Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySolomon Robinson Modified over 6 years ago
1
Welfare states and inequalities University of Castellanza
Session #1b Variety of European welfare states 7 March 2017
2
Outline Lecture 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 Now out of date? Key concept for lecture! ‘Three worlds....
3
But who is the ‘we’? We Europeans or we British?
Some quotes “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?
4
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’)
5
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 From the 1990s: Convergence with USA? Pessimistic convergence? Accelerated by the crisis post 2008?
6
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’?
7
Typologies Needed to simplify reality
So reality will always be more complex! Construct using key features which differ in different cases
8
(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
9
(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’
10
(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’
11
Summary regime characteristics
Liberal Social Democratic Conservative Family Marginal Central Market State Subsidiary Modal examples USA (UK) Sweden Italy (Germany) Ideal personality Homo liberalismus Homo socialdemocaticus Homo familius
12
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?
13
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 in 2000s UK under New Labour: America with a human face’? Minimum wage, expanded childcare; Germany Hartz IV ‘Reforms’ cut benefits creating new low wage sector reducing welfare dependency; weakens 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! Italy, France: change in the crisis? UK – dramatic austerity cuts And what about the New Member States?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.