Which Roads (if any) to Social Investment? The Recalibration of EU Welfare States at the Crisis Crossroads (2000–2014)

Abstract

The social investment approach has been advocated as a blueprint for recasting European welfare states since the years of the Lisbon Strategy. After the Euro crisis squeezed the fiscal space available for welfare recalibration, the question has been raised as to whether social investment could withstand the economic turmoil. Relying on a new welfare expenditure dataset constructed from various Eurostat sources, this article looks at the budgetary recalibration of 27 EU welfare states from the launch of the Lisbon Strategy to the aftermath of the Euro crisis (2000 to 2014). It compares the financial efforts that governments have put into social investment- and social protection-oriented policies, highlighting the different trajectories taken by EU welfare states at the crisis crossroads. Four scenarios for welfare recalibration are put forward, based on the social investment perspective and its critiques. The results show that the overall progress made by social investment in welfare budgets since 2000 came to a halt with the outbreak of the crisis. Bleaker scenarios materialised, whereas EU welfare states pursued retrenchment rather than investment, or had to face harsher budgetary trade-offs, expanding social investment to the detriment of social protection.

The Scarring Effect of the 2008 Economic Crisis: Growth and Growth Decline in Austria’s Nonprofit Social Services Sector

“…A number of studies for Europe investigated the consequences of the crisis for social expenditure and social policies on the national level (e.g. Kersbergen et al 2014;Leoni 2016;Ronchi 2018;Vis et al 2011). From the concerned literature, we can mainly draw three conclusions.…”

Social Investment, Employment Outcomes and Policy and Institutional Complementarities: A Comparative Analysis across 26 OECD countries

“…These functions can, in turn, be linked to a broad range of policies that go beyond ALMPs and education (De Deken 2017). More recent studies interested in the extent to which countries allocate resources to social investment have indeed focused on a broader set of policies concerned with different stages of the life course, also including policies such as maternity and parental leave and other family benefits (both cash and in-kind), home-help and care for the elderly, and services for the socially excluded and incapacitated (Kvist 2013;Kuitto 2016;Ronchi 2018). Guided by this literature we distinguish five groups of policies that are capable of mobilising the productive potential of citizens: ALMPs, care for the elderly and frail, early childhood policies, education, and maternity and parental leave.…”

“…Even though social investment has been presented as a promising strategy to raise employment, reduce poverty and realise economic growth, it is likely to entail political challenges with regard to the actual reallocation of public resources. Because of that, most studies have focused on the extent to which social investment policies have actually been adopted across different welfare states (Hudson and Kühner 2009;Hemerijck 2013;Kvist 2013;Kuitto 2016;Ronchi 2018). Systematic comparative analyses of the outcomes of social investment policies that, unlike country-case studies and policy-specific studies, enable one to control for confounding factors are limited.…”

La juventud después de la austeridad. Comportamiento y actitudes políticas

“…Levels of political satisfaction and of trust in political institutions decreased, protests generally increased, and parties in government were punished by voters (Kriesi 2014). During a second stage, around 2012, the response to increasing austerity measures was more aggressive in some countries such as Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal, as it affected the quality of specific welfare state services (Ronchi 2018). The political consequences of the crisis reproduced this North-South divide.…”