TY - JOUR
T1 - European welfare states beyond neoliberalism
T2 - Toward the social investment state
AU - Abrahamson, Peter
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - After the golden age of welfare state development in Europe, the glorious thirty years from1945 to 1974, perceptions changed and the welfare state was interpreted to be in crisis. Onesolution to the crisis was a neo-liberal approach emphasizing privatization and retrenchment.And at least rhetorically this perspective gained ground during the 1980s in NorthwesternEurope and during the 1990s in the newly emerging market economies of Central and EasternEurope. However, on the whole, social science literature has been more concerned about tryingto explain welfare state resilience to change than identifying retrenchment even if parts of theliterature do argue for such a perspective. This seeming contradiction within the scholarly communitycalls for a more precise definition of all three import concepts: What should be understoodby neo-liberal reform or a neo-liberal approach? Which welfare policies are in question?And what parts of Europe are being investigated? Furthermore, the time perspective is crucial.From the perspective of the late 2000s this paper argues first that neo-liberalism in theform of the so-called Washington consensus is no longer promoted by international organizations.Social policies are no longer regarded as a burden on economies, but rather as investmentin human capital. Hence, we are now beyond neo-liberalism. Secondly, the widespread welfarereforms in Europe must be distinguished according to welfare regime. Thus, the paper discusseswelfare reform within five different trajectories: former state-socialist states, ContinentalEurope, Atlantic Europe, Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Although the number anddemarcations of welfare regimes are contested (for an excellent overview see Powell andBarrientos, 2008) it is a widespread perspective and a good tool to order European welfarestates. Hence, I agree with Francis Castles and Herbert Obinger (2008: 321) when they write:“Our main conclusions are that country clustering is, if anything, more pronounced than in thepast, that it is, in large part, structurally determined and that the EU now contains a quite distinctpost-Communist family of nations.”A superficial overview of spending on social protection in both relative and absolute termsfrom 1980 (1990 in Eastern Europe) to 2005 reveals no signs of retrenchment in any regime.But such summary indicators may mask a different distributional profile of benefits and anincrease in risks and coverage. Therefore, the remainder of the paper discusses in more detailparticular welfare reforms within each of the five welfare regimes. It is concluded that problemsof welfare state development differ within the different regimes, but a strong commitment towelfare can be identified everywhere. However, within a bifurcated system where the middleclass enjoys generous protection, the marginalized are subjected to increased obligations andreduced entitlements.
AB - After the golden age of welfare state development in Europe, the glorious thirty years from1945 to 1974, perceptions changed and the welfare state was interpreted to be in crisis. Onesolution to the crisis was a neo-liberal approach emphasizing privatization and retrenchment.And at least rhetorically this perspective gained ground during the 1980s in NorthwesternEurope and during the 1990s in the newly emerging market economies of Central and EasternEurope. However, on the whole, social science literature has been more concerned about tryingto explain welfare state resilience to change than identifying retrenchment even if parts of theliterature do argue for such a perspective. This seeming contradiction within the scholarly communitycalls for a more precise definition of all three import concepts: What should be understoodby neo-liberal reform or a neo-liberal approach? Which welfare policies are in question?And what parts of Europe are being investigated? Furthermore, the time perspective is crucial.From the perspective of the late 2000s this paper argues first that neo-liberalism in theform of the so-called Washington consensus is no longer promoted by international organizations.Social policies are no longer regarded as a burden on economies, but rather as investmentin human capital. Hence, we are now beyond neo-liberalism. Secondly, the widespread welfarereforms in Europe must be distinguished according to welfare regime. Thus, the paper discusseswelfare reform within five different trajectories: former state-socialist states, ContinentalEurope, Atlantic Europe, Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Although the number anddemarcations of welfare regimes are contested (for an excellent overview see Powell andBarrientos, 2008) it is a widespread perspective and a good tool to order European welfarestates. Hence, I agree with Francis Castles and Herbert Obinger (2008: 321) when they write:“Our main conclusions are that country clustering is, if anything, more pronounced than in thepast, that it is, in large part, structurally determined and that the EU now contains a quite distinctpost-Communist family of nations.”A superficial overview of spending on social protection in both relative and absolute termsfrom 1980 (1990 in Eastern Europe) to 2005 reveals no signs of retrenchment in any regime.But such summary indicators may mask a different distributional profile of benefits and anincrease in risks and coverage. Therefore, the remainder of the paper discusses in more detailparticular welfare reforms within each of the five welfare regimes. It is concluded that problemsof welfare state development differ within the different regimes, but a strong commitment towelfare can be identified everywhere. However, within a bifurcated system where the middleclass enjoys generous protection, the marginalized are subjected to increased obligations andreduced entitlements.
M3 - Journal article
SN - 1598-8074
VL - 39
SP - 61
EP - 95
JO - Development and Society
JF - Development and Society
IS - 1
ER -
