scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN WELFARE STATE REGIMES: QUESTIONING THE TYPOLOGY DURING THE CRISIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosta JOSIFIDIS ◽  
John B. HALL ◽  
Novica SUPIC ◽  
Emilija BEKER PUCAR
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
European Welfare State ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Social ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines the nature of changes within the EU–15 welfare states affected by the 2008 crisis. We try to answer the question of whether the differences that exist among different welfare state regimes, according to prevailing welfare state typologies, lead to different responses to the consequences of the crisis. Welfare state regimes are the result of different institutional perceptions of social risks hence it is realistic to expect specific responses to the effects of crisis among different welfare state regimes, and similar responses among the countries that belong to the same welfare state regimes. In order to recognize convergent vs. divergent processes, we perform a comparative analysis of the dynamics of the key welfare state determinants of the EU–15 countries, grouping according to welfare state regimes, in the pre-crisis and crisis periods. The results indicate that institutional rigidity and inherent inertia has remained a key factor of convergent welfare state processes in countries that belong to the Social Democratic and Corporatist welfare state regimes. Deviations from such a course are the most evident in the Mediterranean welfare state regimes, especially in Greece and Portugal where austerity measures have been formulated under the strong influence of the Troika.

Breaking the Mold

2019 ◽  
pp. 92-173
Author(s):  
Jason Beckfield
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Political Inequality ◽  
European Welfare State ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Distribution Of Income

This chapter describes how the resources generated by the integrated European economy have been distributed as social rights of citizenship. As the European economy has developed, have European welfare states expanded, stabilized, or retrenched? These trends and effects matter because they reveal the changing structure of political inequality in Europe, and because the European welfare state has a strong effect on the distribution of income across European households. The first part of the chapter addresses the question of whether the development of the integrated European economy contributed to expansion of the social rights of citizenship, which would be a sign of reduced political inequality within European nations. The second part addresses the subject of political inequality in Europe as an integrating whole more directly by engaging with the convergence debate: with respect to citizenship rights, does it now matter more or less which national political economy one inhabits?

scholarly journals The Four Worlds of ‘Welfare Reality’ – Social Risks and Outcomes in Europe

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Ferragina ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser ◽  
Thees Spreckelsen
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
Mediterranean Countries ◽  
Democratic Regimes

After three decades of welfare state crisis, change and transformation can we still speak of welfare state regimes when looking at their outcomes? The analysis of outcomes provides a picture of ‘the real worlds of welfare’ and is of considerable importance to understanding political legitimacy across countries. We use aggregate longitudinal data for West European countries in order to map welfare outcomes and cluster countries. The cluster results are also assessed for their sensitivity to the choice of different countries, years or indicators. All European welfare states have a significant capacity for reducing poverty and inequality. However, the degree of this reduction varies considerably, especially when examining different social groups, i.e. unemployed people, children, youths or the elderly. Outcomes cluster countries largely in line with previous institutionalist literature, differentiating between conservative, liberal, Mediterranean and social-democratic regimes. As the main exception, we identify Germany, which can no longer be characterised as the proto-typical conservative welfare state. When analysing old social risks such as unemployment and old age, Europe appears to be characterised by two groups, i.e. one consisting of liberal and Mediterranean countries and a second made up of social-democratic and conservative countries. New social risks such as child and youth poverty, by contrast, replicate very closely the theoretical four-cluster typology. Our sensitivity analyses reveal that our clusters tend to be stable over time. Welfare regimes continue to serve as a useful analytical tool and relate to outcomes experienced by European citizens.

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.

Wohlfahrtsstaat und Interessenorganisationen im Wandel

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Labour Unions ◽  
Interest Representation ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Welfare State

Interest groups within the context of changing welfare states have gained widespread attention within the social sciences. Welfare states and interest groups are being faced with new challenges (e.g. in the context of several changes, such as new social risks). Schwache Interessen (weak interests) (such as poorly qualified ones) are also gaining more attention. This book discusses several different fields of interest representation in the welfare state. It analyses in what way constellations of interest representation have changed in modified welfare state environments. Several different organisations are analysed, including labour unions, the employers’ association and political parties. Moreover, the book also takes umbrella organisations of municipalities, social courts and educational policymakers into account. Until now, they have gained little attention from scholars. With contributions by: Lena Brüsewitz, Imke Friedrich, Sascha Kristin Futh, Tanja Klenk, Ulrike A.C. Müller, Frank Nullmeier, Sabine Ruß-Sattar, Friedbert Rüb, Wolfgang Schroeder, Benedikt Schreiter, Michaela Schulze, Florian Steinmüller, Christoph Strünck, Felix Welti

Comparative Social Policy and Political Conflict in Advanced Welfare States: Denmark and Sweden

1979 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gøsta Esping-Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Working Class ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Policies ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Welfare State

