From the Manpower Revolution to the Activation Paradigm

Abstract

Advanced welfare states seem remarkably stable at fi rst glance. Although most member states of the European Union (EU) have undertaken comprehensive welfare reform, especially since the 1990s, much comparative welfare state analysis portrays a 'frozen welfare landscape' . Social spending is stable. However, if we interpret the welfare state as more than aggregate social spending and look at long-term trends, we can see profound transformations across several policy areas, ranging from labour market policy and regulation, industrial relations, social protection, social services like child care and education, pensions, and long-term care. Th is series is about trajectories of change. Have there been path-breaking welfare innovations or simply attempts at political reconsolidation? What new policies have been added, and with what consequences for competitiveness, employment, income equality and poverty, gender relations, human capital formation, and fi scal sustainability? What is the role of the European Union in shaping national welfare state reform? Are advanced welfare states moving in a similar or even convergent direction, or are they embarking on ever more divergent trajectories of change? Th ese issues raise fundamental questions about the politics of reform. If policymakers do engage in major reforms (despite the numerous institutional, political and policy obstacles), what factors enable them to do so? While the overriding objective of the series is to trace trajectories of contemporary welfare state reform, the editors also invite the submission of manuscripts which focus on theorizing institutional change in the social policy arena.

Coalitions and Compensation

“…Dingeldey (2007) prefers the terms "workfare" and "enablement." Weishaupt (2011) distinguishes between "negative" and "positive" work incentives. The idea is the same.…”

“…We start in 1985 as the OECD's training spending data do not go back any further. As the "activation turn" in labor market policy is commonly understood to have begun in the late 1980s or early 1990s (Bonoli, 2010;Hemerijck, 2012;Lindvall, 2010a;Morel, Palier, & Palme, 2012;Weishaupt, 2011), our study nevertheless encompasses the period that is most relevant for testing the ideas that we developed in the "Reform Packages: A Political Explanation" section. 3 We analyze the effects of all reforms that resulted in an effective reduction in the duration of unemployment benefit payments.…”

Unemployment benefit governance, trade unions and outsider protection in conservative welfare states

“…Surprisingly, it is in highly corporatist Austria that the social partners’ role in unemployment benefit governance was least well institutionalised in the immediate post-war years. Though unemployment insurance had been governed by bipartite committees from its introduction in 1920, the system of self-administration had been constrained under the Austro-fascist regime in 1935 (Tálos, 2013: 373; Tálos, 2020: 43) and ended when it was placed under direct control of the government by the Nazis in 1938 (Weishaupt, 2011: 80). The post-war government maintained what Weishaupt terms a ‘state-led’ system, although it introduced an advisory function for the social partners at all levels, a compromise between the government’s desire to retain a strong role in this area to support the rebuilding of the Austrian economy and the reintegration of soldiers and union demands for the reinstatement of their earlier prerogatives (Soentken and Weishaupt, 2014; Weishaupt, 2011: 96).…”

“…Though unemployment insurance had been governed by bipartite committees from its introduction in 1920, the system of self-administration had been constrained under the Austro-fascist regime in 1935 (Tálos, 2013: 373; Tálos, 2020: 43) and ended when it was placed under direct control of the government by the Nazis in 1938 (Weishaupt, 2011: 80). The post-war government maintained what Weishaupt terms a ‘state-led’ system, although it introduced an advisory function for the social partners at all levels, a compromise between the government’s desire to retain a strong role in this area to support the rebuilding of the Austrian economy and the reintegration of soldiers and union demands for the reinstatement of their earlier prerogatives (Soentken and Weishaupt, 2014; Weishaupt, 2011: 96). It was only in the mid-1990s that the social partners obtained enhanced formal institutional powers when a tripartite Federal Employment Service (Arbeitsmarktservice; AMS) was created, independent of direct ministerial control (Soentken and Weishaupt, 2014).…”

Is this the end of the Job Network model? The evolution and future of performance‐based contracting of employment services in Australia

“…The second paradigm underpinning the Job Network model was "active employment" or "activation" policies (Weishaupt, 2011). This shifted attention from demand-side causes of unemployment (a lack of jobs) towards supply-side problems (such as the skills and job search efforts of unemployed people).…”