Search

This paper aims to explore the differences between Norwegian and US welfare state ideologies, and if or how they are reflected in the respective foster care systems and in the daily practices of foster parents. Our analysis combines a review of policy documents and legal regulations, with interviews in a sample of 141 exemplary foster parents (87 from the US and 54 from Norway). The paper identifies clear differences in how these two states take responsibility and provide services for families in general and foster parents in particular, examining distinct differences in the conditions foster parents have for exercising their parenting tasks. The findings from the interviews show how the conditions play out in real life for foster parents and foster children in relation to recruitment of caregivers, time and resources available to children, and how caregivers negotiate and advocate for children’s needs.

There are competing theoretical expectations and conflicting empirical results concerning the impact of partisanship on spending on active labour market policies (ALMPs). This paper argues that one should distinguish between different ALMPs. Employment incentives and rehabilitation programmes incentivize the unemployed to accept jobs. Direct job creation reduces the supply of labour by creating non-commercial jobs. Training schemes raise the human capital of the unemployed. Using regression analysis this paper shows that the positions of political parties towards these three types of ALMPs are different. Party preferences also depend on the welfare regime in which parties are located. In Scandinavia, left-wing parties support neither employment incentives nor direct job creation schemes. In continental and Liberal welfare regimes, left-wing parties oppose employment incentives and rehabilitation programmes to a lesser extent and they support direct job creation. There is no impact of partisanship on training. These results reconcile the previously contradictory findings concerning the impact of the Left on ALMPs.

Proceeding from an historical-analytical reconstruction of the development of collectively negotiated benefits in Germany and the Netherlands, this paper investigates the role and function of industrial relations as a provider and financial supporter of welfare. It argues that social policy based on collective agreements strongly influences contemporary retrenchment policies. Reviewing the literature on retrenchment policies, the paper argues that unions and employers should be regarded as collective actors supporting retrenchment by offering financial and organizational resources to governments in their attempts at welfare delegation. The implication is that the study of comparative welfare retrenchment should move beyond its focus on analysing the political behaviour of the actors involved, to include industrial relations systematically in its frame of reference. Research should take into account patterns of institutionalization of labour relations at company level, traditions of government support for collectively negotiated benefits, and differences in the relative development of public and collectively negotiated benefits.

This paper critically examines the theoretical, empirical and methodological limitations of Esping-Andersen’s Three Worlds of Welfare decommodification index. It highlights an, to date, overlooked error in Esping-Andersen’s original calculations that led to the incorrect positioning of three borderline countries (Japan, the UK and Ireland) and resulted in the empirically erroneous composition of the Three Worlds of Welfare. Updated decommodification data from 1998/99 are used to explore the influential role of variable weighting in the creation of the three worlds typology. Finally, the paper revisits the decommodification index to examine how the relationships between the countries have changed since 1980. The paper concludes by questioning the extent to which the Three Worlds of Welfare still exist, and indeed, at least in empirical terms, the extent to which they ever did.

This Special Issue takes on a new cross-regional comparison between Southern Europe and East Asia in an attempt to identify ‘new politics’ of welfare state adjustments. Departing from the previous literature that overemphasized regional peculiarities of East Asian and Southern European welfare states, our Special Issue highlights family resemblances – among Italy, Japan, Korea and Spain. We argue that these four welfare states – often labelled as ‘familialist’ – share key common characteristics, which in turn experienced very similar policy problems in recent years. Interestingly, despite their initial similarities, these four countries have been trying to cope with new policy problems in different ways. In this process, some are clearly becoming less familialist. The main aim of this introductory article is to demonstrate the theoretical advantages based on the new cross-regional comparison. This article proceeds in three steps. First, it establishes the usefulness of the concept of family resemblances in our cross-regional comparison. Second, it presents a brief historical account of recent policy differences across the four countries going beyond familialism and shows that the existing theories fail to account for the new divergences. Third, it provides the overview of the Special Issue by explaining the research puzzles each paper tackles. We argue that these four welfare states, which are moving beyond familialism to varying degrees, represent heuristically helpful cases to explore the effects of both domestic and international political factors.

We examine the relationship between education and social protection policies across OECD countries andthereby contribute to the growing political and academic discussion on how social investment and socialprotection are interrelated. We focus on how government policy in two policy domains (education, socialprotection) affects social stratification. The paper is based on a principal methodological innovation, whichlies in disaggregating the ways in which policy-makers influence stratification into two distinct dimensions:one is concerned with how much the state intervenes in the provision of education/social protection andhow much it leaves to individual, family and market, and the second is concerned with the bias towardsequality or stratification found in the state system itself. We find that countries can be grouped into adistinct number of education–social protection typologies, which differ from traditional clusterings andcould indicate the need for multi-faceted pan-European education policies that take into account thelongstanding differences in stratification as opposed to one-size-fits-all policy initiatives.

Welfare state typologies are generally based on the institutional design of welfare policies. In this paper we analyse whether such typologies also persist when they are applied to effective redistributive outcomes of welfare states’ tax and transfer policies. In contrast to the widespread use of macro indicators, our empirical analysis relies on internationally comparable microdata in order to account for the distribution of resources across households. We perform a hierarchical cluster analysis and check whether the classical typology for Western European welfare states reproduces the typical patterns when it comes to effective economic outcomes. We find that the established welfare regimes not only differ in their welfare state institutions as is known, but also in their economic outcomes. In particular, we identify the social-democratic, conservative, liberal and southern welfare regimes. Belgium and the Netherlands emerge as hybrid cases lying between the social-democratic and conservative model.