There has developed an abundant literature on the social and political determinants of social policies, but few have addressed the question of how state policies, once implemented, affect the system of stratification in civil society. This article examines the political consequences of social policy in Denmark and Sweden, countries in which a social democratic labor movement has predominated for decades. Superficially, these two highly developed welfare states appear very similar. Yet, the political and social contexts in which their social policies have evolved differ substantially. I shall demonstrate the argument that the traditional welfare state approach may be conducive to a new and powerful political conflict, which directly questions the legitimacy of the welfare state itself, unless government is successful in subordinating private capitalist growth to effective public regulation. In Denmark, where social democratic governments have failed to match welfare state growth with more control of private capital, social policy has tended to undermine the political unity of the working class. Consequently, the Social Democratic Party has been weakened. Social welfare programs, in effect, have helped create new forms of stratification within the working class. In Sweden, social democratic governments have been quite successful in shifting a decisive degree of power over the private market to the state. This has helped avert a crisis of the welfare state, and has also been an important condition for continued social democratic hegemony and working-class unity. I conclude that social reform politics tend to be problematic from the point of view of the future power of social democratic movements.

scholarly journals After Austerity

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
European Welfare State ◽  
New Directions ◽  
The Eu ◽  
European Welfare States

European welfare states are undergoing profound change, driven by globalisation, technical changes, and population ageing. More immediately the aftermath of the Great Recession and unprecedented levels of immigration have imposed additional pressures. This book examines welfare state transformations across a representative range of European countries and at the EU level, and considers likely new directions in social policy. It reviews the dominant neo-liberal austerity response and discusses social investment, fightback, welfare chauvinism and protectionism. It argues that the class solidarities and cleavages that shaped the development of welfare states are no longer powerful. Tensions surrounding divisions between old and young, women and men, immigrants and denizens, and the winners in a new more competitive world and those who feel left behind are becoming steadily more important. European countries have entered a period of greater political instability and this is reflected in policy directions. Austerity predominates nearly everywhere, but patterns of social investment, protectionism, neo-Keynesian intervention and fightback vary between countries. We identify areas of convergence and difference in European welfare state futures.

The limits of neoliberalism? Austerity versus social policy in comparative perspective

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Farnsworth ◽  
Zoë Irving
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Imf

In their chapter Kevin Farnsworth and Zoë Irving place the UK in comparative context. They examine the workings of the austerity frameworks with which neoliberal states and inter-governmental agencies, such as the IMF, have sought to maintain neo-liberal economics by undermining the remaining elements of social democratic welfare state regimes. Their analysis reveals considerable variation amongst these welfare states and also division and ambivalence amongst the governance bodies overseeing austerity. By identifying countries like Iceland, which have successfully resisted and even partially reversed austerity programmes, Farnsworth and Irving suggest that austerity may not constitute a further entrenchment of neo-liberalism but perhaps the cusp of a shift away from its key principles.

Welfare Over Time: Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism in Panel Perspective

1997 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Headey ◽  
Robert E. Goodin ◽  
Ruud Muffels ◽  
Henk-Jan Dirven
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Panel Study ◽  
International Comparisons ◽  
Poverty Line ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
The Social ◽  
One Year ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTIn this paper we analyse the effects, over time, of the liberal (US), corporatist (German) and social democratic (Dutch) welfare states on poverty, inequality and income redistribution 1985–89. Unlike previous international comparisons relying on static frameworks and cross-sectional data, we use panel data from the Dutch Socio-Economic Panel (SEP), the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), and the American Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) — all of which have large samples (15,000+ respondents) and all of which have been running for fully a decade — to compare welfare state performance over one and five years. We find that both the corporatist (German) and especially the social democratic (Dutch) welfare states redistribute income substantially to reduce poverty and inequality, and that in both cases these effects are substantially greater over five years than one. In the social democratic (Dutch) regime very few people have incomes which, taking a five year average, put them below the poverty line. The corporatist (German) regime also turns out to be much more redistributive over five years than would ordinarily be expected. The liberal (US) welfare state, in contrast, is not only much less redistributive on a one-year basis but also no more so over five years than one. There is, however, evidence of efficiency losses in the more ‘generous’ social democratic welfare state, in that fewer people appear to escape poverty through labour markets than in the liberal welfare regime.

scholarly journals Eastern migrations vs western welfare states - (un)biased fears

2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-345
Author(s):  
Kosta Josifidis ◽  
John Hall ◽  
Valérie Berenger ◽  
Novica Supic
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Labour Markets ◽  
Welfare Systems ◽  
Protection Systems ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
Social Protection Systems ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Eu

This inquiry considers some effects of migration on the labour markets and the welfare systems found in the EU-15, and from the perspectives of sustainability of the current welfare state regimes. Our inquiry aims to determine whether and to what extent different approaches in regulation of migration flows between the new and old member states are compatible with related economic and demographic findings. Within this context, our research considers regulations affecting migration flows. Our findings suggest that some effects of migration from the EU8+2 on the labour markets and social protection systems found in the EU-15, both with respect to level and structure, do indeed generate effects on migration, especially considering whether migration is based upon economic or welfare decisions. In addition, our inquiry considers perspectives upon restrictive versus liberal migration policies.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document