Diversity and Solidarity in European Welfare States Peter Taylor-Gooby

The Progressive Dilemma..sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity - high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system - and diversity - equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life. …. the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed Goodhart, 2004

New Twist to an Old Argument PD takes a long-standing debate - diversity vs. solidarity (= trust, community, social capital, etc) vs. social spending Directs it to progressives by claiming they value both diversity and solidarity at the same time Equates social spending with progressive welfare goals

Context: Is the Future American? Schumpeter – creativity of free capitalism Inglehart – shift from redistributive agenda Fukuyama – inevitability of history Putnam – individualism vs. social capital Pierson - escalating costs = permanent austerity Open markets promote human welfare best: WS a burden (ECB, WB, WTO)

PD: Empirical, Historical, Conceptual Confusion Not clear that: - diversity conflicts solidarity or the goods mentioned - US/Europe differences best understood in this way - progressives currently see solidarity as prime route to social welfare - engages with new progressive agenda

A. Empirical Issues Some impact (Goul, Alesina, Hero, Plotnik) : inter- US and US/Europe comparisons Canadian work stresses complexity of relationships, importance of context Diversity does not undermine political trust – Soroka, Banting, Johnston; Banting and Kymlicka etc. Immigration rate affects spending (SBJ 2004)

Goodharts Reference Points: I SJB 17% claim - SJB, 2004 Typical industrial society might spend 16-17% more …on social services had it kept its foreign-born % where it was in 1970 (p.17) Effect wholly political, through direct impact on governing parties

Change not diversity Time series regressions : social spending and migrant stock change in political, social and economic context 1998 point correlation between spending and migrant stock is (not sig.) Rapid change, NOT diversity is the issue: key political issue, how change managed.

II: Alesina and Glaeser % claim : racial fractionalisation explains 43% of US/Europe spending gap (p.145) US-Europe differences have more to do with racial.. than.. cultural differences. As Europe has become more diverse, Europeans have.. been susceptible to exactly the same form of racist, anti-welfare demagoguery that worked so well in the US. We shall see whether the generous European welfare state can.. survive in a heterogeneous society [cf. Gilens]

Distinctiveness of the US Geography and race Big country, open frontier, undefeated (?) army available to squash strikes Difficult for left to organise/challenge, Unreconstituted 18 th century liberal bourgeois constitution Race a resource for politicians to divide the working class

Left in Govt. undermines Alesinas Measure of Race Correlations with social spending – Europe, NZ, Oz, Can (21 countries) Racial Fractionalisation index -.17** Left in govt..58** Race, controlling for Left in govt -.06

The US is Politically Distinctive US Left weak, for specific historic reasons Diversity contributed, but no necessary reason the same should happen in Europe - unless European political institutions change radically

B. Historically European welfare states followed different trajectories, influenced by strength of political actors and institutional barriers and opportunities Democratic class struggle, emerging middle class interests, govt support for national competitiveness significant Majoritarian vs consensus polities and degree of corporatism also relevant

Changing Welfare Settlements Keynes/ Bismarck + Beveridge settlement: welfare indirectly productive through counter-cyclic investment/ legitimation But technological change/ globalisation destabilise nation authority/ Keynesian settlement Liberal or welfare monetarist prescriptions

Different Patterns UK – Third Way: responsibility, opportunity, anti-poverty policies France and Germany – shift from socially divisive welfare without work towards activation/constraint on social insurance Sweden – toughening of ALMP EU – activation + safety-net + protection at work (+ open market + G and S Pact)

C Conceptually: A New Welfare Politics Degree of corporatism, influence of unions, tradition of labour market regulation varies New policies mainly(?) driven by govt + modernising coalitions – unions/business Cf réfondation sociale in France vs slow change in Germany Progressivism no longer built on class solidarity

Common Themes (?) Activation, spending constraint, targeted welfare for the (working/deserving) poor Progressive agenda: - Reciprocity; political trust; new forms of democracy; greater opportunity - NOT: class solidarity; NOR egalitarianism

Conclusion I Progressive Dilemma: – ignores differences between US and Europe – history of social spending – mistaken about current progressive agenda

Conclusion II Real issue: how can progressive policies – expand opportunities – promote trust in govt – contribute to successful diversity in reformed welfare states?