Continental welfare states in transition: the incomplete social investment turn

2017 ◽  
pp. 169-193
Author(s):  
Anton Hemerijck
Author(s):  
Timo Fleckenstein ◽  
Soohyun Christine Lee

The welfare states of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were built by conservative elites to serve the project of late industrialization, and for this reason the East Asian developmental welfare state focused its resources on those who were deemed most important for economic development (especially male industrial workers). Starting in the 1990s and increasingly since the 2000s, the developmental welfare state has experienced a far-reaching transformation, including the expansion of family policy to address the post-industrial challenges of female employment participation and low fertility. This chapter assesses social investment policies in East Asia, with a focus on family policy and on the South Korean case, where the most comprehensive rise of social investment policies were observed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
MARIUS R. BUSEMEYER ◽  
ALEXANDER H. J. SAHM

Abstract Rapid technological change – the digitalization and automation of work – is challenging contemporary welfare states. Most of the existing research, however, focuses on its effect on labor market outcomes, such as employment or wage levels. In contrast, this paper studies the implications of technological change for welfare state attitudes and preferences. Compared to previous work on this topic, this paper adopts a much broader perspective regarding different kinds of social policy. Using data from the European Social Survey, we find that individual automation risk is positively associated with support for redistribution, but negatively with support for social investment policies (partly depending on the specific measure of automation risk that is used), while there is no statistically significant association with support for basic income. We also find a moderating effect of the overall size of the welfare state on the micro-level association between risk and preferences.


Author(s):  
Olaf van Vliet ◽  
Vincent Bakker ◽  
Lars van Doorn

Globalization, technological change, and migration form three major challenges for European welfare states in the 21st century. These challenges are regarded as important sources of inequality on the labour market. Whereas the existing literature has mainly been focused on the sectors and occupations affected by globalization and technological change, the authors of this chapter argue that, via job polarization, these phenomena also affect the type of contract that workers have. They hypothesize that increased competition for low-paying jobs is associated with labour market flexibilization. Another major trend that they analyse is the free movement of labour. New data illustrate that labour migration from Central and Eastern European countries to Western European countries has grown slowly but substantially following recent enlargements of the Union. It has been considered a challenge for welfare states as it might contribute to feelings of economic insecurity and might erode solidarity, which forms the basis for the provision of social policy. Subsequently, the authors analyse how European welfare states have evolved over the past decades. They show that in spite of budgetary pressure stemming from globalization and migration, most countries have increased social expenditure. Furthermore, they analyse to what extent the focus has shifted from classical social protection to social investment policies to enable workers to adapt themselves to new labour market transformations. They contribute to the existing literature by covering years after the financial crisis for all EU member states and by demonstrating a novel way of correcting social expenditures for the number of recipients.


Author(s):  
Peter Taylor-Gooby ◽  
Benjamin Leruth ◽  
Heejung Chung

Welfare states across Europe are changing: the future will not be like the past. This chapter examines the economic, social, and political challenges that have confronted European welfare states during the past fifteen years, including globalization and the post-industrial transformation, population ageing and shifts in family life, the ascendancy of neo-liberalism, and the growth of populist nationalism. It identifies new directions in policy: neo-liberal austerity; individual responsibility; neo-Keynesian interventionism; social investment; predistribution; fightback; and welfare chauvinism or protectionism. It argues that the European welfare state is undergoing radical transformation. Whether the European tradition of state intervention to meet the needs of citizens will survive in all countries is at present unclear.


Author(s):  
Brian Nolan

Social investment has come to play a major part in debates about the role of social spending and the future of welfare states in Europe, in part because it has significant appeal to different audiences. This chapter argues that social investment can be seen as a (new) paradigm for social policies and spending, as a conceptual base and framework for analysis, and as a basis for political or rhetorical advocacy. There may, however, be a tension between these functions which needs to be recognized. This is brought out when one asks whether social investment can credibly be presented as the paradigm most likely to underpin strong job-friendly economic growth, and whether the distinction between social ‘investment’ and other social spending is conceptually and empirically robust. Finally, the chapter wonders whether focusing on that distinction, and on a narrowly economic rationale, is the most productive way to frame the debate.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A. White

