1. The politics of postindustrial welfare states Explaining cross-national variation in the adaptation to new social risks Giuliano Bonoli

2. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 2 | The late 2000s: a new « consensus » for the welfare state  The 2000s have seen the emergence of a new « consensus » on social policy  It puts emphasis on “social investment”  Defended by international organisations, and, within countries, different political forces  Countries have moved in this direction, but at a different speed and with different results

3. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 3 | Uneven progress towards the new welfare state  Nordic welfare states have been considerably more successful in adapting the social investment model  Continental European welfare states are lagging behind  Puzzle: why, in spite of the strong consensus on the social investment model, is progress uneven?

4. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 4 | Examples of old and new social policies Old -Pensions -Survivors benefits -Short term unemployment benefits -Sickness benefits -Invalidity benefits New -Active labour market policies -In work benefits -Child care services -Family benefits -Parental leave

5. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 5 | It is justified to distinguish between two sorts of social policies, because: 1.They constitute responses to different social transformations (industrialisation/ postindustrialisation) 2.They have different objectives (decommodification/ labour market participation) 3.They target different groups 4.Why not?

6. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 6 | How do we explain divergence?  Politics: Social vs. Christian democracy Vs. Liberals  The relative timing of postindustrialisation, ageing and welfare state maturation  Left power with economic openness  The influence of women

7. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 7 | Spending on old and new polices as a % of GDP, averages 1997-2001 Source: OECD SOCX 2004

8. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 8 | The timing of key postindustrial developments in 18 OECD countries Source: Based on OECD Statistical compendium

9. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 9 | Relationship between the average benchmark year and spending on new social risk polices, 1997-2001 Source: Based on OECD Statistical compendium

10. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 10 | Alternative explanations 1: the strength of the left Source: OECD SOCX and Armingeon et al. CPDS

11. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 11 | Alternative explanation 2: the strength of the Christian democrats Source: OECD SOCX and Armingeon et al. CPDS

12. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 12 | Alternative explanation 3: Catholicism Source: OECD SOCX and www.adherents.com

13. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 13 | Competing explanations: correlation matrix Source: see previous slides

14. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 14 | Alternative explanation: catching up Increase in spending on the new polices in the 1990s and spending in 1987-1991

15. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 15 | Unpacking the timing hypothesis: a crowding out effect  It is not time per se that matters, but the different configurations of variables that one finds at different points in time  This can be conceptualised as a crowding out effect  We can expect spending on old policies at time t to impact on spending on new policies at time t+ 1  We need to control for total social expenditure

16. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 16 | Pooled time series analysis of spending on childcare and ALMPs  ALMPs: spending data 1981-2003 * 21 OECD countries, time t  Childcare: spending data 1996-2003 * 23 OECD countries, time t  IV: strength of the Left, Christian democracy, trade openness, proportion of women in parliament, spending on old age (+ controls), at time t-1

17. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 17 | Prais-Winsten Regression of spending on ALMPs, 1981-2003. Model 2Model 3 Left parties -0.0050**-0.0021 Religious parties 0.0039**0.0016 Trade openness 0.00180.0023* Left parties * trade open. 0.00011**0.0000 Spending on old age -0.0564*** Public social expenditure 0.0727*** Unemployment rate 0.0187**-0.0013 p.c. GDP in PPP (1000) 0.0002-0.0001 Common Rho 0.840.76 R-square 0.090.33 N 404380 Source: G. Bonoli, The Political Economy of Activation, Lausanne, IDHEAP, Working paper No. 1/2008, available on www.idheap.ch/pswww.idheap.ch/ps

18. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 18 | Prais-Winsten Regression of spending on family services, 1998-2003. Model (1)Model (2) Female employment rate.009***.014*** Left parties in parliament.006**.001 Religious parties-.007***-.012*** Women in parliament.023***.009*** Spending on old age--.040*** Public social expenditures-.095*** Common Rho.737.647 R-square.51.70 N138

19. | ©IDHEAP – giuliano.bonoli@idheap.unil.ch | | 01/05/2015 | | Diapositive 19 | Conclusions ?  We clearly need a multicausal explanation to account for the divergence  Timing matters, through an institution-induced crowding out effect  Politics also matters. But we need a more complex understanding of politics.  Left parties are not identical across countries  Need to focus on new cleavages (gender, age)