Umbau des Sozialstaates? Österreich und Deutschland im Vergleich

In comparative analysis of welfare states, there is a consensus that mature welfare state systems have been confronted, for some considerable time, with substantial pressure towards re-structuring and that, as a result, they actually have undertaken several and varied modifications. This articles aims at exploring and analysing these developments in Austria and Germany from a comparative point of view. The analysis concentrates on two vital fields of social policy: old-age insurance and unemployment insurance. Especially in respect of the development of social policy and regarding important characteristics of the two welfare state systems, both countries traditionally show a large degree of resemblance to each other. Many similarities remained to exist during the phase of growing pressures on the welfare state, whereas at the same time it is evident that differences between the two countries increased. The respective actual developments will be interpreted in the light of corresponding theories of comparative welfare state research and classified as gradual and structural changes.     

Housing as a Social Right: Implications for Welfare State Theory

The article contributes to two central and interrelated discourses in welfare state theory and housing policy. One concerns the meaning of a 'right to housing' , and the other concerns the meaning of the dichotomy 'universal'–'selective' in housing policy . The right to housing is best seen as a political 'marker of concern' pointing out housing as an area for welfare state policy. The more precise meaning of the idea is always defined socially, in a specific national context of relations between state, citizen, and markets in housing provision. Two alternative interpretations of a right to housing are suggested, each related to a certain logic of housing provision. In a selective housing policy, the state provides a 'protected' complement to the general housing market, and the right to housing implies some legalistic minimum rights for households of lesser means. In a universal housing policy, the state provides correctives to the general housing market in order to make housing available to all types of households, and the right to housing is best seen as a social right in Marshall's meaning of an obligation of the state towards society as a whole. The concepts of 'universal' and 'selective' may be applied to either the political discourse or the social outcome of policies. Furthermore, they may refer to different political levels (e.g. welfare state level, sector level, and policy instrument level). If the dichotomy is not specified in those two respects, the distinction between a universal and a selective policy will always be seriously blurred.     

Devine intervention? Lessons in systemic retrenchment from Canada’s most generous welfare state

This article tackles the importance of systemic retrenchment in welfare state research by focusing on two core elements neglected in the literature: the civil service and governmental revenues. Saskatchewan has possessed key ingredients associated with generous welfare states: a dominant left-wing party, a supportive bureaucracy and important non-visible fiscal revenues. According to the comparative welfare state literature, this is also an excellent recipe for maintaining a generous welfare state amid attempts, primarily by right-wing governments, to scale it back. Yet, most social indicators in the post-Devine years demonstrate that Saskatchewan can no longer be considered a leading welfare state in Canada. Reforms to the bureaucracy and a host of financial measures resulting in a near default explain why the Devine government was successful in its efforts to disrupt the CCF/NDP social legacy despite the fact that the NDP regained power for 16 years afterwards.     

Beating Social Democracy on Its Own Turf: Issue Convergence as Winning Formula for the Centre‐Right in Universal Welfare States

Recent elections yielded sweeping majorities for the centre‐right in Scandinavia with a decade of pure centre‐right majorities in Denmark and the longest sitting centre‐right coalition in Sweden for decades. This is a blind spot in the issue voting literature, which would not expect centre‐right parties to flourish in contexts where welfare issues have a natural salience as in the case of universal welfare states. In contrast, Scandinavian universal welfare states ought to benefit social democracy when it comes to issue voting on welfare issues. It is argued in this article that centre‐right parties can beat social democrats by credibly converging to its social democratic opponent on issues of universal welfare. Issue ownership voting to the benefit of centre‐right parties will then be strongest among voters perceiving the centre‐right to have converged to social democracy and perceiving the centre‐right as issue‐owner. Using Danish National Election Studies, 1998–2007, the article shows that the Danish Liberal Party outperformed the Social Democrats on traditional welfare issues among those voters perceiving the Liberals to be ideologically close to the social democrats. The findings help us to understand why centre‐right parties have recently turned into serious competitors on social democracy's turf: the universal welfare state.     

Housing and the Welfare State in Norway

This article discusses housing and the welfare state in Norway in 1980 and 2005 by applying Esping‐Andersen's theories of welfare state regimes to this sector. How should Norwegian housing policy be understood in light of Esping‐Andersen's conceptual framework, and what is the impact of post‐industrial change? In 1980, Norwegian housing policy was mainly characterised by social‐democratic traits such as market regulation, substantial public expenditure and universal subsidies for both renters and a large owner‐occupied housing sector. The effects of post‐industrial changes, including deregulation of the credit and housing markets, marked a major turn in housing policy and the housing market in Norway. By 2005, Norwegian housing policy was mainly characterised by traits that are typical of a liberal welfare regime: market economics, low public expenditure and subsidies for small, targeted groups, while other segments of the Norwegian welfare state remain characterised by social‐democratic traits. Esping‐Andersen's claim that the effect of post‐industrial transformation was different in different welfare regimes is thus not supported by the case of the Norwegian housing sector.     

