Suchergebnisse

Since the early 1990s we have seen pension reforms in a large number of advanced welfare states, and the most impressive reforms have happened in countries with Bismarckian pension systems. Some of these countries have adopted a particularly innovative pension model which is based on pay-as-you-go financing and benefits that are a function of lifetime contributions. The approach is known as the notional defined contribution (NDC) model. This article examines what has happened to the public pension systems in Sweden and Italy after they were among the first to adopt the NDC model in the mid-1990s. By focusing on the degree of political consensus and conflict in the national pension policy debate since the NDC formula was introduced, the article offers an empirical assessment of the degree of political sustainability enjoyed by these landmark reforms. The paper shows that reform processes do not end with legislation. For reforms to have a lasting impact, whether they are left to work as intended also matters. The 'post-adoption' policy trajectory depends on a number of factors related to policy design, economic context and political ownership.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an 'eco' state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an "eco" state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an 'eco' state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an 'eco' state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an 'eco' state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

The Nordic countries are admired for high employment, low levels of poverty and inequality, encompassing welfare states, and peaceful industrial relations. Yet the model is criticised for hampering the employment opportunities of vulnerable groups. The literature identifies several potential mechanisms of exclusion. Compressed wage structures may make employers reluctant to hire certain workers for fear that their productivity is too low to justify the cost. Second, generous benefits lower individuals' incentive to work. Third, businesses increasingly specialise in high-skill activities. We explore these arguments comparatively by considering the employment chances of two vulnerable groups: disabled persons and migrants. The Nordic countries are compared with other rich democracies that take different approaches to social protection and wage dispersion. The Nordic countries do not perform systematically worse than other 'varieties of capitalism'. In line with recent research, we also find that there is considerable intra-Nordic variation, which calls for further study.

"This seminal book addresses the critical and urgent question of 'what makes welfare states sustainable?' in the era of climate change. Expert authors challenge traditional perspectives on questions of sustainability which have focused on population ageing, global economic turbulence and on containing current and future public social spending. The chapters present new empirical evidence in the form of in-depth comparative country studies from across Europe, offering an insight into how political actors, social partners and civil society organisations in countries associated with different welfare models address questions of sustainability and the extent to which they balance social, ecological and economic considerations. The editors conclude by mapping out ways in which welfare states can address these increasingly urgent and complex issues and facilitate an eco-social transition towards true sustainability. This book will be an invaluable resource for scholars and students of comparative social policy, environmental politics and policy and climate change. Highlighting the political and structural challenges European societies face in the transition to low carbon economies, this book will also be beneficial for policymakers and practitioners in these areas"--

Starenje stanovništva jedna je od najvećih strukturnih promjena koje trenutno utječu na razvoj svih europskih socijalnih država. Različite države se suočavaju s tim promjenama na različite načine. Kao odgovor na svjetsku gospodarsku krizu, mnoge su države reformirale svoje mirovinske sustave i način na koji odgovaraju na rastuće potrebe za skrbi. Te promjene znatno utječu na stavove ljudi o perspektivi socijalne države i na njihova očekivanja u budućnosti vezano uz buduću raspodjelu odgovornosti u pružanju skrbi za starije osobe. Temelj za analizu su podatci prikupljeni u poredbenom europskom projektu uz metodu korištenje demokratskih foruma. Stavove i očekivanja sudionika – kao i razloge i argumente koje su iznijeli – upotrijebili smo kako bismo rasvijetlili čimbenike koji će vjerojatno oblikovati buduće oblike skrbi za starije osobe i mjere mirovinske politike. Analizirali smo četiri države koje imaju različite socijalne režime – Norvešku, Sloveniju, Njemačku i Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo – i usredotočili se na podjelu odgovornosti između države, tržišta i obitelji, kao i na sličnosti i razlike u prioritetima i proizlazeće argumente iznesene u te četiri države. ; Population ageing is one of the biggest structural changes currently affecting the development of all European welfare states. Countries have tackled these changes in different ways. In reaction to the global economic crisis, many countries have reformed their old-age pension systems and how they address the rising care needs. These changes are bound to influence how citizens view the welfare state's prospects and what they expect from it in the future in relation to policies for the elderly. The paper explores citizens' attitudes and expectations with regard to the future division of responsibilities for the provision of welfare for the elderly. The basis for the analysis is data gathered in a comparative European project adopting coordinated democratic forums as a methodology. We use the participants' views and expectations – as well as the reasons and arguments they presented – to shed light on the factors likely to shape future elderly care and old-age pension policies. We analyse four countries – Norway, Slovenia, Germany and the UK – belonging to four different welfare regimes and focus on the division of responsibilities between the state, the market and the family and the differences and similarities in priorities and subsequent arguments put forward in the four countries.

Providing original insights into the factors causing early job insecurity in European countries, this book examines the short- and long-term consequences. It assesses public policies seeking to diminish the risks to young people facing prolonged job insecurity and reduce the severity of these impacts. Based on the findings of a major study of nine European countries, this book examines the diverse strategies that countries across the continent use to help young people overcome employment barriers. The authors present recommendations for governments to improve the job market environment and to support young people in finding suitable and stable employment. A vital tool for European policymakers, this book provides new knowledge that will help improve existing policies, at both national and European levels. The detailed analysis of original data collected through innovative methods will prove highly useful to public policy and European studies scholars

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 UK 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: a distinctive emphasis on reciprocity and the value of work in Germany, on inclusion and equality in Norway and on 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.

This book presents a critical account of how citizenship unfolds among socially marginalised groups in democratic welfare states. Legal, political and sociological perspectives are applied to offer an assessment of the extent and depth of citizenship for marginalised groups in countries which are expected to offer their members a highly inclusive form of citizenship.

The book studies the legal and political status of members of a nation-state, and analyses how this is followed up in practice, by examining the subjective feelings of membership, belonging or identity, as well as opportunities to participate actively and be included in different areas of society.

Showing how the welfare state and society treat citizens at risk of social exclusion and offering new insights into the conceptual interconnection between citizenship, social exclusion, and the democratic welfare state, the book will be of interest to all scholars, students and academics of social policy, social work and public policy.