Welfare states and inequalities
University of Castellanza
Session #1c
Variety of European welfare states
26 March 2014
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– Now out of date?
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 theyBut
all who
belong
to ‘we’?
a single
is the
place – a place they believe, that
definitely not
WeisEuropeans
or we
American.’ Reid, p.146.
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 in 2000s
» 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!
»
»

Italy, France: change in the crisis?
UK – dramatic austerity cuts
And what about the New Member States?