Early Findings About the Newest New Federalism for Welfare

The article overviews initial findings from a multi-state studyon state implementation of the 1996 welfare reforms. Statesare responding to a law that is somewhat contradictory: it grantsthe states greatly increased fiscal flexibility at the sametime that it sets extensive and elaborate new behavioral requirements.Among the initial findings, one of the surprises is the degreeto which the 1996 reform has promoted "second-order devolution"from states to localities. It has also reinforced and heightenedthe emphasis on "work first, " placing people in jobs as thefirst step in the welfare process with states developing a varietyof innovative approaches in this regard. The most crucial challengenow is the creation of information systems to manage state andlocal welfare and social programs and to track recipients bothduring the time and after they receive cash benefits and socialservices.     

Likely effects of devolution on the redistributive character of policy agendas

This article assesses two competing views of the effects federal devolution may have on the future of health, education and welfare programs in the United States. One school of thought argues that devolution of social policy to the state and local level will have negative consequences for the less affluent. A contrasting view maintains that devolution will spur innovations at the state and local level, which in turn will lead to more effective and efficient social programs. Dileo analyzes presidential and gubernatorial speeches over a period of 5 years to assess the state of U.S. social policy. He concludes that the federal government is generally more supportive of redistributive policies than are the states.     

Social Policy by Other Means: Theorizing Unconventional Forms of Welfare Production

Abstract

The goal of this special issue is to highlight the importance of unconventional social policies, theorize their development in comparison with traditional welfare state accounts and outline a new research agenda. In this introduction to the special issue, the editors present the concept of social policy by other means as encompassing two kinds of unconventional social policy (from the point of view of mainstream comparative research): First, functional equivalents to formal systems of social protection and, second, non-state provision of benefits. The concept builds upon a sizeable, but fragmented literature in comparative welfare state research. While numerous examples demonstrate that social policy by other means is more pervasive in both OECD and non-OECD countries than often acknowledged, a brief survey of the top 20 articles in the field reveals that this fact is not sufficiently reflected in the academic literature. With reference to both existing studies and the contributions to this special issue, the editors go on to explore (1) the different forms of social policy by other means, (2) explanatory theories and (3) their effectiveness in terms of social outcomes. They close by outlining a research agenda.     

Varieties of Social Policy by Other Means: Lessons for Comparative Welfare State Research

Abstract

Scholars can take a broader look at social policy and understand that traditional public welfare state programs are only one of the many potential sources of social protection and regulation. The contributions of this special issue invite social policy scholars to explore policy instruments that provide “social policy by other means” across a wide array of areas, including agriculture, energy, immigration, taxation, and legal regulation of private benefits and services. The article provides a concise overview of some of the key theoretical and empirical implications of social policy by other means for comparative welfare state research. In order to do this, it is divided into two main sections, which respectively discuss the nature and boundaries of social policy and the varieties of social policy by other means. This is followed by a short conclusion, which summarizes the key lessons of this special issue for comparative welfare state research.     

Quasi‐welfare,associationalism and the social division of citizenship

It is widely acknowledged that in many advanced capitalist societies, the role and structure of the welfare state has undergone substantial changes in recent decades. Arguments continue about the precise causes, and about the trajectory and impact of those changes. One particular strand in the debate has concerned the nature of the transformation of the welfare state in relation to the wider economy, and whether these changes reflect a ‘post‐Fordist’ welfare regime; while another important theme concerns the consequences of cultural and social differentiation, and the extent to which ‘postmodernism’ entails a fundamental dissolution of conventional assumptions about social policy. Radical reconstruction of the institutions, and questioning of the functions of welfare states, are resulting in more complex and heterogeneous patterns of social provision. At the same time, increased theoretical emphasis on, and popular demand for, choice, consumerism and diversity represent a significant challenge to, and perhaps the abandonment of, longstanding precepts about universalism in welfare. This article reviews some of the key themes in this debate, and supports arguments that predict that the universalist goals and principles of welfare are likely to be displaced by moves towards a ‘marketised’ system of quasi‐welfare in an atomised, anomic and fragmented society. The article addresses several issues: first, it briefly discusses some of the main implications of recent theorising about post‐Fordism and postmodernism; secondly it considers the emergence and consequences of’ quasi‐markets’ in social policy; and finally it challenges the claim that the revival of ‘associationalism in civil society offers a remedy for some of the principal (alleged) defects of the welfare state.     

