Shifting Paradigms of Social Justice Project III Steffen Mau (Bremen) Peter Taylor-Gooby (Kent) Researchers: Rose Martin, Christoph Burkhardt

Rationale Research questions Comparing Germany and Britain Findings of attitude research Pressures on welfare states Transition → Post-industrialism? Responses Issues for social justice Themes for research Winners vs. losers Methods

1. Rationale Welfare State Transformations Justice Attitudes and Welfare State Change Contested Societal Contract New Welfare Settlement requires New Conceptions of Justice

2. Research Questions A: What are the conceptions of social justice that correspond to the traditional welfare state models in Germany and the UK? B: How have they changed in recent years and to what extent do the attitudes to social justice correspond to these changes? C: How are the new themes in welfare reform (social investment, reciprocity and accommodation to greater social diversity) viewed and discussed by the ordinary citizen?

3. Comparing Germany and Britain Bismarckian vs. Beveridgean model Britain as place of radical transformation vs. Germany as „frozen landscape“? Recent reforms: family policies, labour market, pensions, health New normative underpinnings: conditionality, self-sufficiency, activation, market-conformity

4. Findings of Attitude Research Strong support for core institutions of the welfare state In the 90s: Germany without major distributive conflicts, relative satisfaction, étatist orientations Britain with less satisfaction, more group differences in attitudes

Recent findings in Germany The majority still thinks that the state should be responsible for social welfare Need for private responsibility becomes more accepted Less support for welfare state expansion Role of ideas of reciprocity Differences between East and West exist, but seem to decline

Recent findings in UK Majority support for redistribution – but support declines when respondents feel that they may have to contribute themselves Conditionality/ reciprocity: “club” view Increasing acceptance and expectation of non-state provision – especially pensions Widespread support for women’s right to work and for state assistance with care Mixed picture on acceptance of diversity

5. Pressures on welfare states I Economic: international competition; fiscal globalisation → declining state authority; pressure on labour costs Labour market shifts → decline in unskilled jobs; (?) slower growth as service sector expands Maturity of welfare systems → high cost Social: population ageing → extra costs

Pressures II Political: trans-national agencies; more demanding citizens → constrains govt. Fragmentation of traditional left Socio-political: demands for more equal opportunities by women and (some) minorities → new provision/ opportunity More self-confident citizens → responsive Migration undermining social cohesion (?) Probably many other pressures

6. Transition → Post-industrialism? Industrial to post-industrial welfare state Economic and social shifts reduce authority of govt. and of social forces which supported traditional welfare settlement and impose new demands Emerging welfare settlement concerned with nat. competitiveness, meeting mass needs cost-efficiently + responsively, providing opportunities

7. Responses Not end of welfare state but: Welfare contributes to competitiveness (welfare to work; training; expansion of labour market) Cost-efficiency (use of performance targets, incentives, internal markets) Responsiveness (choice, consultation)

8. Issues for social justice Traditional welfare states: national minimum + earnings-related benefits + citizenship access to key services (health, education) Now more stress on activation, individual responsibility, cost-efficiency and responsiveness New agenda affects different groups differently

9. Themes for research Ideas about social justice and role of welfare state are now more influenced by: Activation + self-responsibility vs. passive provision Reciprocity vs. individualism in people’s obligations Diversity + openness vs. group cohesion /exclusion of migrants

10. Winners vs. losers I Winners more likely to embrace new agenda: High + flexibly skilled/educated vs. low + obsolete skilled/educated Secure employed vs. marginally employed/ unemployed Family members vs. single (parents)

Winners vs. losers II Good networks + contacts vs. isolated Access to resources (material/social) vs. excluded Middle class vs. lower class Economic and social insiders vs. outsiders Outsiders less likely to accept diversity

11. Methods Literature review: values implicit in existing programmes Secondary analysis of existing surveys on current attitudes (extra questions bought in German surveys) Focus groups to explore attitudes to new agenda among winners and losers