The Path‐dependency of an Idea: Why Scandinavian Welfare States Remain Distinct

Abstract

Examining reforms that have taken place in the  s, this article explores the hypothesis that the most distinctive characteristic of the Scandinavian model today is the "stickiness" of its reputation, rather than the institutions and policies that make up the model. Borrowing the concept of path-dependency from institutional analysis, the article argues that because there is a strong commitment to the idea of a Scandinavian model, there is a tendency to expand conceptions of the model so that policy changes appear to be consistent with it.

Industrial Relations as a Source of Solidarity in Times of Welfare State Retrenchment

“…Clasen and van Oorschot, 2002;Leitner and Lessenich, 2003;Cox, 2004). It is in this context that the 'solidarity-decline thesis' is discussed (Ullrich, 2002: 123).…”

“…Authors such as Bergmark et al (2000) and Ostner (2004) are concerned with the actual solidaristic behaviour of individuals within groups and thus can be classified under the concept solidarity as individual action. Authors who understand solidarity as a moral principle underlying welfare schemes include Cox (1998Cox ( , 2004 and Clasen and van Oorschot (2002). Studies dealing with the sub-dimensions of welfare institutions and their outcomes -for instance, van der Veen (1998) and Leitner and Lessenich (2003) -belong to the category of solidarity as institutionalised arrangement.…”

“…Cox (1998Cox ( , 2004; Clasen and van Oorschot (2002) e.g. Veen (1998); Lessenich and Leitner (2003) The whole branch of literature dealing with public support for welfare state institutions (for example, Taylor-Gooby, 2001; Ullrich, 2002) can be classified under the category solidarity as individual motivation in the actors' dimension.…”

Sport policy convergence: a framework for analysis

“…It is further argued that while these dimensions are analytically distinct they are integral elements of a holistic understanding of policy-making and must be understood in relation to each other and the process as a whole. The identification of the seven dimensions was the outcome of a review of existing comparative analyses of sport policy (especially, 5 Bergsgard et al, 2007;De Bosscher, 2007;De Bosscher et al, 2009;Green & Houlihan, 2005;Houlihan & Green, 2008;Nicholson et al, 2011) and also a review of major comparative studies in other policy fields such as welfare (Cox, 2004;Vij, 2007), employment (Avdeyeva, 2006;Dunn, 2004;Fransen, 2011) and education (Alexiadou et al, 2010;Ozga, 2004;Raffe, 2004), Among the reviews of convergence theory those by Holzinger (2006), Bennett (1991) and Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) were particularly valuable sources informing the identification and refinement of the dimensions. The seven dimensions are summarised in Table 1 and their relationship is described in Figure 1.…”

Governance: Blending Bureaucratic Rules with Day to Day Operational Realities Comment on "Governance, Government, and the Search for New Provider Models"

“…Perhaps this is due to a misreading of the relative weight of financial incentives compared to longstanding traditions of social solidarity and belief in public provision of healthcare on the part of physicians. 4,5 Government succeeded in steering the system towards increased diversification of meso level providers and patient choice, both values that, apparently, could not be produced by governance within a command and control system, or even in a decentralized, but totally public system due to various bureaucratic obstacles. On the other hand, the entrance of new primary care "owners, " especially private ones, into the system raises issues of transparency and accountability that remain unresolved.…”