UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
MA SOCIAL RESEARCH
WITH SPECIALISM IN SOCIAL POLICY
& POSTGRADUATE PHD TRAINING
PROGRAMME: SOCIAL POLICY, SOCIAL
WORK AND HEALTH STUDIES
RESTRUCTURING WELFARE
[EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES]
2010-2011
MODULE TUTOR
NOEL WHITESIDE.
1
PROGRAMME OF SESSIONS
RESTRUCTURING WELFARE: [European Perspectives]
Session 1:
Introduction:
Noel Whiteside
Session 2:
European welfare state regime theory and its critics
Session 3:
Globalization and EMU: welfare state restructuring in Europe
Noel Whiteside
Session 4:
Promoting European welfare: the EU’s changing remit
Noel Whiteside
Session 5:
Lisbon and After: the EES and its instruments
Noel Whiteside
Session 6:
Extending Social Europe? Expansion of the EU
Milena Kremakova
Session 7:
Migration and its consequences: a new social policy issue?
Theresa Staniewicz
Session 8:
Equal opportunities: women in the European Union.
Noel Whiteside
Session 9:
The demographic crisis and the future of pensions
Noel Whiteside
Session 10: The fall of ‘privatised Keynesianism’: its impact on employment
policy Colin Crouch (Warwick Business School)
nb The lecture takes place 12.30-2pm, Tues Dec. 2nd: Colin will lead a
seminar discussion on the implications for welfare at 4pm, R3.25
Each week there will be a two hour session in Ramphal 3.25 on Tuesdays
4.00-6.00 pm in the spring term. Each session will be led by one of the tutors,
who will introduce each topic with a formal presentation. Group discussion, in
small groups with feedback, will be based on questions set out in the handout, or which develop during the presentation. Participants should prepare for
each session by reading key texts identified in the handout, particularly the
key readings
The growth of the global economy has had a series of impacts on welfare
developments world-wide. These impacts are partly based on ideological
shifts; partly they are the consequences of changes in institutional structures
and responsibilities as countries have opened up their trade, economies and
political institutions to new and powerful forces. As a result, what we call
developed welfare states have changed their assumptions about the role of
the state towards the wellbeing of its citizens (and towards those who are not
2
citizens but inward migrants or looking for asylum). Both the principles of
state ‘welfare’ and actual practice have been reassessed and revised.
Generalisation is perhaps questionable, but by and large, governments have
retreated from responsibility for full employment, a managed economy and
strong social provision, towards active promotion of markets as the primary
means of allocating goods and services, with welfare repositioned as a drain
on wealth creation processes that relies on bureaucratic institutions which
stifle choice and efficiency and encourage dependency. The extent to which
governments have fully embraced these views varies across Europe as well
as across the US, Canada, and Australasia.
This module examines the impact of globalisation and the development of the
European Union on welfare states in Europe, focusing on the experiences in
common as well as some of the obvious differences. It begins with a review
of welfare state development and theories commonly employed in the
comparative classification of welfare states. It moves on to describe how
recent events (globalisation of financial markets, monetary union and the
broadening of EU membership) have all posed new challenges: provoking the
promotion of labour market activation policies to counteract growing social
dependency. We then move to consider the implications of these changes
and the renewed emphasis on labour market participation: on the role of
women, as carers and workers; on how changing demography is posing
challenges for health care and pension provision; on the challenges posed by
migratory patterns both within and from outside the EU’s borders. Are these
developments fundamentally altering what is euphemistically termed the
European Social Model? Are new systems sustainable? Most importantly, in a
globalising world, are nation-based welfare states viable – or even desirable?
These are the issues that form the collective focus for concern.
Reading There is an enormous amount of literature on the debates
surrounding European welfare states and their current dilemmas. The lists
attached to each topic are far from exhaustive. Students are invited to
supplement them by perusing Journal of European Social Policy and Journal
of European Public Policy for supplementary information (particularly more
recent issues). The Journal of Common Market Studies may also prove
useful. All are available on-line through the library
Session 1: Introduction
This will be a short introductory session to the module and its remit. The
topics to be discussed will be outlined and, as this is a small group, any
suggestions about additional topics can be incorporated at this stage.
3
Session 2: WELFARE STATE REGIME THEORY & ITS CRITICS
Welfare states expanded and consolidated in the decades after the Second
World War. Academic analyses of this apparent convergence in state welfare
have theorised comparative provision between different countries. In the
1950s, Titmuss distinguished tax-funded welfare based on citizenship rights
(then Britain and Scandinavia) from contribution-funded social insurance
based on employment. Re-working links between employment and welfare,
Esping-Andersen established a triple typology of welfare state ‘regimes’.
‘Liberal’ welfare states (the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada) operate residual
welfare systems based on means-tested assistance under largely punitive
rules. The ‘conservative’ regimes found in Catholic continental Europe attach
welfare rights to ‘commodified’ labour power: welfare is rooted in employmentbased, earnings-related social insurance, supplemented by unwaged family
care. The ‘social democratic’ (Scandinavian) model provides socially
redistributive, tax-funded welfare and state-run social services to all citizens;
this is interpreted as a triumph of socialism and social justice.
Esping Andersen has his critics. Ferrara questions whether southern Europe
constitutes a separate category and Kangas attacks Scandinavian uniformity.
