Suchergebnisse

Abstract Nordic welfare states have usually been characterized by encompassing or institutional systems of public provisions, both in general and for people with impairment in particular. Provisions have been perceived as being more universalistic in coverage, more generous in terms of benefit levels and availability of services, and with a greater emphasis on prevention and coordination, than provisions in other Western countries. Yet the success of the Nordic system of disability protection has recently been questioned on various grounds. These criticisms have resulted in a number of reforms recently introduced or about to be implemented. This reorientation is likely to reduce the prominence of some characteristics of the Nordic model in this particular area. Under the ongoing influence of European integration, we will probably see a shift of emphasis away from redistributive provisions—especially income transfers—to regulative provisions, meant to ensure accessibility and combat discrimination.

The article argues that the Capability Approach can enrich sociology's capacity to link human agency and structure in dynamic analyses of social inequality and marginality. While many read the Capability Approach as excessively individualistic, the validity of this view is less obvious if we take into account the key role of conversion processes in this approach. People's possibilities to convert given resources into valued functionings do not only depend on individual characteristics (e.g. having a physical or mental impairment) but also on the multi-layered structures (e.g. of a physical, attitudinal, social, economic or political nature) they face. Conversion processes can help us to capture the factors hampering or enabling human agency (individual and collective) – and of the transformation of such factors. As an empirical case, the article discusses the efforts of persons with disabilities to combat exclusion and achieve full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

The commentary addresses the scope for synergy between climate change policy and social policy in the European Union (EU) from a 'sustainable welfare' perspective. The emerging sustainable welfare approach is oriented to the satisfaction of human needs within ecological limits, in an intergenerational and global perspective. While the overall goals of EU climate policy and EU welfare policies largely reflect this orientation, there are significant differences in policy priorities. A 'policy auditing' approach towards sustainable welfare defines critical thresholds for matter and energy throughput to identify how much room there is for economic and societal development. However, the EU refrains from prioritizing environmental over other, especially economic, goals and displays a remarkable degree of optimism in relation to the extent to which one can make these different policy goals compatible.

This paper uses innovative democratic forums carried out in Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom to examine people's ideas about welfare-state priorities and future prospects. We use a moral economy framework in the context of regime differences and the move towards neo-liberalism across Europe. Broadly speaking, attitudes reflect regime differences, with distinctive emphasis on reciprocity and the value of work in Germany, inclusion and equality in Norway, and individual responsibility and the work-ethic in the UK. Neo-liberal market-centred ideas appear to have made little headway in regard to popular attitudes, except in the already liberal-leaning UK. There is also a striking assumption by UK participants that welfare is threatened externally by immigrants who take jobs from established workers and internally by the work-shy who undermine the work-ethic. A key role of the welfare state is repressive rather than enabling: to protect against threats to well-being rather than provide benefits for citizens. UK participants also anticipate major decline in state provision. In all three countries there is strong support for continuing and expanding social investment policies, but for different reasons: to enable contribution in Germany, to promote equality and mobility in Norway, and to facilitate self-responsibility in the UK. ; NORFACE ; Peer Reviewed