Week 1: Introduction
Arts & Gelissen – 3 worlds of Welfare capitalism or more?
- Shortcomings EA typology
1. Misspecification of mediterranean WS as immature continental ones
Ø Little state intervention, but institutions want a minimum level of social protection
2. Labels Antipodean WS as belonging to liberal regime type
Ø Antipodean (Australia, New Zealand) more inclusive approach to social protection than
liberalism —> redistribution through wage control + employment security instead of social
programms.
3. Neglect gender dimension in social policy
Ø Ignores how women are treated in labor market + doesn’t look at effect of family.
- Real welfare states no ideal type —> hybrid forms = conclusion
- EA doesn’t add the new typologies, because they are not wholly different logic.
- Need better formulation of power resources theory; then predictions will logically follow from
theory.
- WS differ because: different class coalitions —> history & politics differ + have different
developmental trajectories.
- Regime change difficult, because: historical inheritance of institutions + path dependency
- WS are sometimes similar due to:
1. Challenge response hypothesis: same challenges = same response
2. Learning effects in policymaking: solutions to problems learned form other WS
- Ideal types: good to use if field is still developing (WS is still developing)
Ø EA welfare state incrementally emerges. It Is not sum of social policies, it’s complex of legal
+ organizational features that are systematically interwoven.
Ø 3 ideal types (holistic: bird’s eye view, simplified, emphasise essential features)
1. Liberal (Anglo-Saxon): decommodification low + stratification medium. US, UK, Ireland
— Individualism primacy of market, little redistribution, division in population (small
group of low-income). Women service sector.
2. Conservative (continental): decommodification medium + stratification high. DE, Fr,
Swiss
— Insurance to preserve social rights according to status + family important before
state
3. Social-democratic (Scandinavian): decommodification high + low stratification. Finland,
Norway, Sweden
— Universal entitlements to preserve equality
- 2 dimensions of welfare states
1. Decommodification: degree to which social service is seen as a right and degree to which
person can maintain livelihood without reliance on market.
2. Stratification: placing society in layers.
Green-Pedersen: dependent variable problem
- Problem: different conceptualization and operationalization of retrenchment —> solution: be
clear about theoretical perspective: which os the 2 conceptualizations is being used.
- Two conceptualizations of retrenchment
1. Retrenchment as cutbacks (cut in benefit level, strict eligibility, shorter duration)
Ø Loses imposed on small group
Ø Use this concept to analyze lame avoidance by politicians or how unpopular policies get
implemented.
Ø Problems expenditure data
1. Time-lag: retrenchment have gradual effect instead of immediate. So many
retrenchments not visible in expenditure data.
1
, 2. Expenditure can rise/decrease without any changes in legislation (more unemployed
people)
3. Doesn’t look at power of bureaucrats
Ø Measure by micro-data: look at individual change sin social security schemes —> minimizes
time-lag
2. Retrenchment as institutional change (privatization)
Ø Need theoretical arguments for why certain institutional changes should be considered
retrenchment
- The 2 are connected (institutional change indirect way of achieving cut backs), but better to use
seperately
- WS policy definition —> benefits provided by state in case of sickness, old-age and
unemployment.
Plumper, Troeger & Manow – Panel data analysis
- Use new method to find:
1. Partisan effect important, but party preferences’ influence on government spending not
stable over time.
2. Unemployment + ageing —> upward pressure on governmental spending, while growth
reduces governments share of economy.
3. International economic openness no important effect on government spending.
Starke – politics of WS retrenchment
- Problem pressure is force for retrenchment
- Pierson: new politics of welfare states
Ø Old politics (such as power resources) fail to account for developments.
Ø New factors (specific institutional configurations) powerful in explaining reform
Ø Pierson resilience based on
1. Path dependency: change only incremental and in existing structural frameworks
2. Retrenchment unpopular among voters + previous expansion established strong
interest groups that want to keep the status quo therefore they will mobilize against
retrenchment.
Ø Politicians: office seekers and voters react strong to loses. —> how can we then explain
retrenchment? —> Pierson: “politics of blame avoidance” —> 3 strategies to avoid blames:
compensation, obfuscation and division.
- Neofunctionalism: process of global economic integration requires change in role of state —>
reduced role: decreasing expenditures.
- Conflict theories: social policy is result of political struggle about distributive decisions. Positive
impact of. Left wing parties. Pierson: “new politics show power resources faded”.
- Institutionalism: systems with fragmented power —> retrenchment less likely. Concentration of
political power means more reform. Also policy feedback is important —> existing WS
institutions have effect on future developments.
- Role of ideas: ability to frame policy program in politically desirable + culturally acceptable way
—> can help explain why policy alternatives triumph.
Week 2: Retrenchment
Allan & Scruggs – WS retrenchment
- Testing 2 claims of Pierson: WS resilient + partisan politics no effect.
- Findings: retrenchment is happening + partisanship has effect. Use replacement rate data.
- Problems with expenditure data
1. Doesn’t look at whom or how money is spent. Impact on individuals’ life ignored. Spending
level not equal to protection offered.
