Social Cohesion and Identity

This chapter explains what social cohesion is and why it is important. The case for thinking that trust and solidarity are especially important for egalitarian redistribution is presented, and different accounts of their sources are considered. This includes a discussion of strategic, institutional, and moral models for trust and solidarity, welfare regime theory, and how perceptions of deservingness are fundamental for solidarity. Initial reflections on how immigration and diversity might impact these dimensions of social cohesion are introduced. Furthermore, the ‘identity thesis’ is explained, according to which sharing an identity tends to promote such cohesion, and different types of mechanisms that might explain it are distinguished. Finally, the concept of a ‘community conception’ is introduced, and it is explained how different such conceptions differ as regards the values that, if shared, are thought conducive to social cohesion.

‘Keeping the children close and the daughters closer.’ Is family housing support in Greece gendered?

The welfare regime of Southern Europe, and Greece in particular, does not adequately cover the needs of its citizens. On the contrary, and within this context, family welfare has to be much more efficient. Moreover, the support received from the family imposes a sense of reciprocity, as receivers are expected to be givers in the future. This reciprocity is assisted mainly by the female members of the kin, defining to a degree their housing practices. Data for this paper is derived from a wider research project investigating young people's housing practices and family strategies through in-depth interviews in Athens, Greece. Bringing gender to the fore, it explores how the housing provision from family is impacted by the receivers’ gender role in connection to family welfare obligations.

Social Security and Social Development in South Africa

South Africa has made significant strides in growing its social security and social development system to reduce poverty and inequality since the advent of democracy in 1994. The country’s rights-based and redistributive social protection system builds on earlier social policies and was substantively refashioned to address the country’s colonial and apartheid legacy. This chapter documents the South African case with reference to the following themes: first, it sets out the social and economic challenges facing the country in relation to poverty and inequality. Second, it demonstrates the conceptual and policy significance of the South African case in relation to the rise of social protection policies to promote inclusive development in countries in the Global South. The South African welfare regime is the third theme. It focuses on the evolution of social security and social development, discusses the features of the approach, the nature and scope of social protection policies and their impacts. Finally, the chapter concludes by considering the policy issues and future trajectory of social protection in South Africa.

Social Assistance

Social assistance guarantees basic social rights and provides means-tested, residual benefits to persons in need. It is the last safety net of the welfare state. The actual significance of social assistance varies by welfare regime: the more inclusive and generous a social security system, the less important usually is social assistance. In the Nordic countries, for example, with highly developed social security, few persons actually depend on social assistance. By contrast, in most countries with a liberal welfare regime, social assistance is an essential part of the welfare state. Yet in most cases, social assistance is not a viable alternative to inclusive social security. In Southern or Eastern European countries with rudimentary welfare states, social assistance is also patchy, exclusive, and rudimentary. In continental European countries, the situation varies by population group: most systems are more generous to the elderly than to families with children, and in particular to the unemployed. Moreover, in almost all countries social assistance benefits do not actually lift people out of poverty. Social assistance thus provides a basic minimum income for some groups, but does not effectively prevent poverty. In general, social assistance is more effective in countries in which it clearly operates as a last safety net within an otherwise well-developed overall social security system.

The Fertility of Immigrants From Low-Fertility Settings: Adaptation in the Quantum and Tempo of Childbearing?

Immigrant women who have lived longer in a destination often have relatively low levels of fertility, which is sometimes taken as evidence of the adaptation of behavior. This evidence is almost exclusively based on studies of immigrants from high-fertility settings, while the fertility of immigrants from low-fertility settings has been largely overlooked. Research has also rarely studied the fertility of immigrants who migrated as children, despite the methodological advantages of applying such an approach. This study focuses on women who grew up in Sweden with a migration background from low-fertility origins. We expect that Sweden's welfare regime makes it easier for women to combine childbearing and working life, regardless of migration background, thereby facilitating an adaptation of fertility behavior toward that prevailing in Sweden. We find evidence of adaptation in terms of birth timing for at least half of the country-origin groups that we study, but very little evidence of adaptation in terms of completed fertility. Further, we find that, in comparison with ancestral Swedes, completed fertility differentials are larger for second-generation individuals than for immigrants who arrived during childhood. This is evidence against the notion of “straight-line” adaptation for immigrants and the children of immigrants who are born in Sweden.

Beyond Comparativism

This article critiques Esping-Andersen’s class-based theory of welfare regimes, demonstrating that the theory’s scope conditions are not fulfilled by the Israeli case during the country’s first three decades. It traces the transition of Israel’s welfare regime and the consolidation of its welfare state in the 1970s. Based on historical analysis, the article points out two incongruities between Esping-Andersen’s theory scope conditions and the case of Israel. Further, it argues that the transformation of Israel’s welfare regime can be better explained by institutional historical theories that highlight the impact of the production regime on welfare and the significance of conflicts between high-skilled and lowskilled workers.

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

PurposeThe authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs).Design/methodology/approachThe empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature.FindingsThe authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”.Research limitations/implicationsAltogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups.Practical implicationsIn the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy.Social implicationsThe authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types.Originality/valueIn order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

The Political Economy of Work and Welfare

The political economy of Irish work and welfare has dramatically changed over recent decades. Since the 1980s, Ireland has experienced two periods of high unemployment followed by two periods of full employment. Alongside this, we see considerable shifts in both the sectoral composition of the workforce and in the institutional architecture underpinning the labour market. Focusing on the last decade, this chapter contextualizes the Irish labour market in the Irish growth model, highlighting issues including occupational upgrading, low pay, gender composition, and migration. The chapter then explores links between this employment structure and Ireland’s changing welfare regime. It considers recent institutional changes, as the welfare regime shifted to a work-first form of activation, and the long-term sustainability of the social protection system. The chapter concludes by highlighting what we see as the core challenges for the political economy of work and welfare in Ireland.