The dynamics of Chinese missile proliferation

The missile nonproliferation regime has been criticized for its ineffectiveness in constraining states such as China from contributing to the proliferation of ballistic missile systems and related technologies to states in other regions. This regime is predicated on the assumption that the creation of social norms and acceptable patterns of behaviour will ultimately require China and others to conform to a universal perpective on the sources of and remedies for missile proliferation. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that China's willingness to supply sensitive missile technology is a function of a weapons‐export policy that is incompatible with current initiatives in missile nonproliferation. Such a policy is the product of certain foreign policy considerations and domestic factors that serve as motivational elements within the internal political system.     

Welfare-Ideological Change in Scandinavia: A Comparative Analysis of Partisan Welfare State Positions in Four Nordic Countries, 1970–2003

During the 1990s, the Nordic welfare states, notably Finland and Sweden, faced serious challenges that triggered a number of welfare restructuring processes. This article focuses on the political determinants of these processes, or, more exactly, it analyses changes in partisan welfare policy positions in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden between 1970 and 2003. The main goal of the article is to chart possible changes in party positions on social policy. Has there been a decline in pro‐welfare attitudes during the period 1970–2003, and if so, how are these changes related to ideological and institutional factors? The data analysed in the article consists of election programmes, and more specifically, textual utterances concerning the welfare state. The results indicate a relatively high degree of stability in partisan support for welfare state expansion and investments in social justice, while market‐type solutions to social problems, on the other hand, have become more salient among parties, especially in the Right. The findings suggest that parties still differ from each other as to welfare‐political positions, indicating that Social Democratic and left‐wing parties remain the foremost defenders of the ‘Nordic Welfare Model’, whereas the Right has become more hesitant towards welfare state expansion.     

Reciprocity schemes in unemployment regulation policies: Towards a pluralistic citizenship of Marginalisation?

Recent developments in unemployment regulation policies indicate that universal treatment of social welfare recipients is increasingly being replaced by selective programmes which are characterised by lower subsidies and the introduction of reciprocity in social welfare. Such programmes generally introduce the condition that people who benefit from social assistance perform some kind of work in return. These tendencies have important consequences on the organisation of our welfare society. We believe that the application of schemes based on selectivity and reciprocity to a significant portion of the population undermines the basic characteristics of the Welfare State, i.e. class stabilisation policies and the universal basis of treatment. This article will discuss these tendencies in the light of the workfare debate. It proposes to transform these measures into unconditional ones, sustained by universal basic income schemes.     

Solidarity with whom? Why organised labour is losing ground in Continental pension politics

This article explains why the power of organised labour in the reform of Swiss and German pension regimes has faded over the last three decades. Postindustrialisation has brought two different sets of reform issues onto the pension policy agendas of Continental European welfare states: retrenchment of existing benefit levels, and the pension coverage of new, postindustrial social risk groups. Recent pension reforms increasingly combine these two types of measures in encompassing policy packages –‘modernising compromises’– in order to compensate for retrenchment with selective expansive reform elements. Continental trade unions attach a lower importance to postindustrial modernisation than do the left‐wing parties – notably the Social Democrats and the Green parties. Consequently, the distance between the labour movement and the left‐wing parties, as well as intra‐labour heterogeneity, increase and ‘modernising compromises’ tend to divide the left and to marginalise trade unions. The empirical analysis relies on coded actor positions from eight major pension reforms between 1972 and 2003.     

Recalibrating social protection: Electoral competition and the new partisan politics of the welfare state

This article investigates the new party politics of welfare states with a particular focus on electoral competition. The argument is that welfare state politics are no longer just about more or less, but involve trade-offs among ‘new’ versus ‘old’ social rights, and hence social investment versus social consumption. However, party priorities on these issues are highly dependent upon their electoral situation. As electoral competition becomes more intense, parties focus more on vote maximisation than on their traditional policy goals. For left parties, this means focusing more on social investment, which appeals to their growing constituency of progressive sociocultural professionals, and less on defending the traditional income maintenance programmes favoured by their core blue-collar voters. Centre-right parties, on the other hand, should hesitate to retrench old social rights when electoral competition intensifies because they need to prioritise their appeal to culturally conservative working-class voters over their traditional fiscally conservative policy profiles. Using a new dataset and a recently published measure of electoral competitiveness, the article shows that as electoral competition intensifies, left governments are willing to prioritise social investment by reducing pension rights generosity in order to expand programmes for new social risks, while centre-right governments by contrast avoid retrenchment of pension rights and pension expenditures. The findings demonstrate that this relationship is moderated by the presence of a credible radical right challenger, which increases the electoral risk of welfare state recalibration.     