2
Arts & Gelissen – 3 worlds of Welfare capitalism or more?
- Shortcomings EA typology
1. Misspecification of mediterranean WS as immature continental ones
Ø Little state intervention, but institutions want a minimum level of social protection
2. Labels Antipodean WS as belonging to liberal regime type
Ø Antipodean (Australia, New Zealand) more inclusive approach to social protection than
liberalism —> redistribution through wage control + employment security instead of social
programms.
3. Neglect gender dimension in social policy
Ø Ignores how women are treated in labor market + doesn’t look at effect of family.
- Real welfare states no ideal type —> hybrid forms = conclusion
- EA doesn’t add the new typologies, because they are not wholly different logic.
- Need better formulation of power resources theory; then predictions will logically follow from
theory.
- WS differ because: different class coalitions —> history & politics differ + have different
developmental trajectories.
- Regime change difficult, because: historical inheritance of institutions + path dependency
- WS are sometimes similar due to:
1. Challenge response hypothesis: same challenges = same response
2. Learning effects in policymaking: solutions to problems learned form other WS
- Ideal types: good to use if field is still developing (WS is still developing)
Ø EA welfare state incrementally emerges. It Is not sum of social policies, it’s complex of legal
+ organizational features that are systematically interwoven.
Ø 3 ideal types (holistic: bird’s eye view, simplified, emphasise essential features)
1. Liberal (Anglo-Saxon): decommodification low + stratification medium. US, UK, Ireland
— Individualism primacy of market, little redistribution, division in population (small
group of low-income). Women service sector.
2. Conservative (continental): decommodification medium + stratification high. DE, Fr,
Swiss
— Insurance to preserve social rights according to status + family important before
state
3. Social-democratic (Scandinavian): decommodification high + low stratification. Finland,
Norway, Sweden
— Universal entitlements to preserve equality
- 2 dimensions of welfare states
1. Decommodification: degree to which social service is seen as a right and degree to which
person can maintain livelihood without reliance on market.
2. Stratification: placing society in layers.
Green-Pedersen: dependent variable problem
- Problem: different conceptualization and operationalization of retrenchment —> solution: be
clear about theoretical perspective: which os the 2 conceptualizations is being used.
- Two conceptualizations of retrenchment
1. Retrenchment as cutbacks (cut in benefit level, strict eligibility, shorter duration)
Ø Loses imposed on small group
Ø Use this concept to analyze lame avoidance by politicians or how unpopular policies get
implemented.
Ø Problems expenditure data
1. Time-lag: retrenchment have gradual effect instead of immediate. So many
retrenchments not visible in expenditure data.
1
, 2. Expenditure can rise/decrease without any changes in legislation (more unemployed
people)
3. Doesn’t look at power of bureaucrats
Ø Measure by micro-data: look at individual change sin social security schemes —> minimizes
time-lag
2. Retrenchment as institutional change (privatization)
Ø Need theoretical arguments for why certain institutional changes should be considered
retrenchment
- The 2 are connected (institutional change indirect way of achieving cut backs), but better to use
seperately
- WS policy definition —> benefits provided by state in case of sickness, old-age and
unemployment.
Plumper, Troeger & Manow – Panel data analysis
- Use new method to find:
1. Partisan effect important, but party preferences’ influence on government spending not
stable over time.
2. Unemployment + ageing —> upward pressure on governmental spending, while growth
reduces governments share of economy.
3. International economic openness no important effect on government spending.
Starke – politics of WS retrenchment
- Problem pressure is force for retrenchment
- Pierson: new politics of welfare states
Ø Old politics (such as power resources) fail to account for developments.
Ø New factors (specific institutional configurations) powerful in explaining reform
Ø Pierson resilience based on
1. Path dependency: change only incremental and in existing structural frameworks
2. Retrenchment unpopular among voters + previous expansion established strong
interest groups that want to keep the status quo therefore they will mobilize against
retrenchment.
Ø Politicians: office seekers and voters react strong to loses. —> how can we then explain
retrenchment? —> Pierson: “politics of blame avoidance” —> 3 strategies to avoid blames:
compensation, obfuscation and division.
- Neofunctionalism: process of global economic integration requires change in role of state —>
reduced role: decreasing expenditures.
- Conflict theories: social policy is result of political struggle about distributive decisions. Positive
impact of. Left wing parties. Pierson: “new politics show power resources faded”.
- Institutionalism: systems with fragmented power —> retrenchment less likely. Concentration of
political power means more reform. Also policy feedback is important —> existing WS
institutions have effect on future developments.
- Role of ideas: ability to frame policy program in politically desirable + culturally acceptable way
—> can help explain why policy alternatives triumph.
Week 2: Retrenchment
Allan & Scruggs – WS retrenchment
- Testing 2 claims of Pierson: WS resilient + partisan politics no effect.
- Findings: retrenchment is happening + partisanship has effect. Use replacement rate data.
- Problems with expenditure data
1. Doesn’t look at whom or how money is spent. Impact on individuals’ life ignored. Spending
level not equal to protection offered.
2
