scholarly journals From Social Protection to Social Investment

Author(s):  
Olaf van Vliet ◽  
Vincent Bakker ◽  
Lars van Doorn

Globalization, technological change, and migration form three major challenges for European welfare states in the 21st century. These challenges are regarded as important sources of inequality on the labour market. Whereas the existing literature has mainly been focused on the sectors and occupations affected by globalization and technological change, the authors of this chapter argue that, via job polarization, these phenomena also affect the type of contract that workers have. They hypothesize that increased competition for low-paying jobs is associated with labour market flexibilization. Another major trend that they analyse is the free movement of labour. New data illustrate that labour migration from Central and Eastern European countries to Western European countries has grown slowly but substantially following recent enlargements of the Union. It has been considered a challenge for welfare states as it might contribute to feelings of economic insecurity and might erode solidarity, which forms the basis for the provision of social policy. Subsequently, the authors analyse how European welfare states have evolved over the past decades. They show that in spite of budgetary pressure stemming from globalization and migration, most countries have increased social expenditure. Furthermore, they analyse to what extent the focus has shifted from classical social protection to social investment policies to enable workers to adapt themselves to new labour market transformations. They contribute to the existing literature by covering years after the financial crisis for all EU member states and by demonstrating a novel way of correcting social expenditures for the number of recipients.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
MARIUS R. BUSEMEYER ◽  
ALEXANDER H. J. SAHM

Abstract Rapid technological change – the digitalization and automation of work – is challenging contemporary welfare states. Most of the existing research, however, focuses on its effect on labor market outcomes, such as employment or wage levels. In contrast, this paper studies the implications of technological change for welfare state attitudes and preferences. Compared to previous work on this topic, this paper adopts a much broader perspective regarding different kinds of social policy. Using data from the European Social Survey, we find that individual automation risk is positively associated with support for redistribution, but negatively with support for social investment policies (partly depending on the specific measure of automation risk that is used), while there is no statistically significant association with support for basic income. We also find a moderating effect of the overall size of the welfare state on the micro-level association between risk and preferences.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEFANO RONCHI

AbstractThe social investment approach has been advocated as a blueprint for recasting European welfare states since the years of the Lisbon Strategy. After the Euro crisis squeezed the fiscal space available for welfare recalibration, the question has been raised as to whether social investment could withstand the economic turmoil. Relying on a new welfare expenditure dataset constructed from various Eurostat sources, this article looks at the budgetary recalibration of 27 EU welfare states from the launch of the Lisbon Strategy to the aftermath of the Euro crisis (2000 to 2014). It compares the financial efforts that governments have put into social investment- and social protection-oriented policies, highlighting the different trajectories taken by EU welfare states at the crisis crossroads. Four scenarios for welfare recalibration are put forward, based on the social investment perspective and its critiques. The results show that the overall progress made by social investment in welfare budgets since 2000 came to a halt with the outbreak of the crisis. Bleaker scenarios materialised, whereas EU welfare states pursued retrenchment rather than investment, or had to face harsher budgetary trade-offs, expanding social investment to the detriment of social protection.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rense Nieuwenhuis ◽  
Laurie C. Maldonado

Social investment is an emerging paradigm for European welfare states, often described as an abandonment of tax-benefit systems with generous income ‘transfers’ in favour of ‘in-kind’ policies and services.The position of single-parent families directly relates to one of the major critiques of the social investment strategy. Despite efforts to improve employment and make work pay to prevent poverty, European welfare states have witnessed disappointing trends in poverty (Vandenbroucke and Vleminckx, 2011). Cantillon (2011) argued that social investment policies are better suited for work-rich households than work- poor households at the bottom of the income distribution. is critique begs the empirical question whether a transition to ‘in kind’ social investment policies can be sufficiently effective in improving employment to protect households against poverty, or that reducing transfers has rendered tax-benefit systems inadequate (cf. Nelson, 2011). We examine this in this article, focusing on family policies. Specifically, we assess whether social investment (reconciliation policies) is a more effective strategy than social protection (family allowances) for single-parent families.


European welfare states are undergoing profound change, driven by globalisation, technical changes, and population ageing. More immediately the aftermath of the Great Recession and unprecedented levels of immigration have imposed additional pressures. This book examines welfare state transformations across a representative range of European countries and at the EU level, and considers likely new directions in social policy. It reviews the dominant neo-liberal austerity response and discusses social investment, fightback, welfare chauvinism and protectionism. It argues that the class solidarities and cleavages that shaped the development of welfare states are no longer powerful. Tensions surrounding divisions between old and young, women and men, immigrants and denizens, and the winners in a new more competitive world and those who feel left behind are becoming steadily more important. European countries have entered a period of greater political instability and this is reflected in policy directions. Austerity predominates nearly everywhere, but patterns of social investment, protectionism, neo-Keynesian intervention and fightback vary between countries. We identify areas of convergence and difference in European welfare state futures.


Author(s):  
Timo Fleckenstein ◽  
Soohyun Christine Lee

The welfare states of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were built by conservative elites to serve the project of late industrialization, and for this reason the East Asian developmental welfare state focused its resources on those who were deemed most important for economic development (especially male industrial workers). Starting in the 1990s and increasingly since the 2000s, the developmental welfare state has experienced a far-reaching transformation, including the expansion of family policy to address the post-industrial challenges of female employment participation and low fertility. This chapter assesses social investment policies in East Asia, with a focus on family policy and on the South Korean case, where the most comprehensive rise of social investment policies were observed.


Author(s):  
Micheál L. Collins ◽  
Mary P. Murphy

The political economy of Irish work and welfare has dramatically changed over recent decades. Since the 1980s, Ireland has experienced two periods of high unemployment followed by two periods of full employment. Alongside this, we see considerable shifts in both the sectoral composition of the workforce and in the institutional architecture underpinning the labour market. Focusing on the last decade, this chapter contextualizes the Irish labour market in the Irish growth model, highlighting issues including occupational upgrading, low pay, gender composition, and migration. The chapter then explores links between this employment structure and Ireland’s changing welfare regime. It considers recent institutional changes, as the welfare regime shifted to a work-first form of activation, and the long-term sustainability of the social protection system. The chapter concludes by highlighting what we see as the core challenges for the political economy of work and welfare in Ireland.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-267
Author(s):  
Sonja Blum ◽  
Tatjana Rakar ◽  
Karin Wall

The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the ‘Great Recession’, and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to ‘crowding out’ of other policy approaches and ‘leaner’ forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis. Key words: family policy; crisis; social investment; austerity; case studies denoted as the end of the ‘golden age’ of the welfare state, putting a halt to its expansion in post-war prosperity. Faced with low growth rates and rising unemployment, the recipe chosen by many countries was to ‘relieve’ labour markets. Alongside such measures as early retirement schemes, family policy was a key part of the reform programme and recourse to parental leave


2021 ◽  
pp. 85-106
Author(s):  
Yun Young Kim ◽  
Young Jun Choi

This chapter aims to explore the role of education and social investment, with special attention on the effects of shadow education on social mobility in Korea. It analyses how family background and shadow education influence educational attainment and, subsequently, how educational attainment affects incomes, using data from the Korea Education and Employment Panel (KEEP). Since this 'broken social elevator' is not a problem faced only by Korea — most OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries have 'sticky ceilings' and 'sticky floors' — the chapter then discusses the direction social investment policies should take to reboot social mobility. It argues that in order to minimise the effects of family background on educational attainment and labour market outcomes, social investment policies should actively play a redistributive role.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document