New directions in the study of
welfare state change:
ideas and incremental change
Jørgen Goul Andersen
IV. International Conference on Welfare State Change:
Policy feedback, the role of ideas, and incrementalism,
St.Restrup, 30.Jan – 1.Feb. 2008
Until 1990
(Korpi+) Esping-Andersen’s 1990 Three Worlds
• Additional independent variable: political power – power
resources – supplemented functionalism (socioeconomic
development/problem pressure) as driver of change
• New dependent variable: Institutional differences
replaced quantitative indices (+ “regime” =political
economy)
• Change of perspective. Until Esping-Andersen 1990 –
and including that study: Most studies looked back on
the past – after 1990 most studies became concerned
with the future
1990’s: Stability, Path Dependence
& Retrenchment (1)
• Looking forward: Not so much interesting to see
• Dominant view: Welfare regimes don’t change.
Frozen landscapes.
• Explain stasis: Veto points + path dependence
• Path dependence implicitly interpreted as negative
feedback
• Pierson 1994:
- Change = retrenchment
- Change = small, exceptional. blame avoidance
1990’s (2) More pressure
• Pierson: Irresistible pressures –
immovable objects
• Pierson 2001: Some restructuring /
recalibration acknowledged
• Dependent variable problem: Aggregate
spending, institutions or microsimulation of
compensation rates
1990’s (3) More adequate
understanding of path dependence
• Pierson 2000: Path dependence as positive feedback mechanisms:
Dynamic, not static
• Yet abother explanatory variables: Institutional dynamics
(built-in mechanisms of change)
• Otherwise sources of change must be exogenous in this perspective
• Drivers/Challenges:
–
–
–
–
Ageing / demography
Globalization
Immigration
Value change generating new voter preferences
for individualisation or say in government
• Corresponds with punctuated equilibrium model of change
2000’s: Focus on change
• Probably due to more welfare reform ”out there”
• But also due to theoretical advances:
(1) Discovery of the transformative capacity of incremental change
conversion, layering, drift as the most described mechanisms
(conversion + drift = more soft institutionalism: institutions
matter – but not always that much…)
• (2) Discovery of the role of ideas as source of change
- abrupt or incremental
- Ideas also include diffusion/transfer of change – policy makers
look at their neighbours. Exploited/Intensified by OMC in the EU.
 This series of conferences
1. Independent variables: Was it really politics and power in the past
and austerity/exogenous problem pressure now & in the future?
2. Dependent variable/conceptalization of change (when is change?!
Sometimes we don’t discover, most often we disagree).
3. Feedback mechanisms (learning: from outcome to input).
4. Incremental change + ideas (incl. diffusion/transfer).
Perhaps the inclusion of ideas is the most significant extension as it
brings social constructivism into policy analysis and welfare state
theory.
4 independent variables
•
•
•
•
Problem pressure/ neofunctionalism
Interests and political power resources
Institutions incl. institutional dynamics
Ideational sources of change
Dependent variable problem
From simple expenditure measures to:
• Direction of change: Beyond retrenchment
restructuring – but towards what? Recommodification, residualism,
marketization, activation of social protection?
• Level of change (not always corresponding)
Discourse
Institutions
Policy
Outcome (functional equivalence: different institutions may
produce similar outcome; challenge to delineate the
welfare state in a ”governance”/”multipillar” world)
• Process of change (abrupt / incremental)
• Degree of change (transformative/non-transformative)
Ideas and ”disturbance” of
theoretical models of explanations
Convergence
Divergence
Status quo
Determinant
Of change
Problem
Pressure
Classical
situation
Classical
Situation
Interests &
Power
typical
Institutions &
Inst. Dynamics
Classical
situation
Ideas
”Disturbance”
Parallel trends
Persisting
diversity
”Disturbance”
Classical
Situation
Classical
situation
Disturbance
Ideas matter. But how, when and why?
Abundance of theories and analyses that are not mutually
related
- multiple varieties of discourse analysis
- framing theories (pol. communication)
- theories of ideology as cognitive structures
- ”classical” theories of ideology
- theories of policy learning/social learning
- policy transfer/ policy diffusion
- agenda setting theories
- social problem theories
What do we mean by ideas?
• Values or cognitive aspects?
• Ideologies or theoretical paradigms surrounding policies?
• Does it include ”culture”?
• Elite discourse (”coordination discourse”)
• Mind sets/problem perceptions of political decision makers
• Mass discourse (”communicative discourse”)
• Mass perceptions
Paradigms
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not just question of goals, let alone values
Conceptual universe
Problem definitions
Causal theory
Range of possible solutions
Framework for interpreting evidence
E.g. the idea of structural unemployment and the
interpretation of unemployment as being mainly
structural
Where do ideas come from?
• Supply perspective: From expert knowledge to
policy elites to political decision makers
• Demand perspective/availability/window of
opportunity:
-Decison makers puzzle, look for ideas that
give meaning to experience in a world of
uncertainty
-Decision markers lookfor ideas that lend
legitimacy to interests
• Once in operation, ideas get a life of their own
(sometimes incorporated in economic models)
Ideas as institutions
• Discoursive instiutionalism treats ideas as
equivalent to institutions:
– Lock in effects / switching costs / hegemonic
ideas
– Exclude alternatives / constrain the possibility
of policies
– Structure problem perceptions and preference
formation of decision makers
– Allocate power resources among decision
makers
Ideational Dynamics?
• Feedback processes/learning
• Policy transfer / diffusion
- from one country to another
- from one policy area to another
e.g. New Public Management
• Socialisation effects (positive feedback)
Methodological problems:
Ideas vs. alternative explanations
• How isolate problem definitions from problem pressure?
- e.g. ideas about ageing problems:
is it ageing or is it the discourse about ageing
that is important?
Must be able to argue that other problem definitions
could be equally plausible
• How isolate ideas from interests?
Decision makers choose the problem definitions that
fit with their interests.
Must be able to demonstrate that ideas make them
compromise with their interests
The Welfare State
• Can it be maintained (econ.sustainability)
• Will it be maintained (pol.drivers of change)
• Should it be maintained (normative question)
• These questions are often conflated