R3.33: Mondays 4pm – 5pm Tuesdays 5pm – 6pm

Reading Do it! Suggested readings in handbook – you choose Or browse journals: –Journal of European Social Policy –Scandinavian Economic Review –Critical Social Policy –New Left Review –Global Social Policy –International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy –International Journal of Social Welfare

Term 2 Outline Week 1: Post-war welfare states: ‘regime’ theory and its critics Week 2: The crises of the welfare state: globalisation and its consequences Week 3: Liberal regimes and the attack on state welfare: the UK (& USA) Week 4: ‘Frozen’ welfare? Continental regimes in crisis: France and Germany Week 5: Scandinavian welfare regimes in crisis: Sweden Week 6; READING WEEK Week 7: Creating social Europe I: EU: the single market and its social implications Week 8: Creating social Europe II: EU: from passive to active welfare. Week 9: Creating social Europe III: expanding the boundaries of the EU. Week 10: Conclusions: will the ‘European Social Model’ survive?

Welfare State Regime Theory And its critics

Structure of lecture Introduction: historiography of welfare Welfare states: theories of development Esping Andersen’s ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’ Main critics –Plural worlds –Feminist views –Historical perspectives Beveridge v. Bismarck

Consolidation: post-war welfare states Post-Beveridge: 1950s literature on development of welfare in UK –T.H. Marshall: association of welfare development with a) political & b) civil – rights –Titmuss: delineation of welfare ‘regimes’ ‘residual’ = USA ‘achievement oriented’ = continental Europe ‘institutional – redistributive’ = UK and Sweden 1960s / 70s – ‘new universalism’ in social policy

Alternative theory of development Wilensky – convergence theory (economic development = similar state support) –Industrialisation corrodes local systems –Economic growth raises life expectancy –Similar pressures generate similar solutions Problems with economic determinism –Measurement: total welfare expenditure tells nothing of redistribution –USA = most industrialised state (but low state welfare) –Does not explain diversity of systems in developed countries

Esping Andersen’s ‘regime’ theory Three World’s of Welfare Capitalism (1990) –Different types of welfare state explained by different policy ‘logics’ endowed by state-economy relations –Main focus on labour markets –Two key dimensions Stratification v. solidarity Commodification v. decommodification –Measured statistical appraisal based on state pension schemes in range of developed countries

The ‘three worlds’ I Liberal (Anglo-Saxon) –Market based (wages shaped by prices) –State welfare means-tested and residual State-Corporatist / Conservative (Europe) –State organises economic activity (wages shaped by labour law) –Welfare is contributory and earnings-related –Regimes are cash-rich and service-poor Both these regimes are commodified and stratified

The ‘three worlds ‘ II Social Democratic regime (Scandinavia) –Economy organised under collective planning –Full employment and wages underwritten by the state –Welfare benefits are de-commodified and unstratified (redistribution based on citizenship rights) –Service-rich regime offers work for women n.b. note Euro-centric nature of theory

Criticisms I Four worlds (not three) –Castles differentiates Australia (arbitrated wages distinguish it from other ‘liberal’ states) –Leibfried / Ferrera distinguish southern (‘Latin’) European states from northern Whole theory too cash-oriented (comparative health regimes produce different outcome)

Criticisms II Confused role of politics Scandinavian model explained as triumph of democratic politics Conservative corporatist model = triumph of latent Catholicism / authoritarianism No evidence of direct human agency Sits ill with republicanism (France) Most Catholic country (Eire) in Liberal camp

Criticisms III The neglected gender perspective E-A focus on labour market means he neglects family (esp. as source of care) Lewis / Ostner : alternative regimes –Strong male breadwinner: Eire, Germany, UK –Medium male breadwinner: France –Weak male breadwinner: Denmark, Sweden Welfare regimes must include care and cash

Alternative theories: Conclusions I Beveridge v. Bismarck (Bonoli: Palier: Ebbinghaus) –Tax-funded support for all v. earnings-related social insurance –Sweden + UK v. Germany, Netherlands, France ( etc.) – with shifts as state subsidies to European social insurance systems grow Problem: ‘Beveridge’ (in UK) rely on contributions and/or means tests

Criticisms and Conclusions I Historical perspectives Baldwin: careful research on Sweden (e.g. TUs) reveals ambiguities about solidarity Regime theory rigidity: focus on period stability ( ): current crisis –Globalisation (next week) & EMU (etc.) –European time bomb (ageing societies) –A ‘new convergence’ dismantling comprehensive welfare?