Feminists accuse Esping Andersen of ignoring family policies and the role of
unwaged female labour in the provision of social care. Historically, these
‘models’ of welfare can be criticised for assuming an unjustified degree of
permanence in post-war welfare settlements. However, the power of EspingAndersen’s analytical prototype is visible in much writing on comparative
welfare: recently, he extended his thesis to embrace comparative welfare
systems on a global scale (Esping-Andersen, 1999). His work has therefore
been criticised for being too Euro-centric – although the influence of his ideas
means that they deserve serious attention.
Questions for discussion
1. What are Esping Andersen’s ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’?
2. What criticisms can be made of this theory?
3. Are these criticisms justified? Or does this theory work?
Essay: Can we consider Esping-Andersen’s categorisation of welfare states
as either theoretically viable or empirically valid?
Key reading
ARTS, W. & GELISSEN, J., 2002, ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or
more? A state-of-the-art report’ Journal of European Social Policy, 12, 2,
137-58
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G., 1990, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,
Cambridge Polity Press
4
FERRERA, M.., 1996, ‘The southern model of welfare in social Europe’
Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 1, pp. 17-37
LEWIS, J., 1992, ‘Gender and the development of welfare regimes’ Journal of
European Social Policy, 2, 3, pp. 159-73
Other reading
ANTTONEN, A., & SIPILA, J., 1996, ‘European social care services: is it
possible to identify models?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6, pp. 87-100
BAMBRA, C., 2006, ‘Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited’,
Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 1, pp. 73-80
BONOLI, G., 1997, ‘Classifying welfare states: a two-dimension approach’,
Journal of Social Policy, 26, 3, pp. 351-72
BONOLI, G., & PALIER, B., 1996, ‘Reclaiming welfare: the politics of French
social protection reform’, South European Policy and Politics, 1, 3.
BONOLI, G. & PALIER, B., 1998, ‘Changing the politics of social
programmes: innovative change in British and French welfare reforms’,
Journal of European Social Policy, 8, 4, pp. 317-330
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G., 1999, Social Foundations of Post-Industrial
Economies, OUP.
GOODIN, R.E., HEADEY, B., MUFFELS, R., & DIRVEN, H.J. (1999), The
Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge University Press.
KANGAS, O., 1994, ‘The merging of welfare state models? Past and present
trends in Finnish and Swedish social policy’, Journal of European Social
Policy, 4, pp. 117-29
LEWIS, J.(ed), 1993, Women and Social Policies in Europe: work, family and
the state, Edward Elgar, Aldershot – see Introduction.
ORLOFF, A., 1993, ‘Gender and the social rights of citizenship: state policies
and gender relations in comparative research’, American Sociological Review,
58, 3, pp. 303-28
PIERSON, P. (ed), 2001, The New Politics of the Welfare State, OUP – Intro.
RHODES, M., 1996, ‘Globalization and Western European Welfare States: a
critical review of recent debates’. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 4, 30527
SCRUGGS, L. & ALLAN, J., 2006, ‘Welfare state decommodification in 18
OECD countries: replication and revision’, Journal of European Social Policy,
16, 1, 52-72
5
Session 3: GLOBALISATION AND EMU: WELFARE STATE
RESTRUCTURING IN EUROPE
In recent years, traditional west European welfare states have come under
attack. In the first place, economic globalisation, the flexibilisation of
production systems (converting multi-national conglomerates into franchised
networks) and de-industrialisation – all have served to undermine the full
employment economies on which Keynesian welfare states were founded.
Liberal financial markets and the revolution in information technologies in the
late twentieth century have reduced government controls over national
budgets and increased the power of large corporations and international
investors. Although Third World governments undoubtedly suffered greater
pressures, new orthodoxies forced reappraisals within Europe about desirable
levels of welfare expenditure. In the new climate, ‘Eurosclerosis’ (contrasting
the relative rigidities in Europe with the flexibilities found in the USA) identified
why European long-term unemployment was so persistent and identified this
as the key factor driving up social expenditure. Second, the decision taken at
Maastricht (1991) to pursue monetary union (EMU) imposed strict discipline
on social budgets of EU member states and redefined their remit. Third, the
post-1989 advent of ex-Communist block countries into membership of the
EU raised the spectre of either the relocation of enterprise (jobs) away from
EU industrial heartlands into the new member states, or the flooding of EU
labour markets with cheap immigrant labour, exacerbating existing welfare
problems (see Sessions 6 & 9).
These developments have encouraged extensive welfare restructuring in EU
economies, with varying degrees of success. While new imperatives were
readily adopted in ‘liberal’ welfare states (cf the Thatcher revolution in the
UK), the ‘conservative continental corporatist’ regimes have encountered
more problems and the two largest countries in this group, Germany and
France (the former burdened by the post-1989 costs of reunification) have
faced severe problems complying with the regulations imposed by the
European Central Bank under the Stability and Growth Pact that covers the
Eurozone. In ageing societies, the costs of health care and state pensions in
particular have imposed severe problems (see Session 10). Yet, in spite of
these pressures, state welfare continues to characterise western Europe. The
question remains: will it continue to do so?
CLASS DISCUSSION POINTS
1. What is meant by the term ‘Eurosclerosis’?
2. Will globalisation inevitably mean the destruction of welfare states?
Essay: Identify the causes and consequences of restructuring welfare states
and, using examples, evaluate European responses to new challenges.
