Search

By 2010, when the Greek sovereign debt crisis changed into an existential crisis of the euro, all developed democracies entered a phase in which they had to consolidate their budgets, typically implying a politics of austerity. The scholarly literature, as well as the popular press, suggests that - consequently - welfare retrenchment and cost containment became the only games left in town. In this article, we study the welfare state reform measures taken between 2010 and 2012 in four countries characteristic of mature welfare state regimes (liberal, UK; conservative, Germany; social democratic, Denmark; and hybrid, the Netherlands) to examine empirically whether austerity has indeed become the only item left on the policy menu. Our analysis reveals that retrenchment features prominently on the agenda everywhere, but nowhere by itself. While compensation for income loss is rare since 2010, this still happens. More unexpectedly, reforms in line with a social investment agenda (like expansion of child care or active labour market policies) are still being pursued in all our four cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are some governments able to push through radical welfare state reforms while others, operating in similar circumstances, are not? Why are some ideas more acceptable than others? We present an open functional approach to reform to answer these questions and illustrate it empirically by discussing the drastic reform of the Dutch disability scheme in the early 1990s. Ideas translate a functional pressure that existentially threatens a social insurance system into a drastic welfare state reform, such as a severe tightening of eligibility criteria. Functional requirements constrain the range of ideas that political actors can consider for welfare state reform, although they do not determine which ideas are adopted. But once adopted, ideas influence the reforms pursued. A government's choice of ideas and the political strategies to implement them determine the success or failure of the reform. Blame avoidance strategies mediate vitally between the functional pressure, the idea and the reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last few decades, the prevalence of obesity has expanded rapidly and now constitutes a grave public health concern across the developed world. Obesity is negatively associated with, among other factors, education and healthcare quality, which are factors that governments can and do influence through welfare policies. This study investigated to what extent the change in the prevalence of obesity is lower in more generous welfare states. Based on pooled time series cross-section regressions for 15 developed countries over 25 years, we found that the more generous are transfer payments, health policy and education policy, the lower is the increase of obesity prevalence. These findings have important implications for public policy formation and the public health and welfare state literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If ever there was momentum to roll back the welfare state, it is the (aftermath) of the financial crisis of 2008-09. All theoretical perspectives within comparative welfare state research predict radical reform in this circumstance, but does it also happen? Our data indicate that - at least so far - it does not. Focusing on a selection of advanced welfare states (the UK, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden), we find that these countries face similar problems and that their initial response to these problems is also similar. The latter is surprising because, theoretically, we would expect varying responses across welfare state regime types. Rather than retrenchment, we observe a first phase of emergency capital injections in the banking sector and a second of Keynesian demand management and labour market protection, including the (temporary) expansion of social programmes. Continuing public support for the welfare state was a main precondition for this lack of immediate radical retrenchment. However, the contours of a third phase have become apparent now that budgetary constraints are forcing political actors to make tough choices and introduce austerity policies. As a result, the question of who pays what, when, and how will likely give rise to increasingly sharp distributional conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under which conditions and to what extent do governments pursue unpopular social policy reforms for which they might be punished in the next election? This article shows that there exists substantial cross-cabinet variation in the degree to which governments take unpopular measures and argues that current studies cannot adequately explain this variation. Using insights from prospect theory, a psychological theory of choice under risk, this study hypothesises that governments only engage in unpopular reform if they face a deteriorating socio-economic situation, a falling political position, or both. If not, they shy away from the risk of reform. A fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA) of the social policy reform activities pursued by German, Dutch, Danish and British cabinets between 1979 and 2005 identifies a deteriorating socio-economic situation as necessary for unpopular reform. It is only sufficient for triggering reform, however, if the political position is also deteriorating and/or the cabinet is of rightist composition. This study's findings further the scholarly debate on the politics of welfare state reform by offering a micro-foundation that helps one to understand what induces political actors aspiring to be re-elected to engage in electorally risky unpopular reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]