Welfare states and inequalties University of Castellanza Session #2(a)
Variety of European welfare states
10 November 2010
Welfare states and inequalties University of Castellanza Session #2(a)
Variety of European welfare states
10 November 2010
Outline Lecture 2(a) Europe and the welfare state
European national welfare states
Three worlds of welfare capitalism
Esping-Andersen’s typology
Criticisms of Esping Andersen
A good typology?
Now out of date?
Some quotes (again) “There won’t be a bill to pay. We do it a bit differently here. In the National Health Service, we don’t charge for medical treatment’. (British nurse to American visitor in casualty ward)… quoted in Reid, The United States of Europe, p. 145.
‘This widely shared sense of the government’s social responsibility to everybody is another unifying force that makes Europeans feel they all belong to a single place – a place they believe, that is definitely not American.’ Reid, p.146. But who is the ‘we’? We Europeans or we British?
Welfare states and national identity British ‘National Health Service’
‘The NHS is safe with us’ (Margaret Thatcher)
Modell Deutschland –
Sozialmarktwirtschaft
‘Deutschland bleibt sozial’ (SPD election slogan)
Swedish folkhem
The people’s home
European national identity is interwoven with the national welfare state
Most Europeans main interaction with the state is in terms of welfare, rather than in terms of the military.
Welfare state assumes and creates a community of interest and mutual responsibility
So welfare state nationalism (‘sponging off our taxes’)
Divergence of Europe from USA To the 1960s: welfare convergence
Expansion of welfare in all western states including USA
UK seen as early trend-setter
‘Optimistic convergence’ (Kleinman)
From the 1960s: divergence of Europe and USA
Europe: Expansion of trade unions, social democracy, ‘class conflict’; continued expansion of welfare states
USA: Counter-culture (hippies, Woodstock...) and ethnic mobilisation; end of War on Poverty and attack on ‘Welfare’
Explanation in terms of power resources
Strong trade unions and social democratic parties => more extensive welfare states
Divergence within Europe ‘Mature’ welfare states of 1970s and 1980s
Scandinavian social services
UK restraint on services, but expansion welfare benefits
France, Germany: employment rights
So ‘three worlds of welfare’?
Typologies Needed to simplify reality
So reality will always be more complex!
Construct using key features which differ in different cases
(1) Liberal welfare regime Liberal (Beveridge)
UK, USA, NZ, Australia, Ireland
Welfare state as safety net: means-tested benefits targeted on people who ‘need’ them.
Residual – narrow definition of social risks (USA no national health care), no state family services
Encouragement of the market: market-based solutions (e.g. pensions) supported by tax system
Homo liberalismus – follows his own welfare calculus
(2) Social democratic welfare regime Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland; based on strong social democratic political parties and trade unions
Universal citizen’s benefits (as opposed to contribution-based benefits)
Extensive state social services
Deliberate attempt to ‘de-commodify welfare’
Homo socialdemocraticus: ‘he will be better off in a world without want, but also without free-riders’
(3) Conservative welfare regimes ‘Bismarckian’ welfare system of Continental Europe;
origins in social conservatism, social catholicism and (post World War II) christian democracy
Insurance-based
Protection of family against market; assumption that family (not market) primarily responsible for welfare; legal mutual obligations of family members
Privileged position of state employees
Homo familius – ‘a satisficer, not a mximizer...a job in the postal service is heaven on earth’
Summary regime characteristics Liberal Social Democratic Conservative Family Marginal Marginal Central Market Central Marginal Marginal State Marginal Central Subsidiary Modal examples USA (UK) Sweden Italy (Germany) Ideal personality Homo liberalismus Homo socialdemocaticus Homo familius
Criticisms of Esping Andersen Gender…
Different roles of women in e.g. France & Germany
A Mediterranean type?
State coverage limited and many outside system
access to welfare depends on family member in protected employment
Ignores redistributionist liberal states
Egalitarian outcomes
New Zealand, Australia, Canada
And what about new Member States?
Still three worlds? Globalisation and challenge to welfare states
Pessimistic convergence?
Roll back because of ‘globalisation’?
But overall little change
In most European states total welfare expenditure has remained roughly constant as % of GDP
Ireland is the one clear exception
Different responses to pressure
UK ‘America with a human face’?
Minimum wage, expanded childcare
Germany
Harz IV ‘Reforms’ cut benefits creating new low wage sector; weaken insurance principle
Scandinavia
Limited privatisation of provision – services provided by private companies but funded by state
The new crisis (after 2008)
USA: - Discussion of universal healthcare!
And what about the New Member States?
Comments