Reading:
ADELANTADO & CUEVAS, 2006, ‘Globalisation and the welfare state: the
same strategies for similar problems?’ Journal of European Social Policy, 16,
4, pp.387-92
6
ANANIADIS, B., 2003, ‘Globalisation, welfare and ‘social’ partnership’, Global
Social Policy, 3, 2.
BEYELER, M., 2003, ‘Globalisation, Europeanisation and domestic welfare
state reforms: new institutionalist concepts’, Global Social Policy, 3, 2.
BOUGET, D. 2003, ‘Convergence in the social welfare systems in Europe:
from goal to reality’, Social Policy and Administration, 37, 6, pp. 674-93
CLASEN, J., 2002, ‘Modern Social Democracy and European welfare reform’,
Social Policy and Society, 1, 2, pp. 67-76
CLASEN, J. & GOULD, A., 1995, ‘Stability and change in welfare states:
Germany and Sweden in the 1990s’, Policy and Politics, 23, 3, pp. 189-201
EBBINGHOUSE, B. & HASSEL, A., 2000, ‘Striking deals: concertation in the
reform of continental European welfare states’. Journal of European Public
Policy, 7, 1, 44-62.
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. 1996, ‘Welfare states without work: the impasse of
labour shedding and familialism in continental European social policy’ in
Esping -Andersen, G., (ed) 1996, Welfare States in Transition: national
adaptations in global economies, Sage, London
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G., 1997, ‘Workless welfare states’ in MIRE (Florence),
Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe, vol. III.
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G., GALLIE, D., HEMERIJCK, A., MYLES, J., 2002,
Why We Need a New Welfare State, OUP.
FERRARA, M. & RHODES, M., 2000, Recasting European Welfare States,
Cass.
FERRERA, M. 2003, ‘European integration and national social citizenship:
changing boundaries – new structuring?’, Comparative Political Studies,
36, 6, pp 611-52
GENSCHEL, P., 2002, ‘Globalisation, tax competition and the welfare state’,
Politics and Society, 30, 2, 244-74
GENSCHEL, P., 2004, ‘Globalisation and the welfare state: a retrospective’,
Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 4, 613-36.
GOULD, A., 1999, ‘The erosion of the Swedish welfare state: Swedish social
policy and the European Union’, Journal of European Social Policy, 9, 2.
LEIBFRIED, S. 2000 ‘National Welfare States, European Integration and
Globalization: A Perspective for the next Century’. Social Policy and
Administration, 34.
7
LIPIETZ, A., 1997, ‘Social Europe: the post-Maastricht challenge’, Review of
International Political Economy, 3, 3, pp. 369-79.
MANNING, N & PALIER, B., (eds) 2003, Globalisation / Europeanisation and
social welfare – a special issue of Global Social Policy, 3, 2.
MISHRA, R., 1999, Globalisation and the Welfare State
NICKELL, S., 1997, ‘Unemployment and labour market rigidities: Europe
versus North America’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 3, pp. 55-74
PALIER, B., 2006, ‘The politics of reform in Bismarckean welfare systems’,
revue francaise des affaires socials, 2006, 1, 47-72.
PIERSON, P., 1998, ‘Irresistible forces, immovable objects: post-industrial
welfare states confront permanent austerity’, Journal of European Public
Policy, 5, 4, 539-60
PIERSON, P., 2000, The new Politics of the Welfare State, OUP
RHODES, M., 1996, ‘Globalisation and the west European welfare states: a
critical review of recent debates’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 4.
RHODES, M., 1997, ‘The welfare state: internal challenges and external
constraints’ in RHODES, HEYWOOD & WRIGHT, Developments in West
European Politics, Macmillan, London.
RIEGER, E. &LEIBFRIED, S., 1998, ‘Welfare state limits to globalisation’,
Politics and Society, 26, 3, pp 363-90.
SCHARPF, F., 2000, ‘The viability of advanced welfare states in the
international economy: vulnerabilities and options’, Journal of European
Public Policy, 7, 2, 190-228
SCHARPF, F., 2002, ‘The European social model’, Journal of Common
Market Studies, 40, 4, pp 645-70
TAYLOR GOOBY, P., 1996, ‘Eurosclerosis in European welfare states.
Regime theory and the dynamics of change’, Policy and Politics, 24, 2.
TAYLOR GOOBY, P., 2003, ‘Introduction: open markets versus welfare
citizenship: conflicting approaches to policy convergence in Europe’ Social
Policy and Administration, 37, 6, pp. 539-54.
TEAGUE, P., 1998, ‘Monetary union and Social Europe’, Journal of European
Social Policy, 8, 2, pp.117-39.
8
Session 4: PROMOTING EUROPEAN WELFARE: THE EU’S
CHANGING REMIT
The Treaty of Rome (1957) made no stipulations concerning European
welfare, which was left under the powers of member states. Yet, the
promotion of a single market required the creation of equal or equivalent
labour market conditions to secure fair competition. During the era of full
employment, in a smaller European Economic Community blessed with
continuous growth, it was not necessary to intervene extensively in the
internal affairs of the original seven member states. However, as growth
slowed during the 1970s and the EEC expanded, so the Commission took
more interest in ‘unfair’ practices designed to export unemployment and
protect domestic jobs. This trend strengthened in the 1980s as greater
economic instability, rising long-term unemployment and the harmonisation of
exchange rates stimulated EC concerns about fiscal dumping (member states
reducing taxes and cutting welfare to attract international investment). PostMaastricht commitment to European Monetary Union (EMU) strengthened the
need to regulate state social protection. Interest in using social dialogue to
create equivalent labour market conditions shifted to direct concerns with
social policy in the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty and in the Treaty
of Amsterdam (both repudiated by UK governments) the consequences of
which are discussed in detail in Session 4 (see next week).
