For many years, comparative welfare state research has followed a 'methodological nationalism' in the sense that countries were treated as independent units. Yet the recent 'spatial turn' in comparative politics has also influenced welfare state research. For some years now, the field has been witnessing a growing interest in questions about interdependencies and policy diffusion between countries. In this article, we provide a structured overview of the state of the art in the policy diffusion and transfer literature that deals specifically with social policy. We present and critically evaluate existing theoretical concepts and quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches that enable the analysis of interdependencies between countries. Moreover, we summarize the empirical findings of quantitative and qualitative studies on the diffusion and transfer of social policy, from some pioneering studies to the latest findings. Against this background we point out what we believe to be promising avenues for future research. We focus on five areas: theoretical work on the mechanisms underlying diffusion and transfer; methodological approaches; the impact of domestic institutions and policy characteristics on social policy diffusion and transfer; programme-specific dynamics; and the systematic combination of horizontal and vertical interdependencies.
Existing studies have found only limited empirical evidence of welfare state convergence. Moreover, although there are good theoretical reasons both for and against welfare state convergence, there are virtually no studies that have explicitly tested the assumed effects. We argue that the concept of conditional convergence helps to both better describe and explain the phenomenon. By applying error correction models, we examine conditional convergence of various types of social expenditure in 21 OECD countries between 1980 and 2005. Our empirical findings go beyond the existing literature in two respects. First, we show that there is very strong evidence of convergence across all categories of social expenditure when conditional factors are taken into account. Second, we demonstrate that the speed of convergence is highly driven by globalization and European Union membership and shaped by existing welfare state structures.
Many scholars have argued that partisan differences have disappeared since the 1980s because of the ever-increasing economic globalization and the deepening of European integration. Using a new primary data set on public ownership that contains detailed information on privatization in 20 countries between 1980 and 2007, we test these claims empirically in relation to state ownership. We pay special attention to the question of whether changes in the international political economy, notably globalization and different aspects of European integration, condition partisan politics. Our empirical findings suggest that political parties have continued to significantly shape national privatization trajectories in line with the classic partisan hypothesis. While partisan differences are somewhat reduced by the liberalizing and market-building efforts of the European Union, globalization does not condition partisan effects. Moreover, the run-up to the European Monetary Union even seems to have reinforced partisan differences.
Immigration has become a central socio-political issue in most advanced democracies. While research mainly focuses on immigrant-specific policies in the area of immigration, integration and citizenship, we still know very little about the incorporation of immigrants into mainstream social policies. By analysing cross-national differences in the inclusion of immigrants into general social protection across 27 rich democracies on the basis of comparative indicators from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) dataset, we seek to address this gap in a quantitative study. A cross-national comparison of these indicators shows a particularly large variation in the inclusiveness of the access to social protection for immigrants across countries. By drawing on the welfare state and integration regime literature, we assess the power of two contrasting perspectives, namely, the post-national welfare state and the welfare chauvinism models, in explaining this large cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social security and social housing. Our overall findings suggest that both the welfare chauvinist and the post-national welfare state models comprise two theoretical perspectives that turn out to be fruitful to interpret cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social protection. According to the welfare chauvinism model, we find robust evidence that left-wing cabinets are particularly reluctant to open general social protection schemes to immigrants. By contrast and in line with expectations derived from the post-national welfare state model, countries with an overall generous welfare state and countries facing large immigration flows tend to provide immigrants with more generous access to social protection.
Request Permissions : Click hereDownloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/WPO, IP address: 128.6.218.72 on 04 Apr 2015 * We thank Peter starke, Frank Castles, Oliver Pamp, Frank nullmeier, stefan traub, martin nonhoff, and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments. special thanks to Brigitte reiss (mZes, mannheim) for the provision of historical data on social expenditure. 1 dwork 1987. 2 there are a variety of reasons for the positive impact of war on the provision of public welfare. Wars not only create objective social needs, they also change the subjective risk structure in a way that makes public welfare programs more popular. in addition, the volatility of financial markets in wartime makes private forms of social provision less attractive (Overbye 1995, 328). in fact, it is well documented that national solidarity increases during war.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.