The Politics of Mothers' Employment: France in Comparative Perspective

2003 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly J. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Day Care ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Democratic Parties

Contemporary theories and typologies of welfare states in Western Europe assume that social democratic parties are the engine behind progressive policies on gender roles and on the participation of women in the labor force. The French case challenges these assumptions—this conservative welfare state, surprisingly, provides an extensive system of public day care along with other forms of support that facilitate mothers' employment. This article explains the existence of the French system through a comparative historical analysis of child care policy in France and other European welfare states. The mainfindingsconcern the role of organized religion in shaping contemporary public day care policies. In contrast to most conservative welfare regimes, the French welfare state has been shaped not by clericalism and Christian democracy but by secularism and republican nationalism—forces that influenced some of the earliest public policies for the education of young children in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and that later affected the founding of the contemporary day care system in the 1970s. In that latter period of propitious economic circumstances, pragmatic policy elites eschewed moralizing critiques of mothers' employment and established a system of financing that has enabled the long-term expansion of public day care. These findings have implications for our understanding of gender politics and welfare regimes in Western Europe. The secularization of political life—not social democratic power—best explains why public policies in France and in many Scandinavian countries have promoted the demise of the traditional family model.

Allochthons, Colonizers, and Scroungers: Exclusionary Populism in Belgium

2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bambi Ceuppens
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Democratic Tradition ◽  
Western European ◽  
Democratic Parties ◽  
European Welfare States ◽  
The Welfare State

Abstract:This article analyzes the growth of autochthony in Belgium as an example of the increasing popularity of autochthony discourses in Western Europe. Autochthony discourses, which try to reserve the benefits of the welfare state to those who are said to really belong, tend to thrive in prosperous Western European welfare states with a strong Social-Democratic tradition that refuse to accept that they have become immigrant countries. In federalized Belgium, however, autochthony has a much stronger appeal in Flanders, which historically was dominated by Christian-Democratic parties, than in Wallonia, which remains a Social-Democratic bulwark. Analyzing Western European autochthony in terms of welfare chauvinism helps explain the ways in which prosperous Flemings, unlike impoverished Walloons, can afford to buy into the neoliberal rhetoric of choice and thus create themselves as autochthons.

The decline of Western European social democracy: Exploring the transformed link between welfare state generosity and the electoral strength of social democratic parties, 1975–2014

2019 ◽  
pp. 135406881986133
Author(s):  
Karl Loxbo ◽  
Jonas Hinnfors ◽  
Magnus Hagevi ◽  
Sofie Blombäck ◽  
Marie Demker
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Success Factor ◽  
Social Democratic Party ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Western European ◽  
Democratic Parties ◽  
Party Family ◽  
Social Democratic Parties

Social democratic parties are crumbling at the polls. Surprisingly, however, the causes of this demise remain largely unexplored. This article contributes to filling this gap in the research by studying the long-term impact of welfare state generosity on the vote share of social democratic parties in 16 Western European democracies. If the welfare state indeed was a key factor behind social democratic growth in the past, we ask whether the recent plight of these parties is down to a reversal of their previously dominant success factor? The article makes three principal findings. First, we show that social democratic parties primarily benefited electorally from expansive reforms at lower levels of welfare state generosity. Second, we find that this dynamic of diminishing returns also helps explain the demise of the Social Democratic party family in the whole of Western Europe. Lastly, our results reveal that programmatic turns to the right predict electoral losses in the least generous welfare states, whereas such shifts either pass unnoticed or predict vote gains in the most generous ones. We conclude by arguing that the structure of welfare state institutions is one important explanation for variations in the demise of the once powerful Social Democratic party family.

scholarly journals The Four Worlds of ‘Welfare Reality’ – Social Risks and Outcomes in Europe

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Ferragina ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser ◽  
Thees Spreckelsen
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
Mediterranean Countries ◽  
Democratic Regimes

After three decades of welfare state crisis, change and transformation can we still speak of welfare state regimes when looking at their outcomes? The analysis of outcomes provides a picture of ‘the real worlds of welfare’ and is of considerable importance to understanding political legitimacy across countries. We use aggregate longitudinal data for West European countries in order to map welfare outcomes and cluster countries. The cluster results are also assessed for their sensitivity to the choice of different countries, years or indicators. All European welfare states have a significant capacity for reducing poverty and inequality. However, the degree of this reduction varies considerably, especially when examining different social groups, i.e. unemployed people, children, youths or the elderly. Outcomes cluster countries largely in line with previous institutionalist literature, differentiating between conservative, liberal, Mediterranean and social-democratic regimes. As the main exception, we identify Germany, which can no longer be characterised as the proto-typical conservative welfare state. When analysing old social risks such as unemployment and old age, Europe appears to be characterised by two groups, i.e. one consisting of liberal and Mediterranean countries and a second made up of social-democratic and conservative countries. New social risks such as child and youth poverty, by contrast, replicate very closely the theoretical four-cluster typology. Our sensitivity analyses reveal that our clusters tend to be stable over time. Welfare regimes continue to serve as a useful analytical tool and relate to outcomes experienced by European citizens.

5. Varieties

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Garland
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regime ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Government Involvement ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Welfare State

Every developed country has a distinctive welfare state of its own. Welfare states generally rely on the same basic institutions, but these institutions can operate in different ways. Welfare state programmes are government programmes, but while public authority is necessary to establish, fund, and regulate these programmes, the nature of government involvement varies. Three worlds of welfare have been identified: social democratic; conservative; and liberal. ‘Varieties’ describes the welfare state regimes that developed in Sweden, Germany, and the USA, each of which exemplifies one of these ‘worlds’ of welfare. It goes on to consider briefly the welfare regimes beyond the ‘three worlds’ and how Britain’s welfare regime has changed over time.

