Search

This article attempts to highlight the weight of different institutional factors that shape the implementation capacity of major welfare reforms in the 1990s in France and Switzerland. In many respects France and Switzerland are very different countries. Their state structures, their political regimes and their standard patterns of policy-making are significantly different. France is characterised by a unitary and semi-residential/parliamentary regime, a strong state, and a weak, but protest-oriented, civil society. The Swiss political system has four main characteristics: a grand coalition government, federalism, direct democracy and corporatist liberal arrangements. Switzerland is a federation of cantons united by a two-chamber government. The cantons are highly autonomous and each has a constitution. Regulation of financial and organisational resources between the confederation and the cantons operates at three levels: delegation of traditional tasks, new obligations for cantons accompanied by financial support from the confederation and cooperation. In international comparisons, the Swiss political system is generally qualified as a typical case of consensus democracy. A factor behind the development of consensual policymaking is the availability of the referendum to dissatisfied minorities. A constant concern for politicians and policymakers is to avoid the possibility that some dissatisfied groups might call for a referendum on a bill. Switzerland is also considered a partially neo-corporatist country, as trade unions are fragmented, employers' associations are more centralised and organised and informal network arrangements are highly asymmetrical. With regard to the relationship between state and civil society structures, France is almost the inverse of Switzerland. There, the political system is characterised by a strong centralisation of power and a weak civil society. The French state has long played the role of motor for social and economic development.