Public Governance in the Dutch Welfare State: The Consequences of Privatisation for Securing Public Interests in the History of the Dutch Welfare State

Plantinga, Mirjam; Tollenaar, Albertjan

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1103468

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Netherlands, in recent years, a “shift in balance from government to market” (Platinga and Attollenaar 2007, 1) in welfare policy can be observed which is, by way of privatization, supposed to increase the system's efficiency and effectiveness. Platinga and Attollenaar (2007) speak of a Dutch “regulatory welfare state” that grants much space to private initiatives as the state has been retreating—while still guaranteeing “public safeguards”.…”

Section: Context Factors For Islamic Welfare In Germany and The Nethementioning

confidence: 99%

Secular–Religious Competition and the Exclusion of Islam from the Public Sphere: Islamic Welfare in Western Europe

Kortmann

2018

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals in a qualitative discourse analysis with the role of Islamic organizations in welfare delivery in Germany and the Netherlands. Referring to Jonathan Fox's “secular–religious competition perspective”, the paper argues that similar trends of exclusion of Islamic organizations from public social service delivery can be explained with discourses on Islam in these two countries. The analysis, first, shows that in the national competitions between religious and secular ideologies on the public role of religion, different views are dominant (i.e., the support for the Christian majority in Germany and equal treatment of all religions in the Netherlands) which can be traced back to the respective regimes of religious governance. However, and second, when it comes to Islam in particular, in the Netherlands, the perspective of restricting all religions from public sphere prevails which leads to the rather exclusivist view on Islamic welfare that dominates in Germany, too.

show abstract

Section: Context Factors For Islamic Welfare In Germany and The Nethementioning

confidence: 99%

Secular–Religious Competition and the Exclusion of Islam from the Public Sphere: Islamic Welfare in Western Europe

Kortmann

2018

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…41 In the (distant) past the capacity of society to self-regulate was also an important reason not to intervene in societal arrangements through legislation as far as this concerned the security of subsistence. With regard to the charity and the meaning thereof for the safeguarding of public interests: Plantinga & Tollenaar 2007. or otherwise by private organisations regulated by law. Th ese alternative forms of administration are oft en rooted in a long tradition of corporatism between employers and employee organisation and of self government.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Security as a Public Interest: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Foundations of the Regulatory Welfare State

Vonk¹

2010

European Journal of Social Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corrà, Plantinga & De Ridder 2009. 'something that might be changed or abolished whenever the administration changes its political hue' but a constitutive element of social citizenship. 31 4. SOCIAL SECURITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIO ECONOMIC RIGHT; STATE RESPONSIBILITY Every person, as a member of society, has the right to social security (…); so proclaimed article 2 of the Universal Declaration of human rights in 1948. Since then the right has also been adopted in international and regional human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, art. 9), the European Social Charter (ESC, art. 12), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU, art. 34), as well as in the national constitutions of a growing number of states.

show abstract

Constitutional Limitations of Social Security Privatisation: A Human Rights Approach

Katrougalos¹

2010

European Journal of Social Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last thirty years have seen a clear trend in devolution of responsibility for social protection from the State to the private sector. However, the pure form of privatisation, i.e., the absence of any public action in the field of social security, is quite marginal. More widespread are different degrees of ‘functional’ privatization in a framework where networks of multiple welfare providers compete in ‘quasi-markets’. Therefore, the public-private divide should not be conceived anymore in terms of binary logic: There is not a dichotomy, but rather a continuum along the public-private axis. However, the private and public tiers of social security are not functionally equivalent. For instance, only a public, PAYG system can fulfill a redistribution function. Still, at least from the viewpoint of a human rights approach, the most significant danger of unbalanced privatisation is its impact on the protection of social security as a right of social citizenship. A recognition of the normative content of the social right to social security as a fundamental constitutional right is, in this sense, a prerequisite for social citizenship.

show abstract

Public Governance in the Dutch Welfare State: The Consequences of Privatisation for Securing Public Interests in the History of the Dutch Welfare State

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Secular–Religious Competition and the Exclusion of Islam from the Public Sphere: Islamic Welfare in Western Europe

Secular–Religious Competition and the Exclusion of Islam from the Public Sphere: Islamic Welfare in Western Europe

Social Security as a Public Interest: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Foundations of the Regulatory Welfare State

Constitutional Limitations of Social Security Privatisation: A Human Rights Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About