1. Can ‘New Welfare’ address poverty through more and better jobs? Peter Taylor-Gooby*, Julia Gumy~, Adeline Otto* *University of Kent, Inspires FP7 ~ University of Bristol

2. Background What can be done for poverty, given impact of post-industrialism, globalisation and financialisation in limiting feasible govt interventions, enhancing international competitive pressures, imposing new social risks and fragmenting social class forces? One answer: more + better jobs to meet economic (competitiveness, spending constraint), political (votes and legitimacy) and social (less poverty) goals – new welfare under many names

3. LabelGoalMechanismSlogan ↑ Social investment (Third Way) Human capital/ productivity Education/ training Education, education, education Active WS Enabling welfare (New Risks) LM pn./↑wk conditions/ ↑ access FF working; individ. rights; tr. + support ‘More and better’ jobs /opportunities Pre- distribution Ec. rights not social rights Min./living wage; TU rights Back to the 1950s! ↓ Flexi-curity Social rights, not ec. rights Flexible LM/ supportive benefits Work with the market, not against it Work firstMobilisationCurb ec. + soc. rights Work not welfare

4. New welfare focus Focus on micro-level: – Micro-economics of relative productivity; – Micro-politics of compromise/ exchange; – Micro-social of individual opportunity Not structural – Falling wage share plus rising LM inequality – Stagnant bottom-end incomes, even in good times – Changing balance of capital and labour – Relative opportunity of different social groups

5. Employment has increased: total; women, 2001, 2007, 2011

6. Total wages as % GVA 19702007% change US5749-7.4 Australia4639-7.6 Canada5548-6.8 France4342-0.5 UK5950-9.2 Germany5045-5.7 Japan4644-2.4 Finland4945-3.6 Denmark5660+4.3 Sweden4846-1.3

7. Adjusted wage shares (ILO 2013)

8. At risk of poverty before transfers Eurostat

9. At risk of poverty after transfers Eurostat

10. Contractual rights (EPI2, OECD)

11. Some evidence 17 Euro countries in the good years 2001-7 New welfare: human capital (L.L.Learning); enabling (parental leave; ALMP); anti- discrimination (human rights; women’s ec. rights) LM structure: work rights (EPI); TU density DVs: Emp. rates and poverty (mkt. incomes) Limited data, exploratory pooled t-s analysis

12. Employment: Prais-Winsten TS model 2001-7 βPCSE Constant56.56(3.29) *** Employment Parental leave (t-1) 5.22(2.37) * ALMP (t-1) -3.66(0.92) *** Human Capital Lifelong learning (t-1) 0.28(0.08) ** Non-Discrimination Human rights index (t-1) 0.32(0.23) Women's ec. rights index (t-1) -0.55(0.24) * Labour market institutions Contractual rights (t-1) 1.99(0.62) ** Union Membership (t-1) 0.08(0.03) **

13. Poverty: Prais-Winsten TS model 2001-7 Constant32.20(3.32) *** Employment Parental leave (t-1) -0.33(2.11) ALMP (t-1) 2.74(0.32) *** Human Capital Lifelong learning (t-1) -0.09(0.04) * Non-Discrimination Human rights index (t-1) 0.30(0.12) * Women's ec. rights index (t-1) 0.26(0.37) Labour market institutions Contractual rights (t-1) -3.39(0.67) *** Union Membership (t-1) 0.01(0.02) Employment ratio (t-1) -0.05(0.02) **

14. Main points Contractual rights, parental leave, LLL, union membership increase employment Women’s rights and ALMP reduce it Contractual rights, LLL, employment cut poverty; ALMP, hu. rights increase it Quality of work variables more powerful and significant for a ‘more/better jobs’ (higher emp./lower pov.) strategy

15. Conclusions Practice – New welfare more effective in relation to employment than poverty – Relevance of institutional reform (contractual rights, employment protection) and individual level interventions Theory – Much discussion focuses on micro-level and distracts from macro-level – Not enough on shifting class forces, growing mkt. inequality and falling wage share

16. Basic point New welfare analysis focuses on micro-level to exclusion of macro- level forces wh. currently sustain inequality and drive poverty The conversation in the well-lighted room, surrounded by darkness The bigger picture…..

17. Class compromise