Social concerns within the EU have focused primarily on labour market
problems and hence European social policies have emerged from efforts to
harmonise, through social dialogue, social provision by member states (eg.,
recognising the rights of workers to representation on works councils,
promoting equality between male and female workers) also mediated via the
European Court of Justice. The use of labour market directives promoted by
social dialogue and the social partners (and mediated by the ECJ), including
National Action Plans, forms the focus for discussion this week. More
recently, this instrument for harmonising EU social affairs and working
conditions has become increasingly enfeebled as persistent high
unemployment has undermined the power of European trade unions and
allowed the employers’ side to ignore their demands.
CLASS DISCUSSION POINTS
1. What problems does the EU face in integrating social policy of member
states?
2. Does the single market require EC intervention in social policy?
Essay Is convergence of European welfare states a necessary adjunct to the
creation of a single market?
READING: see also reading listed under session 2.
ALBER J., & STANDING, G. 2000, ‘Social dumping, catch-up or convergence
– Europe in comparative global context’, Journal of European Social Policy,
10, 2.
9
BARRELL, R. & GENRE, V., 1999, ‘Employment strategies for Europe:
lessons from Denmark and the Netherlands’, National Institute Economic
Review, April, pp. 82-95
FAJERTAG, G. & POCHET, P., 2000, Social Pacts in Europe, ETUI – ch. by
GOETSCHY
FALKNER, G., 1996, ‘European Works Councils and the Maastricht social
agreement: towards a new policy style?’, Journal of European Public Policy,
3, 2, pp. 192-208
GUILLEN, A., 2002, ‘The politics of universalisation: establishing national
health services in southern Europe’, West European Politics, 25, 4, pp.49-68
GUILLEN, A. & MATSAGANIS, M., 2000, ‘Testing the ‘social dumping’
hypothesis: Southern Europe’ Journal of European Social Policy, 10, 2,120-45
HINE, D., & KASSIM, H., (eds) 1998, Beyond the Market: the EU and national
social policy, Routledge, London - conclusion.
HYMAN, R., 1999, ‘National industrial relations systems and transnational
challenges’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 5, 1.
KELLER, B., & SORRIER, B., 1999, ‘The new European social dialogue’,
Journal of European Social Policy, 9, 2.
MARKS, G. et al., (eds), 1996, Governance in the European Union, Sage,
London.
MURPHY, M., 2005, ‘Between facts and norms and a post-national
constellation: Habermas, law and European social policy’, Journal of
European Public Policy, 12, 1, pp. 143-56.
RHODES, M., 1995, ‘A regulatory conundrum: industrial relations and the
social dimension’ in LEIBFRIED & PIERSON, European Social Policy:
between fragmentation and integration
RHODES, M., 2000, ‘The political economy of social pacts: competitive
corporatism and European welfare reform’ in PIERSON, P. The New Politics
of Welfare, OUP
SCHARPF, F., 2002, ‘The European social model’, Journal of Common
Market Studies, 40, 4, pp 645-70
SCHARPF, F, & SCHMIDT, V., (eds), 2000, Welfare and Work in the Open
Economy, vols I & II
10
Session 5: LISBON AND AFTER: NEW REFORM STRATEGIES
The restructuring of welfare has fostered a major reappraisal of social
dependency, reinforcing the promotion of National Action Plans for
employment at Lisbon, Amsterdam and Nice (1998-2000) and the creation of
the European Employment Strategy (EES), now a cornerstone of the EU’s
social agenda. At the same time, control of the EU social agenda (such as it
was) shifted away from the Directorate General for Employment and Social
Affairs (ex DGV) and towards ECOFIN – the main committee sustaining the
Council of Ministers of Finance. This shift has witnessed changes in both
objectives and strategy in social policy terms, with the Growth and Stability
Pact having a dominant influence over social policy development in member
states and with the Commission now far more intent on determining what
these developments should be. Public welfare expenditure is increasingly
viewed in terms of its investment potential. ‘Good’ expenditure, on education,
health and retraining, is viewed positively; contrarily, ‘bad’ expenditure, on
welfare benefits that sustain social dependency (notably pensions and
unemployment benefits), is sanctioned and pressure put on member states to
reform their systems accordingly. Much attention has been paid to the
promotion of more ‘flexible’ labour markets, to make European economies
more responsive to the labour requirements of enterprise in the post-industrial
age. Denmark and the Netherlands are used as examples for others to follow
The comparative performance of different national strategies (in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity) is assessed by the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). Originally created to measure comparative performance in
the drive to cut unemployment and to meet EES targets (notably the labour
market activation of women), the OMC has now been extended to assess
performance on other social policy areas, notably pensions and health.
