Recasting European Welfare States

Abstract

The chapter presents, in synthesis form, some key elements of what is now understood about welfare regimes, their respective pathologies of development, their current paths of reform, and the challenges that still confront them. The first section examines welfare state performance thematically, focusing on employment, the scale and shape of social security systems, and distributive outcomes. The second section takes Europe’s four welfare regimes (those of Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, continental Europe and Southern Europe) and analyses their respective strengths and vulnerabilities. The conclusion considers where the literature on welfare states is likely to go in the future.

Welfare Systems and Adequacy of Pension Benefits in Europe

“…Our analysis indicates that Sweden does present mixed features, such as a widespread coverage of private pensions but also an earnings-related unfunded state pension; hence for the purpose of this article we use Korpi and Palme's classification of Sweden as an encompassing model. As suggested by Esping-Andersen (1990) and Ferrera and Hemerijck (2003), we classify Belgium as a conservative-corporatist welfare regime (like Germany, France, Austria and Italy) close to the Bismarckian social insurance tradition.…”

“…In recent years, extensive literature has contributed to the debate on the classification of different European countries into distinct types of welfare regimes (see for example Esping-Andersen, 1990;Ferrera, 1996;Bonoli, 1997;Korpi and Palme, 1998; and more recently Ferrera and Hemerijck, 2003;Jensen, 2008;Arcanjo, 2011). Country classification can raise challenging issues, particularly as policy changes have occurred frequently in recent decades rendering increasingly complex the theoretical or ideal contrast between welfare systems and often weakening their distinctive features (Werding, 2003).…”

Model otvorene koordinacije protiv siromaštva: Novi “proces socijalnog uključivanja” Europske unije

“…smatra «suptilnima, ali snažnima», utoliko više što se radi o moćnim kanalima «kognitivnog približavanja» domaćih kreatora politike. Iako je Komisija u Bijelom papiru o upravi njezin potencijal podcijenila, OMC može zapravo biti vrlo korisna u premošćivanju jaza između negativne i pozitivne integracije (Ferrera et al, 2000., Scharpf, 2001.…”

“…Drugi razlog je suptilniji i ponešto kontroverzniji. Podizanje fleksibilnosti uz istodobnu sigurnost (flexicurity) na razinu prevladavajuće paradigme državne politike zahtijeva aktivnosti na obje fronte: u politici zapošljavanja (postupni napor pregovaranja da bi tržište rada postalo fleksibilnije) i jednako tako u socijalnoj politici (jasno opredjeljenje za podizanje standarda socijalne zaštite i osnaživanje i učvršćivanje socijalnih mreža) (Ferrera et al, 2000.). Za građenje povjerenja i prevladavanje sumnjičavosti glede flexicurityja ključno je povezivanje ta dva procesa ili, drugim riječima, istodobno unapređivanje kredibiliteta kao strategije koja obećava učinkovita postignuća i veće postizanje socijalne pravde.…”

Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem — Ansätze zu einer Theorie

“…Und beide würden das deutsche Modell gesetzlich regulierter industrieller Beziehungen und der Mitbestimmung ablehnen. Kurz gesagt: Es gibt kein gemeinsames "europäisches Sozialmodell", an dem die Harmonisierung sich orientieren könnte (Ferrera/Hemerijck/Rhodes 2000).…”