The Policy Design Effect: Proximity as a Micro‐level Explanation of the Effect of Policy Designs on Social Benefit Attitudes

Public and individual support for a policy is affected by how it is designed – that is, how eligibility is determined. This results in universal policies being more popular than contributions‐based policies, which in turn enjoy more public support than the selective kind. The literature on welfare attitudes have argued that this ‘policy design effect’ can be explained by a combination of self‐interest patterns, public perceptions of the recipient group and whether eligibility under the policy is perceived as fair or arbitrary. The explanations, however, lack micro‐level theory and testing as to why the design of a policy affects individual and public support. This article seeks to explain this policy design effect by theoretically outlining and testing how being proximate to recipients of a social benefit affects attitudes towards the benefit. A survey of attitudes towards spending on five social benefits in Denmark shows a large impact on attitudes from being proximate to recipients under selective policies, little or no impact from universal policies and a pattern that falls in‐between for the contributions‐based policy. This article thus provides micro‐level evidence for the different impacts on attitudes depending on the design of a policy, and a possible explanation for why the design impacts attitudes differently.     

Why Solidarity Matters: The Political Strategy of Welfare Design

Reporting on our recent book, The Solidarity Society, this article explores the way in which the design of welfare programmes interacts with and shapes the underlying quality of social relations between members of society—and, through this, public attitudes to welfare. Given that sustaining generous welfare over long timescales requires the support of electorates, this ‘relational’ dimension of welfare policy is crucial for the long‐term strategy of tackling poverty and inequality. The article looks in particular at the ‘welfare dilemmas’ that can arise from tensions between targeting and universalism and between need and entitlement, where the distributional and relational elements of welfare policy work against one another. We conclude that entrenching a generous welfare settlement will require strong elements of both universalism and reciprocity in the design of welfare.     

Social Policy Under One Country, Two Systems: Institutional Dynamics in China and Hong Kong since 1997

Hong Kong's 1997 reversion to Chinese sovereignty brought two hitherto distinctive social policy systems into one country. As Hong Kong is gradually assimilated into China in the coming decades, the two social policy systems will need to identify elements of convergence. In this article, we argue those elements can be found in parallel efforts to curtail the reach of the state, extend the role of the market, enhance individual responsibility, and in the development of a productivist social policy orientation in both societies. The social policy systems of the two societies remain strikingly different in many ways, reflecting their diametrically opposed starting points. But their reform trajectories appear to be pointing in similar directions.     

Uneven inclusion: consequences of universal healthcare in Thailand

‘Post-national’ scholars have taken the extension of social rights to migrants that are normally accorded to citizens as evidence of the growing importance of norms of ‘universal personhood’ and the declining importance of the nation-state. However, the distinct approach taken by the state toward another understudied category of non-citizen – stateless people – complicates these theories by demonstrating that the state makes decisions about groups on different bases than theory would suggest. These findings suggest the need to pay more attention to how the state treats other categories of ‘semi-citizens’. This article examines the differential effects of universal healthcare reforms in Thailand on citizens, migrants, and stateless people and explores their ramifications on theories of citizenship and social rights. While the state has expanded its healthcare obligations toward people living within its borders, it has taken a variegated approach toward different groups. Citizens have been extended ‘differentiated but unambiguous rights’. Migrants have been granted ‘conditional rights’ to healthcare coverage, dependent on their status as registered workers who pay mandatory contributions. Large numbers of stateless people, however, saw their right to state welfare programs disenfranchised following passage of the new universal healthcare law before later being granted ‘contingent rights’ through a new program.     

The plight of universal social services.

In the early 1960s, the motivating theme of social services in the American welfare state was reduction of economic dependency. At that time services were highly selective, aimed mainly at poor people. Between 1960 and 1980 there was a drift toward univeralism, as the welfare state expanded to serve an increasing number of middle-class groups. This expansion of the welfare state was related to several social and demographic trends, and was accompanied by basic changes in the scope and purpose of social services. As the welfare state has moved toward universal entitlement to social services, a number of contradictions between the theory and practice of universalism in a capitalist society have surfaced. These contradictions lend a degree of support to the resurgence of selectivity which the welfare state is currently experiencing.