Published tables and annual appraisals exercise indirect pressure on member
state governments to improve performance and, in this sense, the use of ‘soft
law’ (as opposed to ‘hard’ directives) now plays a far more dominant role in
shaping social policy across the EU. Opinion on the OMC is mixed: some
regarding it as a beneficial step towards rendering social protection across the
EU more uniform, while others criticise the setting of ‘targets’ (on employment
rates of women and older people, for example) and the statistical
measurement of performance as an imposition of uniform criteria that do not
conform necessarily to national policy concerns. Overall success has proved
elusive, however, as Germany and France have recently repeatedly failed to
meet public expenditure constraints demanded by the European Bank, both
popular opposition to welfare reform and unemployment remain high.
CLASS DISCUSSION POINTS
1. Is it likely that the European Employment Strategy can succeed?
2. How have judgements about ‘virtuous’ welfare changed?
Essay either: (a) How effective is the OMC as an instrument for promoting
social policy change in the EU
Or: (b) Does ‘flexibilisation’ offer a way out of labour market problems for EU
member states?
11
Reading
BARRELL, R. & GENRE V., 1999, ‘Employment Strategies for Europe:
lessons from Denmark and the Netherlands’, National Institute Economic
Review, April, pp 82-95
De la PORTE, C. & POCHET, P. (2002), Building Social Europe through the
Open Method of Co-ordination, Brussels, PIE – Peter Lang.
De la PORTE, C., POCHET, P & Room (2001) Social benchmarking, policy,
policy making and new governance in the EU, European Journal of Social
Policy,11, (4): 291-307.
De la PORTE, C. & POCHET, P., 2004, ‘The European Employment
Strategy : existing research and remaining questions’, Journal of European
Social Policy, 14, 1, pp 71-8
ECKARDT, M., 2005, ‘The OMC on pensions: an economic analysis of its
effects on pension reforms’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 3, pp.
247-67
GANSMAN, H., 2000, ‘Labour market flexibility, social protection and
unemployment’, European Societies, 2, 3, pp 243-70
GOETSCHY J., 1999, ‘The European Employment Strategy: Genesis and
Development’ Journal of Industrial Relations, 6, 2, pp. 117-37
GOETSCHY J., 2003, essay in ZEITLIN, J. & TRUBEK, D., Governing Work
and Welfare in a New Economy, Oxford, OUP
GREER, S., 2006, ‘Uninvited Europeanisation: neo-functionalism and the EU
in health policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1, pp. 134-52
HEMERIJCK, A., 2002, ‘The self transformation of the European social model’
in ESPING-ANDERSEN, GALLIE, HEMERIJCK & MYLES, pp 173-213
JESSOP, B., et al., 1991, The Politics of Flexibility: restructuring state and
industry in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, Edward, Elgar.
LEVY, J., 1999, ‘Vice into virtue? Progressive politics and welfare reform in
continental Europe’, Politics and Society, 27, 2, pp. 239-73.
LOPEZ-SANTANA, M., 2006, ‘The domestic implications of European soft
law: framing and transmitting change in employment policy’, Journal of
European Public Policy, 13, 4, pp 481-99.
MAJONE, G., 2006, ‘The common sense of European integration’ Journal of
European Public Policy, 13, 5.
12
NAZIZ & de la PORTE, 2004, ‘The OMC – the cases of employment and
pensions’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 2, pp. 267-88.
O’CONNOR, J., 2005, ‘Policy co-ordination, social indicators and the social
policy agenda in the EU’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 4, pp 34561
TORFING, J., 1999, ‘Workfare with welfare: recent reforms of the Danish
welfare state’, Journal of European Social Policy, 9, 1.
VISSER, J. (2002) The first part-time economy in the world. A model to be
followed? Journal of European Policy, 12: 23-42.
Also reading from previous two sessions
13
Session 6: EXTENDING SOCIAL EUROPE? THE EXPANSION
OF THE EU
The transformation of the European Union from 15 to 27 member states has
revived old fears of both an invasion of the west by cheap east European
labour and / or the transfer of manufacturing industry to new, cheaper
locations. The process also stimulated the creation of a new constitutional
treaty as established procedures of decision making were deemed inoperable
in the context of the new expanded membership. This settlement was rejected
by France and the Netherlands in 2005, but is unlikely to remain in abeyance
for ever. On the other side of the fence, so to speak, economic and social
relations in the new member states – particularly those until recently part of
the Eastern European block under Soviet domination – have undergone
radical transformation. This session will examine how the European Social
Model is viewed, adopted (or modified) by the new members: what typologies
of welfare protection are being developed (and what is being abandoned) and
whether the concept of a ‘social Europe’ will change as a result. Do we look
forward to a neo-liberal model for the EU, or is the notion of a specifically
European social model viable in the future? How far have other international
organisations – such as the World Bank – influenced East European views on
modernisation and its implications? And where do the borders of the Union
end – should they embrace Turkey as well?
The problem with much of the literature addressing this question is that the
situation of these new member states is viewed through western European
eyes. The expectations of the new member states – partly due to the
requirements imposed on them by the EU as conditions of membership –
have been extensively revised. Which sectors of local populations still
understand EU membership as advantageous and positive – and why –
should be one of the focal points for our discussion.
CLASS DISCUSSION POINTS
1. Identify the positive (and negative) social policy experiences of the
accession states on joining the EU.
2. Has recent expansion affected the future construction of Social Europe?
Essay Does the recent expansion of the EU spell the inevitable demise of the
European Social Model?
READING:
AIDUKAITE, J., 2006, ‘The formation of social insurance institutions in the
Baltic states in the post-Soviet era’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 3,
pp. 259-70.
