Welfare states and inequalties

University of Castellanza

Session #2(a)

Variety of European welfare states1 March 2012

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Criticisms of Esping Andersen– A good typology?– Now out of date?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

– 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! And what about the New Member States?