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.

No abstract

Based on empirical findings from a comparative study on welfare state responses to the four major economic shocks (the 1970s oil shocks, the early 1990s recession, the 2008 financial crisis) in four OECD countries, this article demonstrates that, in contrast to conventional wisdom, policy responses to global economic crises vary significantly across countries. What explains the cross-national and within-case variation in responses to crises? We discuss several potential causes of this pattern and argue that political parties and the party composition of governments can play a key role in shaping crisis responses, albeit in ways that go beyond traditional partisan theory. We show that the partisan conflict and the impact of parties are conditioned by existing welfare state configurations. In less generous welfare states, the party composition of governments plays a decisive role in shaping the direction of social policy change. By contrast, in more generous welfare states, i.e., those with highly developed automatic stabilisers, the overall direction of policy change is regularly not subject to debate. Political conflict in these welfare states rather concerns the extent to which expansion or retrenchment is necessary. Therefore, a clear-cut partisan impact can often not be shown.

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.

This article deals with the question whether and how processes of policy diffusion can be examined with qualitative methods. More specifically, how can qualitative methods address the “twin challenge of interdependence,” namely the challenge to identify diffusion, on the one hand, and the challenge to discriminate between mechanisms of diffusion, on the other? I argue, first, that there are three distinct qualitative techniques that can be used, namely cross‐case analysis (often based on systematic case selection), within‐case process tracing, and counterfactual reasoning. I demonstrate how these techniques can be adapted to the study of policy diffusion. Second, a combination of these methods is the best practice, since they are largely complementary in terms of the twin challenge of diffusion. The discussion draws on numerous illustrations from recent qualitative policy diffusion studies. The article closes with some suggestions for further methodological development in the study of policy diffusion, including the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.