Social protection in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands share Bismarckian roots. Over time, these welfare states were however in constant flux and incorporated to a greater or lesser extend elements of both the Anglo‐Saxon and Nordic models. While the Netherlands has from the beginning deviated from the Bismarckian model, in recent years this welfare state has undergone important reforms that have made it increasingly evolve into a “Bismarck cum Beveridge” model. Germany and Belgium also witnessed a dual transformation, with retrenched earnings‐related benefits for long‐term unemployed and an increasing number of atypically employed people on the one hand and expanded social security to the so‐called “new social risks” on the other. It is against this changing institutional background that we can understand the similarities and differences in the extent to which these three continental welfare states used traditional social insurance systems to buffer the social and economic consequences of confinement. First, all three countries strengthened to varying degrees social protection systems for the active age population. So conceived, the policy responses were a response to the dual transformation of social protection that took place in recent decades without, however, changing its course. Second, the extent to which continental welfare states made use of existing social insurance schemes seems to be related to the extent to which these welfare states have moved in the Anglo‐Saxon direction.

A major shortcoming in the existing literature on welfare state legitimacy is that it cannot explain when social policy designs follow public preferences and when public opinion follows existing policy designs and why. Scholars examining the influence of public opinion on welfare policies, as well as scholars investigating institutional influences on individual welfare attitudes, find empirical evidence to support both relationships. While a relationship in both directions is plausible, scholars have yet to thoroughly investigate the mutual relationship between these two. Consequently, we still do not know under which circumstances welfare institutions invoke public approval of welfare policies and under which circumstances public opinion drives welfare policy. Taking a quantitative approach to public opinion and welfare state policies in the Netherlands, this paper addresses this issue in an attempt to increase our understanding of welfare state legitimacy. The results show that individual opinions influence relatively new policies, policies which are not yet fully established and where policy designs are still evolving and developing. Social policy, on the other hand, is found to influence individual opinions on established and highly institutionalised policies, but does not influence individual opinions in relatively new areas of social policy.

This article examines the extent to which four major trends in welfare state reform – privatisation, increasing selectivity, increasing activation and increasing discipline – are supported and how this support can be explained. Using recent public opinion data of the Dutch population, it is found that there are two ideological dimensions underlying welfare reform support, the first tapping distributive reform, the latter tapping commodifying reform. While support for distributive reform in the direction of decreasing redistribution can solely be explained by economic interests and economic values, support for commodifying reform can also be explained culturally. It appears that one's cultural position and cultural ideological values are important for support for commodifying reform.

In this article the changes that have been implemented in the Dutch social security system are analyzed. The extensive changes are characterized as a form of "managed liberalization." This characterization points to the paradoxical nature of these changes. On the one hand a certain liberalization can be observed (an increase of social insurance and the administration of social security via the market) while on the other hand the control of the system by the state is also increasing. This process of managed liberalization, however, takes place under an umbrella of lasting universal social protection: entitlements are still determined by law and remain collective. In this article the changes in the Dutch social security are described extensively, interpreted theoretically and analyzed in their consequences for the level of social protection. By following the process of institutional change the system of social security has undergone, the authors also try to find out what the causes of the changes are and what determines the direction the process has taken.In this article we will discuss the restructuring of the Dutch welfare state that has taken place since the mid-1980's. We will concentrate on the heart of the welfare state: the system of social security. After discussing the characteristics of the Dutch welfare state, in particular the characteristics of the Dutch social security system in the next section, we will describe the actual problems that confronted the Dutch welfare state in the mid-1980s in a later section. These problems fueled a process of restructuring that has become increasingly more radical and fundamental. We will also discuss the political and ideological background of the process of restructuring and will characterize the main reforms that took place in the legal structure, the organization and the administration of the system of social insurance and social assistance. The actual consequences of these reforms for the system of social security and for the different interested parties will be analyzed, and in a concluding paragraph we will draw up the balance.

No abstract