Abstract.This article examines whether current shifts in government spending on early childhood education and care (ECEC) and maternal employment-promoting policies such as maternity and parental leave reveal a paradigm shift toward a social investment strategy in liberal welfare states. It finds that while governments in liberal welfare states increasingly adhere to the rhetoric of social investment focused on lifelong learning and labour activation, their policies and programs exhibit so much variation in goals, instruments and settings related to the family, maternal employment and the child that it is difficult to claim that any new policy approach has taken hold that is indicative of a social investment “paradigm.” Instead, liberal welfare states appear to be becoming even more liberal—in terms of reliance on markets for delivery of social investment goals—at the same time as spending is increasing.Résumé.Cet article examine si les changements actuels des dépenses de gouvernement sur la première éducation d'enfance et le soin (ECEC) et les politiques promouvant emploi maternelles comme la maternité et le congé parental révèlent un changement de paradigme vers une stratégie sociale d'investissement dans les Etats-providences libéraux. Il constate que pendant que les gouvernements dans les Etats-providences libéraux adhèrent de plus en plus à la rhétorique d'investissement social s'est concentré sur l'apprentissage de toute une vie et l'activation de la main-d'œuvre, leurs politiques et programmes exposent tant de variation dans les buts, les instruments et les cadres rattachés à la famille, l'emploi maternel et l'enfant qu'il est difficile de réclamer que n'importe quelle nouvelle approche de politique a attrapé qui est indicatif “d'un paradigme” social d'investissement. Au lieu de cela les Etats-providences libéraux ont l'air de devenir encore plus libéraux – du point de vue de la dépendance aux marchés pour la livraison de buts sociaux d'investissement – en même temps comme les dépenses augmentent.


Author(s):  
Naomi Finch ◽  
Dan Horsfall ◽  
John Hudson

This chapter examines in more depth one of the attempts to develop a ‘progressive’ modernisation of welfare: the social investment model. The notion of a ‘social investment welfare state’ has gained increasing ground over recent years, playing an important role in the discourse of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and EU. It forms a part of a number of concepts — others include ‘active social welfare’, the ‘new welfare state’ and ‘new risk welfare’ — that might be grouped under the label ‘new welfare’. All are based around a shared view that developed welfare states have begun to place less emphasis on income protection and more emphasis on investing in human capital. Put differently, they stress the growing importance of the ‘productive’ elements of social policy, chiefly on the basis that this may square the circle of maintaining social expenditures while responding to increased economic competition. The chapter then reviews how far reform agendas match the reality of the social investment model theory and, moreover, evaluates the effectiveness of the approach in reconciling social and economic pressures.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 442-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kati Kuitto

This article contributes to the ongoing debate on the forms and characteristics of social investment policies and their potential trade-off with social security schemes by assessing developments of welfare spending profiles in 23 European welfare states in the 2000s. I argue that if a social investment turn has indeed occurred, it is not necessarily at the cost of the ‘old’ compensatory policies. Instead, social investment policies and their relation to compensating welfare policies alter with regard to policies targeted at different life-stages and to the type of welfare regime. Therefore, the results attest to a path-dependent trend within the welfare regimes, the Nordic countries remaining clear forerunners in terms of both level and dynamics of social investment policies. European social investment strategies manifest mainly in policies targeting childhood and youth, while a trade-off between social investment and compensating policies is evident in working-age policies to some degree.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-205
Author(s):  
Marc Brazzill ◽  
Hideko Magara ◽  
Yuki Yanai

AbstractWe investigate when voters favour social investment. Welfare states have transformed their core policies as a result of low economic growth and fiscal pressures. The social investment strategy, such as broader education provision and promotion of women's employment, aims at shifting the economy from the traditional Keynesian welfare state to the high-productivity economy by encouraging long-term and inclusive human capital formation. Social investment is popular among citizens in many developed economies, especially in the EU where governments promote social investment as part of their welfare policy packages. However, in Japan, the term ‘social investment’ is rarely used in policy discussions. Consequently, we ask what levels of voter support social investment policies have in such an environment; which voter characteristics are associated with social investment support; and whether voter support for social investment differs when placed in a broader policy context. To answer these questions, we conducted an online survey with a conjoint experiment. Our data analysis shows that social investment policies are popular among Japanese people, despite a lack of familiarity with the concept of social investment. We find that social libertarians and female respondents are more likely than social authoritarians and male respondents to support social investment. In addition, there is some evidence that higher income voters are favourable to social investment policies. Furthermore, voter support for social investment depends on the policy context. Support becomes weaker when social investment policies are presented in combination with decreasing levels of social security spending. Our results highlight what kinds of social investment policies could be achieved without damaging electoral fortunes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document