Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag analysiert die sozialpolitischen Krisenreaktionen in Deutschland auf die Finanzkrise von 2008 im Licht der historischen Entwicklung und der Befunde der international vergleichenden Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung. Vier aufeinanderfolgende Konjunkturpakete enthielten eine Reihe wichtiger sozialpolitischer Elemente, allen voran die Kurzarbeit. Der internationale Vergleich zeigt, dass Deutschlands sozialpolitische Krisenantwort vor dem Hintergrund der wirtschaftlichen Performanz und der bestehenden sozialstaatlichen Institutionen nicht ungewöhnlich war. Überraschend war die starke Rolle der Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeber bei der Politikformulierung. Insbesondere die sektoralen Verbände der deutschen Exportwirtschaft konnten 2008 und 2009 deutliche Akzente setzen.

This paper maps and explains the reactions of four welfare states - Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden - to three global crisis situations - the oil shocks of the 1970s, the worldwide recession of the early 1990s, and the financial crisis from 2008 onwards. Two main conclusions follow from the analysis: First, using a comprehensive typology of social policy reactions to crises, we show that crisis reactions were surprisingly diverse. There is no uniform policy response, as policies range from retrenchment through non-response to welfare state expansion. Second, explaining the variation regarding expansion vs. retrenchment we focus on the partisan composition of government, and the size of the existing welfare state, which may operate as an important automatic stabilizer during recessions. While none of these factors alone is sufficient, their interaction is able to explain most of the specific social policy responses adopted in the four countries studied.

Der Beitrag analysiert die sozialpolitischen Krisenreaktionen in Deutschland auf die Finanzkrise von 2008 im Licht der historischen Entwicklung und der Befunde der international vergleichenden Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung. Vier aufeinanderfolgende Konjunkturpakete enthielten eine Reihe wichtiger sozialpolitischer Elemente, allen voran die Kurzarbeit. Der internationale Vergleich zeigt, dass Deutschlands sozialpolitische Krisenantwort vor dem Hintergrund der wirtschaftlichen Performanz und der bestehenden sozialstaatlichen Institutionen nicht ungewöhnlich war. Überraschend war die starke Rolle der Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeber bei der Politikformulierung. Insbesondere die sektoralen Verbände der deutschen Exportwirtschaft konnten 2008 und 2009 deutliche Akzente setzen. ; This working paper analyses the German social policy reactions to the 2008 Financial Crisis in light of the historical development and findings of comparative welfare state research. Four subsequent fiscal stimulus packages contained several important social policy elements, most importantly short-time work. By international standards, Germany's social policy response to the crisis was not uncommon, given its economic performance and existing welfare state institutions. What was surprising was the important role trade unions and employers had in formulating these policies. Representatives of the German export-oriented sectors, in particular, were able to leave their mark in 2008/09.

AbstractIn this article, I analyze the social policy reactions to economic crises in Australia and New Zealand. After the financial crisis of 2008, Australia built its crisis management strategy around a large fiscal stimulus with a significant social policy component, whereas New Zealand did not. While the government enacted fiscal stimulus measures, the social policy component was small and the government soon returned to welfare retrenchment and workfare policy. Based on a detailed account of recent crisis policies as well as a condensed overview of previous crisis responses (to the 1970s oil shocks, the early 1990s recession and the Asian financial crisis), I discuss the contribution of a number of factors to explaining this difference between Australia and New Zealand. These factors include: idiosyncratic causes such as the Australian mining boom and the Christchurch earthquakes, partisan politics, interest group structures, political institutions and policy legacies. The analysis shows that the recent differences cannot fully be explained through idiosyncratic factors, as partisan ideology was already crucial in strategic policy decisions during the first months of the crisis. The historical pattern further supports this conclusion.

This article deals with the question whether and how processes of policy diffusion can be examined with qualitative methods. More specifically, how can qualitative methods address the "twin challenge of interdependence," namely the challenge to identify diffusion, on the one hand, and the challenge to discriminate between mechanisms of diffusion, on the other? I argue, first, that there are three distinct qualitative techniques that can be used, namely cross‐case analysis (often based on systematic case selection), within‐case process tracing, and counterfactual reasoning. I demonstrate how these techniques can be adapted to the study of policy diffusion. Second, a combination of these methods is the best practice, since they are largely complementary in terms of the twin challenge of diffusion. The discussion draws on numerous illustrations from recent qualitative policy diffusion studies. The article closes with some suggestions for further methodological development in the study of policy diffusion, including the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.