BUGRA, A. & KEYDER, C., 2006, ‘The Turkish welfare regime in
transformation’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 3, pp. 211-28
DEACON, B., 2000, ‘East European welfare states: the impact of the politics
of globalisation’, Journal of European Social Policy, 10, 2.
14
ELSTER, J., OFFE, C. & PREUSS, V.K., 1998, Institutional Design in PostCommunist Societies, CUP
INGHAM, M. & INGHAM, H., 2002, EU Expansion to the East, Elgar.
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY, 2004, EU Enlargement,
Europeanisation and Social Policy (eds. Guillen & Palier), 14, 3.
KOVACS, J. 2002, ‘Approaching the EU and reaching the US? Rival
narratives on transforming welfare regimes in East-Central Europe’, West
European Politics special issue 2 (1), pp. 175-205
MANNING, N. & SHAW, I., 1998, ‘The transferability of welfare models: a
comparison of the Scandinavian and State Socialist models in relation to
Finland and Estonia’, Social Policy and Administration, 32, 5, pp 120-38
OFFE, C., 1996, Varieties of Transition: East European and East German
Experience, Polity
PASCALL, J. & MANNING, N., 2002, ‘Social Europe East and West’ in
INGHAM & INGHAM, EU Expansion to the East, Elgar, Cheltenham
SOTIROPOLOUS, D., NEAMTU, I. & STOYANOVA, M., 2003, ‘The trajectory
of post-communist welfare state development’, Social Policy and
Administration, 37, 6, pp.656-73
WATSON, P., 2000, ‘Politics, policy and identity: EU eastern enlargement and
East-West differences’ Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 3, 369-84
ZIELONKA, J & MAIR, P., 2002, ‘Introduction: diversity and adaptation in the
enlarged European Union’, West European Politics, 25, 2, pp. 1-18.
15
Session 7: MIGRATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES: A NEW
SOCIAL POLICY ISSUE?
May 2007 saw the advent of migratory trends never before witnessed, given
the conflation of such drivers as ‘push/pull’ factors, and, extraordinary cheap
and accessible travel and telecommunications. These new EU workers (A8
migrants - former Eastern Europeans) have extensive rights of entry, access
to work, and equal treatment in a wide range of benefits and ‘social
advantages’. These rights have been underpinned further by the introduction
of EU Citizenship in the Maastricht Treaty, extending rights of equal treatment
further to those who are lawfully resident. Nonetheless, lawful residence
under EC law generally continues to be contingent – for 5 years – on
economic activity or self-sufficiency, which still leaves many migrants in a
vulnerable position. On the Accession of the ten new Member States in 2004,
the Treaty of Accession put in place Transitional arrangements relating to
access to the labour market, due to concerns about the numbers of A8
Nationals that would seek to migrate and the capacity of the labour markets to
receive them. New regulations intended to restrict and control migrants’ rights
to welfare support were introduced. In the UK eligibility for certain ‘out of work’
welfare support was made contingent on having a ‘right to reside’ in the UK.
The UK and Ireland as a result of the ‘common corridor’, are two of the three
(Sweden was the third) countries permitting free access to the employed
labour market and granting residence and equal treatment rights to those in
work.
The impact of unprecedented levels of migrants looking for work across the
UK (as well as in Ireland) placed centre stage within current public discourses,
issues surrounding welfare and its equitable distribution between these
newcomers and existing populations, serving also to fuel inter-communal
tensions and as well as bringing sharply in to focus just how fragile existing
relations are between communities. One such issue is that official statistics
are wholly inadequate, and from which local authorities still draw upon (or are
provided by) in order to make predictions about the distribution of scarce
welfare resources. It was in such a climate that resulted in the most part the
situation of A2 Nationals (A2 – from January 2007), who are governed by a
(much harsher) separate set of Regulations imposing quotas on entry and not
opening the labour market freely in the same way as for A8 Nationals. The
drain on welfare by those vulnerable and less fortunate A8/A2 migrants has
become a significant issue, therefore meriting consideration as a social policy
concern.
Broadly, this session intends to look at, i) the impact of Transitional
arrangements and resulting inequities regarding barriers to existing welfare
rights for those most vulnerable migrants; and, ii) the changing nature of
welfare needs across the EU. In conjunction to ageing populations,
consideration needs to be given to the boundary-free movement of labour
migrants and their impact and resulting need on member-states’ welfare
expenditures and existing resource availabilities.
16
Questions for discussion
1. Is there a need for a reappraisal of the relationship between globalisation
and European integration, when considering the future of welfare reform
(consider this in relation to a number of European countries)?
2. How much have recent migratory waves (2004, 2007) become a catalyst
in determining the perceived viability of "social models" in relation to social
policy commitments (for example in healthcare provision)?
3. Are national welfare policies converging in Europe?
Essay What are the pros and cons for a viable transnational social model?
KEY Reading
FERRERA, M. 2005, The Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and
the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection. Oxford, Oxford University Press
BONOLI, G., 1997, ‘Classifying welfare states: a two-dimension approach’,
Journal of Social Policy, 26, 3, pp. 351-72
Liebfried, S. 2000. National Welfare States
BEGG, I. 1999, Reshaping the EU Budget: Yet another missed opportunity.