There are large gaps in associational involvement along education, income and gender lines and across different organizations. This paper examines the extent to which these gaps vary across countries. We argue that, next to the discussion about crowding out effects that is often found in the literature, it is important to look at conditioning effects of welfare states. Through welfare state policies, resources are redistributed in society. In turn, these resources enable participation in voluntary associations and organizations. Our analyses — based on multi-level models and data of the European Social Survey — indicate that extensive welfare state expenditures reduce participatory inequalities, with some variation according to the kind of organization under study. Our findings suggest that conditioning effects of welfare states deserve greater attention in research and that participatory inequalities may be reduced by social policy.

In this paper we address a set of interrelated issues. These comprise the relative merits of unidimensional versus multidimensional approaches to poverty and social exclusion, increasing concerns about reliance on nationally based income poverty measures in the context of EU-enlargement and the continuing relevance of class based explanations of variation in life chances. Employing the EU-SILC data set, we identify for each of a set of welfare regimes a group of economically vulnerable individuals. Contrary to the situation with national income poverty measures, levels of economic vulnerability vary systematically across welfare regimes. The multidimensional profile of the economically vulnerable sharply differentiates them from the remainder of the population. Unlike the national relative income approach, the focus on economic vulnerability produces a pattern of class differentiation that is not dominated by the contrast between the property owning classes and all others. In contrast to a European-wide relative income approach, it also simultaneously captures the fact that absolute levels of vulnerability are distinctively high among the lower social classes in the less affluent regimes while class relativities are significantly sharper in the more affluent regimes. No single indicator is likely to prove adequate in capturing the diversity of experience of poverty and social exclusion in an enlarged European Union. The most effective strategy may be to take more seriously the need to translate the conceptually compelling case for a multidimensional approach to social exclusion into an appropriate set of operational alternatives.

This paper examines to what extent the classification of the American welfare state as "residual" squares with the empirical facts. Section I describes key features of American social policy developments. The U.S. system is clearly dominated by public provisions for welfare among which social insurance programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, represent the lion's share, and public pensions are more universal, redistributive, and generous than in some European countries. Noteworthy differences remain with respect to the stronger reliance on private provisions in pensions and health, the emphasis on work-conditioned benefits and a greater importance of selective schemes. The terms "work-conditioned welfare" or "corporate citizenship" adequately capture these key features by highlighting that employers are gatekeepers of social entitlements. Section II examines if key features of the American welfare state have recently become more prominent in Europe. A slight approximation to the American model is found with respect to a growing importance of private expenditure for pensions and health, but not with respect to a greater selectivity of benefits. On the level of policy discourse, the idée directrice of European social policies is changing from social protection to activation, as three traditionally American elements have come to prominence: an emphasis on individual responsibility, on the private supply of services and more consumer choice, and on the activation of people at working age. Yet there is no general convergence towards the American model, because the United States is approximating Europe with respect to health insurance while public attitudes are shifting in favour of extended state responsibilities. Hence there is a complex pattern of specific policy learning rather than convergence towards one model of social policy. In sum, similarities between social policies in Europe and America are found to be more noteworthy than the term "residual welfare state" for the U.S. suggests.

Various studies have demonstrated that while the lower educated support economic redistribution more than the higher educated do, they nonetheless dislike welfare support for immigrants more strongly. This paper aims to explain this remarkably particularistic application of the principle of economic egalitarianism (‘welfare chauvinism’) by testing three theories by means of survey data representative of the Dutch population ( N = 1972). The first theory asserts that the low level of political competence of the lower educated is responsible, the second focuses on their weak economic position, and the third claims that their limited amount of cultural capital is decisive. Only the latter explanation is confirmed and implications for debates about ethnocentrism, deservingness and welfare state legitimacy, as well as the ideological profile of the lower-educated working class are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to obtain, by combining two longitudinal perspectives, a more detailed national picture of poverty in the member states of the European Union, using the first four waves (1994–7) of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP). In addition to this detailed consideration is given to the time dimension, poverty incidence, poverty gap and poverty intensity. Overall, the ranking across countries and dimensions is relatively robust. Denmark and Portugal differ from the rest of the countries in each dimension. Other exceptions include France and Ireland, where poverty intensity is considerably lower than in the other welfare regimes. The results in terms of the different subgroups of poor individuals, namely transitory, intermittently and persistently poor, emphasize the importance of a more differentiated perspective on poverty, in particular concerning the relationship between social and demographic characteristics and individuals’ long-term income situation. Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. - This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.

This paper starts from a major contradiction in the literature on recent public sector development. On the one hand, globalization theory is read as implying major tendencies towards the retrenchment of the public sector and a ‘race to the bottom’ in social spending. On the other hand, comparative studies are largely unanimous in arguing that such tendencies have not occurred. To gain greater purchase on the realities of recent public sector trends, we disaggregate data for public expenditure change in 19 OECD countries over the period 1984 to 1997. We then develop a series of models of the factors determining expenditure trends over this period. The findings presented here provide no evidence that exposure to international trade leads governments to down-size their public sectors and suggest that the main influences on contemporary expenditure patterns have been unemployment, economic growth and catch-up from prior expenditure level.