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

2. 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

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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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