THE WELFARE STATE: A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

The role of regulation and the regulatory state in social policy, redistribution, and the reforms of the welfare state are increasingly important but often underestimated and misunderstood. These problems are evident in Majone's highly influential work where the regulatory state and the ‘positive’ state stand as two alternative monomorphic forms of state. This article offers a polymorphic alternative where the regulatory state may come to the rescue of the welfare state, allowing independent extension, retrenchment, and stagnation of welfare via social regulation. The article extends a regulatory governance perspective into the core of the welfare state, clarifies the relations between fiscal and regulatory instruments, and demonstrates that the boundaries of the regulatory state are wider than are usually understood. It turns our understanding of the welfare state on its head, highlighting first the less visible regulatory layer, and then the more visible layer of fiscal transfers.     

IMPLEMENTING WELFARE REFORM IN MICHIGAN: THE ROLE OF STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRATS[1]

ABSTRACT

This study examines the implementation of welfare reform policies enacted by the state of Michigan. In particular, it focuses on how welfare policy is altered as it devolves from state policy makers to street-level bureaucrats in three local welfare agencies in Michigan. The analysis reveals that street-level bureaucrats in local welfare offices are in a position to interpret broadly stated goals handed down from officials, and, in some cases, to manage and greatly influence the delivery of services when messages are mixed. The study also suggests that the actual policies or services delivered by front-line workers in welfare offices do not completely correspond with the policy directives issued by state officials.     

ONE‐STOP SHOPS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE: THE ADAPTATION OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL FORM IN THREE COUNTRIES

In recent years welfare services in Western Europe have been criticized for poor coordination. In response, ‘seamlessness’ has emerged as a vision for public administration with ‘one‐stop shops' viewed as means to reach this. This article conceptualizes the one‐stop shop and presents a three country case study to examine its drivers and its adaptation. In all countries the reforms meant mergers driven by hopes for a single entrance to services as well as proximity to citizens. However, the analysis of task portfolios, participant structure, instruments and autonomy reveal important variations in the adaptations. The specific configurations of one‐stop shops that emerged were partially a product of compromises and negotiations influenced by the political and performance priorities of central government. The classical trade‐off between specialization and coordination persists, but by offering users ICT‐based services one can to some extent maintain specialization behind the frontline and still provide services that are coordinated from a user perspective.     

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE: A CASE STUDY IN THE USE OF PRIVATE NON-PROFIT MAKING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PROVISION OF WELFARE BENEFITS

Some of the key features of co-operation between the State and other sectors (private, voluntary and informal) in providing welfare benefits are illustrated in the experience of the National Health Insurance scheme which operated in this country between 1911 and 1948. This is the only example in the UK of a major welfare scheme operating over a considerable period which utilized private, if non-profit making, organizations as responsible agents for administration. Under the scheme certain categories of working people were compelled to insure themselves against sickness. The scheme was administered and benefits paid through a multiplicity of independent 'approved societies', with insured people free to choose which society they belonged to. Contributions were paid by employers as well as employees, with a state subsidy on top. This study indicates that any future development of joint welfare provision with the private sector must overcome certain inherent divergencies in values between the public and private sectors.