsson describes the Swedish state investigation (2009) of the need for a national training program for imams requested by the government as well as by some Muslims. The investigation concluded that there was no need for the state to put such programs in place, and that Muslims must look to the experiences of free churches and other religious communities and find their own ways to educate imams for service in Sweden.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document