Policy paper, SBU [ISSN 1468-4144]
WALLACE, H, 2001. The Future of Europe Debate: Opportunities for British
Policy. Policy paper, SBU [05/01]
SANDHOLTZ, W. & STONE SWEET, A (Eds) 1998, European Integration and
Supranational Governance. Oxford University Press
SINN, H-W, 1998. European Integration and the Future of the Welfare State
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/1871.html
De la PORTE, C., POCHET, P & Room (2001) Social benchmarking, policy,
policy making and new governance in the EU, European Journal of Social
Policy,11, (4): 291-307.
GOODIN, R.E., HEADEY, B., MUFFELS, R., & DIRVEN, H.J. (1999), The
Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge University Press.
KANGAS, O., 1994, ‘The merging of welfare state models? Past and present
trends in Finnish and Swedish social policy’, Journal of European Social
Policy, 4, pp. 117-29
ANTTONEN, A., & SIPILA, J., 1996, ‘European social care services: is it
possible to identify models?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6, pp. 87-100
See also:
Policy papers on European Integration:
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2006_010a
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=94631
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p106575_index.html
17
Session 8: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: THE POSITION OF
WOMEN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Early EC social directives largely concerned the treatment of women in the
labour market and focused on the promotion of equity. These directives were
underpinned by the Treaty of Rome, which determined equal treatment for
men and women. Initial attempts to guarantee equal pay and employment
opportunities have spread to address assumed sources of inequality in terms
of domestic responsibilities, which are widely held responsible for the ‘glass
ceiling’ (women don’t penetrate the higher echelons of professional, political
and business life). Hence (for example), parental leave allows fathers to
participate in the care of infants; the rights of women to reinstatement
following childbirth have been reinforced and protection for part-time workers
(overwhelmingly women) has been promoted. As the EU seeks to solve
welfare dependency through paid work, so questions of sexual discrimination
and equal opportunities have become more central to its policies, not less.
Hence the Lisbon summit in March 2000, in promoting the EU strategy of an
active employment policy, stressed the need for quality jobs to allow
reconciliation between work and family life; the EC seeks to raise female
participation rates from an EU average of 51% to 60% by 2010.
Such initiatives have been superimposed on very different traditions of female
employment in member states. At one end of the spectrum, high Swedish
levels of female participation have been sustained through service-rich state
welfare: women are largely employed in the public sector. At the other,
German married women have tended not to work: their welfare has relied on
the contributions of their husbands in what Lewis calls a strong male
breadwinner model. In Britain, female participation rates are high, but here –
as in the Netherlands – there are substantial numbers in part-time work and,
while Dutch welfare reform has sought to address consequent welfare
inequalities, increasing British reliance on personal provision is generating
inequalities, notably in pension rights. Difference in labour market participation
cannot be viewed as a simple consequence of male exploitation; there is little
sign that women part-time workers want full-time jobs.
Questions for discussion
1. Why, how, with what success, has the EU promoted equality for women?
2. Can an ‘active employment policy’ generate gender equality?
Essay: Identify the main social policy initiatives that have been designed to
promote equal opportunity for women and evaluate their comparative
effects.
Reading
BEHNING, U & SERRANO PASCUAL, A., 2001, Gender Mainstreaming in
the European Employment Strategy, Brussels, ETUI
18
DALY, M., 2000, ‘A fine balance: women’s labour market participation in
international comparison’ in SCHARPF,F., & SCHMIDT, V. Vol II
DALY, M. & LEWIS, J., 2000, ‘The concept of social care and the analysis of
contemporary welfare states’, British Journal of Sociology, 51, 2, pp. 28198
GAUTHIER, A.H., 1996, The State and the Family: a comparative analysis of
family policies in industrialised countries, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
GERSHUNY, J., 2000, Changing Times, OUP.
HANTRAIS, L., 1994, ‘Comparing family policy in Britain, France and
Germany’, Journal of Social Policy, 23, 2.
LEWIS, J., 1992, ‘Gender and the development of welfare regimes’ Journal of
European Social Policy, 2, 3, pp. 159-73
LEWIS, J. (ed), 1997, Lone Mothers in European Welfare Regimes
LEWIS, J.(ed), 1998, Gender, Social Care and Welfare Restructuring in
Europe, Ashgate, Aldershot.
LEWIS, J. 2001, ‘The decline of the Male Breadwinner model: the implications
for work and care’, Social Politics, 8, 2, pp. 152-70
LEWIS, J., 2001, ‘The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: the
Implications for Work and Care’, Social Politics, 8, 2, pp. 152-70
LEWIS, J., 2002, ‘Gender and welfare state change’, European Societies, 4, 4
pp 331-57
LEWIS, J. & GIULLARI, S., 2005, ‘The adult worker model, family, gender
equality and care’, Economy and Society, 34, 1, 76-104.
LEWIS, J., 2006, ‘Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities and social
policies: the interpretation of policy trajectories at EU level and the meaning
of gender equality’ Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 3, pp. 420-37.
MAZEY, S., 1998, ‘The European Union and women’s rights:’ in HINE, D., &
KASSIM, H., (eds) 1998, Beyond the Market: the EU and national social
policy, Routledge, London.
MONTANARI, I., 2000, ‘From family wage to marriage subsidy and child
benefits: controversy and consensus in the development of family support’,
Journal of European Social Policy, 10, 4.
