War and Welfare States Before and After 1945

Abstract

The conclusion reports major findings and discusses possible cross-country patterns. It shows that war’s impact on welfare state development can be differentiated into several distinct conclusions, each highlighting specific effects or causal mechanisms. Next, the case study evidence of the long-term effects of war is confirmed with quantitative data. For a sample of eighteen countries (thirteen of which are presented in this volume) war is shown to contribute to a better understanding of several of the phenomena lying at the heart of comparative welfare state research (i.e. social expenditure, benefit generosity, the public–private mix in provision, and the timing of legislation). The impact on outcomes such as income inequality is briefly discussed, along with the impact of the Cold War on welfare state development. Due to changes in warfare and the size of the existing welfare state, the effect of war on welfare state-building has all but disappeared today.

Social protection expenditure and redistribution in the Western Balkans

“…Later, improved data were published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and by the European System of Integrated Social Protection Statistics (ESSPROS, 2016). Such data allowed researchers (see Castles, 2009; Castles & Obinger, 2007; Morel & Palme, 2019; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010) to break down social protection into several categories (such as expenditure on old age, working age, health and other expenditure), as well as its financing sources (such as social insurance contributions, general taxation, mandatory savings and private voluntary insurance). These more detailed data “provide important indicators of both the logic and pattern of welfare state” (Obinger & Wagschal, 2010, p. 334).…”

“…Such data allowed researchers (see Castles, 2009; Castles & Obinger, 2007; Morel & Palme, 2019; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010) to break down social protection into several categories (such as expenditure on old age, working age, health and other expenditure), as well as its financing sources (such as social insurance contributions, general taxation, mandatory savings and private voluntary insurance). These more detailed data “provide important indicators of both the logic and pattern of welfare state” (Obinger & Wagschal, 2010, p. 334). For example, research drawing on expenditure and its financing has helped to further and better comprehend the welfare regime categorisations and their underpinning social contract differences.…”

“…Comparisons over time have demonstrated that countries usually included in the social democratic and the Bismarckian welfare regime families demonstrate the highest levels of total expenditure, yet with considerable differences between them. The social-democratic welfare states are more generous with family and similar benefits provided during the working age in addition to universal services and they use income taxation as major source of financing expenditure (Castles, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010), while the continental welfare states tend to concentrate benefits towards the old age citizens through cash transfers and to finance them through social insurance contributions (Castles, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010). Similar to the social democratic model, nations falling in the liberal regime family demonstrate an extensive level of service expenditure, but in contrast with other regimes they have a much higher degree of cash expenditure financed through private sources and high levels of net “hidden welfare” expenditure (Adema & Ladaique, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010).…”

“…The social-democratic welfare states are more generous with family and similar benefits provided during the working age in addition to universal services and they use income taxation as major source of financing expenditure (Castles, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010), while the continental welfare states tend to concentrate benefits towards the old age citizens through cash transfers and to finance them through social insurance contributions (Castles, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010). Similar to the social democratic model, nations falling in the liberal regime family demonstrate an extensive level of service expenditure, but in contrast with other regimes they have a much higher degree of cash expenditure financed through private sources and high levels of net “hidden welfare” expenditure (Adema & Ladaique, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010). Despite these regime variations in terms of concentration of expenditure, the literature also points to a growing expenditure convergence among nations due to translation of policies and good practices (Morel & Palme, 2019).…”

“…Overall, transfers are generally considered more redistributive than taxes, gross expenditure similarly more redistributive than net expenditure, and public expenditure more than private expenditure (Adema, Fron, & Ladaique, 2014; Morel & Palme, 2019; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010). While high expenditure correlates with lower inequality and poverty as a rule, working age benefits and other expenditure correlate with higher vertical redistribution while expenditure on old age and healthcare may not do so (Castles, 2009; Obinger & Wagschal, 2010). Expenditure on the working age population has been found to be an even better predictor of redistribution than decommodification (Obinger & Wagschal, 2010, p. 343).…”