"Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik (AAMP) spielt seit dem Beginn der 1990er-Jahre eine wichtige Rolle in der Arbeitsmarkt- und Beschäftigungsstrategie Österreichs. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Entwicklung österreichischer aktiver Arbeitsmarktpolitik zwischen 1998 und 2007. Weiters wird das Verhältnis zwischen AAMP und geänderten Risikostrukturen - sogenannten 'new social risks' - näher beleuchtet. Da Resultate einer Politikfeldanalyse immer davon abhängen, vor welchem Hintergrund das jeweilige Politikfeld untersucht wird, leiten drei unterschiedliche Perspektiven die vorliegende Analyse der österreichischen aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Die Entwicklung der AAMP in Österreich wird zudem mithilfe zweier Hypothesen von Giuliano Bonoli theoretisch verortet. Diese beiden Hypothesen gründen auf dem Pfadabhängigkeitstheorem und dem Machtressourcenansatz." (Autorenreferat)
Active labor market policies (ALMP) take up a dominant role in expert's proposals for labor market and employment policies since the beginning of the 1990s. This article deals with the development of ALMP in Austria between 1998 and 2007. Furthermore I analyze the interdependencies between ALMP and the pressure caused by changing risk-structures (new social risks). Proceeding on the assumption that the result of a policy analysis depends on the context to which this policy is compared I distinguish three different analytical perspectives in my analysis of Austrian's ALMP. Furthermore, this article employs two hypotheses developed by Giuliano Bonoli to explain the development of ALMP in Austria. These two hypotheses are based on the theory of path dependency and the power resources-approach. Adapted from the source document.
Österreich ist seit 20 Jahren Mitglied des Forschungsinfrastrukturprojektes der Europäischen Sozialstudie (European Social Survey / ESS). Zu diesem Anlass wird vom aktuellen österreichischen Nationalen Koordinator des ESS - dem Institut für Höhere Studien / Dr. Peter Grand (Projektleiter) - und Marcel Fink ein Sammelband herausgegeben, der Beiträge präsentiert, die auf den österreichischen ESS-Daten basieren. Die thematische und disziplinäre Vielfalt unterstreicht die breite wissenschaftliche Nutzung der ESS-Daten sowie deren herausragenden Stellenwert als weithin genutzte Dateninfrastruktur im akademischen Bereich. In der letzten ESS-Runde wurden in Österreich mehr als 2.000 Menschen rund 400 Fragen gestellt und insgesamt nahmen 31 Länder teil. Damit ist eine breite wissenschaftliche Analyse, vor allem auch im Ländervergleich, möglich. Ein Beitrag aus der Verwaltungsperspektive ergänzt diesen Sammelband mit einem Überblick über die Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Europäischen Sozialstudie in Österreich.
AbstractWelfare opinion research has traditionally viewed migration as a potential hazard for welfare solidarity. In this article, we argue that while increased presence of foreigners can indeed make some people less supportive of public welfare provision in general or trigger opposition to migrants' social rights, the link between migration and solidarity is not universally a negative one. Instead, many people can combine support for migration with high preferences for comprehensive social protection; others can endorse migration while they are not particularly supportive of an all-encompassing welfare state. Based on this line of reasoning we construct a taxonomy of four ideal types of welfare solidarity that are present in contemporary European welfare states. To illustrate the usefulness of this heuristic tool, we apply Latent Class Factor Analysis to European Social Survey round 8 data. We find that the majority of Europeans (56%) combine strong support for both migration and the welfare state (extended solidarity). However, exclusive solidarity is also widely spread as over a quarter of respondents (28%) oppose migration while expressing strong support for the welfare state. People who oppose migration and have relatively low preference for the welfare state (diminished solidarity) represent a small minority (5%). A little more than a tenth (11%) of Europeans endorse migration, but express relatively low support for the welfare state, which we assume to be a reflection of cosmopolitan solidarity. Despite considerable variation in the incidence of the four solidarities across countries, the preference structure is the same for all. Further, we find that at the individual level, the propensity to hold one of these types of solidarities is influenced by social trust, citizenship and country of birth, financial situation, education, and residence type. However, the extent of migration and social spending do not appear to be related with the propensity of holding either type of solidarity as the liberal's dilemma and the welfare chauvinism theories would predict.
Welfare opinion research has traditionally viewed migration as a potential hazard for welfare solidarity. In this article, we argue that while increased presence of foreigners can indeed make some people less supportive of public welfare provision in general or trigger opposition to migrants' social rights, the link between migration and solidarity is not universally a negative one. Instead, many people can combine support for migration with high preferences for comprehensive social protection; others can endorse migration while they are not particularly supportive of an all-encompassing welfare state. Based on this line of reasoning we construct a taxonomy of four ideal types of welfare solidarity that are present in contemporary European welfare states. To illustrate the usefulness of this heuristic tool, we apply Latent Class Factor Analysis to European Social Survey round 8 data. We find that the majority of Europeans (56%) combine strong support for both migration and the welfare state (extended solidarity). However, exclusive solidarity is also widely spread as over a quarter of respondents (28%) oppose migration while expressing strong support for the welfare state. People who oppose migration and have relatively low preference for the welfare state (diminished solidarity) represent a small minority (5%). A little more than a tenth (11%) of Europeans endorse migration, but express relatively low support for the welfare state, which we assume to be a reflection of cosmopolitan solidarity. Despite considerable variation in the incidence of the four solidarities across countries, the preference structure is the same for all. Further, we find that at the individual level, the propensity to hold one of these types of solidarities is influenced by social trust, citizenship and country of birth, financial situation, education, and residence type. However, the extent of migration and social spending do not appear to be related with the propensity of holding either type of solidarity as the liberal's dilemma and the welfare chauvinism theories would predict.