NEILSON, J., 1998, ‘Equal opportunities for women in the European Union:
success or failure?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 8, 1, pp. 64-79
19
RANDALL, V, 2000, ‘Childcare policy in European states: limits to
convergence’ European Journal of Public Policy, 7, 3
RUBERY, J. et al., 1999, Women’s Employment in Europe, Routledge
SIM, B., 1987, ‘The Scandinavian welfare states - towards sexual equality or a
new kind of male domination?’, Acta Sociologica, vol. 30, 3/4.
20
Session 9: THE DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS AND THE FUTURE
PENSIONS
OF
Since World War 2, most European states have supported contributory,
earnings-related systems of retirement pension, reliant on contributions from
employers and employed. Anglo-Saxon countries also sustained contributory
systems of state-sponsored pension provision. However, the imminent
retirement of the postwar ‘baby boom’ generation, rising life expectancy and
falling birth-rates over recent decades, has stimulated major crises in
pensions. Mostly funded on a ‘pay as you go’ (PAYG) basis (and increasingly
reliant on state subsidies and inter-generational solidarity) pensions in major
EU economies depend on unsustainable rates of economic productivity.
Pressure on pensions has also been exacerbated by the use of early
retirement to restructure labour markets in the 1980s and 90s.
Thanks to the impact of global financial markets (and the conditions of EMU),
it has not been possible for state funding to fill the gap. Nor can contributory
rates rise inexorably without penalising job creation. Hence, attempts have
been made to restructure public commitment in this area – lengthening
periods of contribution necessary for a full pension entitlement, altering
retirement age and / or reducing the proportion of salary to be replaced (with
change graded over time), increasing central controls. In recent years, many
governments promoted funded pension schemes as a promising option to
ease the financial pressures on public pensions.
This attempt to guarantee retirement income, promoted by the World Bank
(1994), became something of a benchmark for pension reform. All major EU
economies have restructured their pension obligations: President Bush in the
USA is similarly determined to privatise social security (the American public
pension system) during his second term in office. However, recent downturns
in global financial markets have demonstrated the weaknesses of funded
schemes (2000-2003) and the recent report by the World Bank on the results
of personalised pensions in Latin America (2004) recommends a revival of a
basic state pension for all. We appear to be coming full circle.
Questions for discussion
4. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of funded (as opposed to
PAYG) pension schemes.
5. What are the implications of current pension reforms for women?
Essay What are the realistic options for future pension policy?
Reading
BOLDRIN, M. et al, 1999, ‘The future of pensions in Europe’, Economic
Policy, 29, pp. 289-321.
BONOLI, G, 1997, ‘Pension politics in France: patterns of co-operation and
conflict in recent reforms’, West European Politics, 20, 4, pp. 160-81
21
CLARK, G.L. & BENNETT, P., 2001 ‘The Dutch model of sector-wide
supplementary pensions: fund governance, finance and European competition
policy’, Environment and Planning, 33, pp. 27-48
CLARK, G.L. & WHITESIDE, N. 2003, Pension Security in the 21st Century,
OUP: esp. chapters by Palme, Munnell and Clark.
DAVIS, E.P., 1995, Pension Funds, Retirement Income Security and Capital
Markets, OUP
DISNEY, R., 2000, ‘Crises in public pension programmes in OECD: what are
the reform options?’, Economic Journal, 110.
EBBINGHAUS, B., 2000, ‘Any way out of “Exit from Work”? Reversing the
entrenched pathways of early retirement’ in SCHARPF, F.& SCHMIDT, V.A
GINN, J, STREET,D., ARBER, S. 2001, Women, Work and Pensions,
HINRICHS, K., 2001, ‘Elephants on the move. Patterns of public pension
reform in OECD countries’ in LEIBFRIED, S. Welfare State Futures, CUP
MYLES & PIERSON, 2001 ‘The comparative political economy of pension
reform’ in PIERSON, P., The New Politics of the Welfare State, OUP.
MYLES, J., 2002, ‘A new contract for the elderly?’ in ESPING-ANDERSEN et
al, Why We Need a New Welfare State OUP.
REIN, M. & WADENSJO, E., 1997, Enterprise and the Welfare State, Edward
Elgar.
REYNAUD, E., 2000, Social Dialogue and Pension Reform , ILO, Geneva –
esp Intro and Summary
TAYLOR-GOOBY, P., 1999, ‘Policy change at a time of retrenchment: recent
pension reform in France, Germany, Italy and the UK’, Social Policy and
Administration, 33, 1, pp.1-20
WHITESIDE, N. 2004, ‘Security and the working life’ in SALAIS, R. &
VILLENEUVE, R., Europe and the Politics of Capabilities, CUP
WORLD BANK (1994), Averting the Old Age Crisis, Washington D.C.
WORLD BANK, (2004), ‘Keeping the promise of old age income security in
Latin America’ – Office of the Chief Economist, Latin American Region, World
Bank
22
Session 10: The fall of ‘privatised Keynesianism’ and its impact on
employment policy
Colin Crouch (Warwick Business School)
nb This paper is presented by Professor Colin Crouch at a seminar to
be held at lunchtime - 12.30-2pm - Tues Dec. 2nd in E2.02, Warwick
Business School, [Social Studies Building]
Colin will lead a seminar discussion for students following this module
on this paper and the implications of the recent economic crisis for
welfare at 4pm, R3.25
23