The Historical and Political Foundations of the Welfare State: A Lost Opportunity for the Left?

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Ashford
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Critical Junctures ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
National Welfare ◽  
Political Foundations ◽  
Democratic Parties ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Welfare State

The recent flood of books on the failures of the European social democratic parties in the 1980s suggests that since the turn of the century the democratic left failed to see political opportunities provided by the growth of the welfare state. Two factors make the apparent political oversight of particular interest. First, the historical sequence of enlarging benefits and programs was remarkably similar across countries. Second, early in their development the social democratic left developed fairly detailed policy initiatives for the economy but had much less detailed proposals for social policies and programs. Broadly speaking, the left usually perceived social programs and policies as marginally important instruments for macrosocial change in income redistribution and transfer of wealth but of little political importance. These tendencies are most apparent in the postwar construction of national welfare states but are visible at various critical junctures in political decisionmaking since 1900.

Fostering peace through dialogue The international social democratic movement and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 166-177
Author(s):  
Pentti Väänänen
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Labour Party ◽  
Active Member ◽  
Vice Presidents ◽  
Democratic Movement ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Political Force ◽  
Willy Brandt ◽  
Democratic Parties ◽  
Global Affairs

The Socialist International (SI), the worldwide forum of the socialist, social democratic, and labor parties, actively looked for a solution to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict in the 1980s. At that time, the Israeli Labour Party still was the leading political force in Israel, as it had been historically since the foundation of the country. The Labour Party was also an active member of the SI. The Party’s leader, Shimon Peres, was one of its vice-presidents. At the same time, the social democratic parties were the leading political force in Western Europe. Several important European leaders, many of them presidents and prime ministers, were involved in the SI’s work. They included personalities such as Willy Brandt of Germany; former president of the SI, Francois Mitterrand of France; James Callaghan of Great Britain; Bruno Kreisky of Austria; Bettini Craxi of Italy; Felipe Gonzalez of Spain; Mario Soares of Portugal; Joop de Uyl of the Netherlands; Olof Palme of Sweden; Kalevi Sorsa of Finland; Anker Jörgensen of Denmark; and Gro Harlem Brudtland of Norway—all of whom are former vice-presidents of the SI. As a result, in the 1980s, the SI in many ways represented Europe in global affairs, despite the existence of the European Community (which did not yet have well-defined common foreign policy objectives).

scholarly journals Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies, 1975–2001

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 921-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brady ◽  
Jason Beckfield ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
State Expansion ◽  
State Variation ◽  
State Models ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Previous Scholarship ◽  
The Welfare State

Previous scholarship is sharply divided over how or if globalization influences welfare states. The effects of globalization may be positive causing expansion, negative triggering crisis and reduction, curvilinear contributing to convergence, or insignificant. We bring new evidence to bear on this debate with an analysis of three welfare state measures and a comprehensive array of economic globalization indicators for 17 affluent democracies from 1975 to 2001. The analysis suggests several conclusions. First, state-of-the-art welfare state models warrant revision in the globalization era. Second, most indicators of economic globalization do not have significant effects, but a few affect the welfare state and improve models of welfare state variation. Third, the few significant globalization effects are in differing directions and often inconsistent with extant theories. Fourth, the globalization effects are far smaller than the effects of domestic political and economic factors. Fifth, the effects of globalization are not systematically different between European and non-European countries, or liberal and non-liberal welfare regimes. Increased globalization and a modest convergence of the welfare state have occurred, but globalization does not clearly cause welfare state expansion, crisis, and reduction or convergence. Ultimately, this study suggests skepticism toward bold claims about globalization's effect on the welfare state.

scholarly journals Invited Commentary: Social Cohesion, Depression, and the Role of Welfare States

2019 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-357
Author(s):  
Mikael Rostila
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neighborhood Disorder ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract In this issue of the Journal, Baranyi et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;000(00):000–000) examine the longitudinal associations of perceived neighborhood disorder and social cohesion with depressive symptoms among persons aged 50 years or more in 16 different countries. An important contribution of their article is that they study how neighborhood-level social capital relates to depression in different welfare-state contexts. Although the authors provide empirical evidence for some significant differences between welfare states in the relationship between social capital and depression, they say little about potential explanations. In this commentary, I draw attention to welfare-state theory and how it could provide us with a greater understanding of Baranyi et al.’s findings. I also discuss the potential downsides of grouping countries into welfare regimes. I primarily focus on the associations between social cohesion and depression, as these associations were generally stronger than those for neighborhood disorder and depression. Finally, I provide some suggestions for future research within the field and discuss whether the findings could be used to guide policies aimed at increasing social cohesion and health.

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN WELFARE STATE REGIMES: QUESTIONING THE TYPOLOGY DURING THE CRISIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosta JOSIFIDIS ◽  
John B. HALL ◽  
Novica SUPIC ◽  
Emilija BEKER PUCAR
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
European Welfare State ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Social ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines the nature of changes within the EU–15 welfare states affected by the 2008 crisis. We try to answer the question of whether the differences that exist among different welfare state regimes, according to prevailing welfare state typologies, lead to different responses to the consequences of the crisis. Welfare state regimes are the result of different institutional perceptions of social risks hence it is realistic to expect specific responses to the effects of crisis among different welfare state regimes, and similar responses among the countries that belong to the same welfare state regimes. In order to recognize convergent vs. divergent processes, we perform a comparative analysis of the dynamics of the key welfare state determinants of the EU–15 countries, grouping according to welfare state regimes, in the pre-crisis and crisis periods. The results indicate that institutional rigidity and inherent inertia has remained a key factor of convergent welfare state processes in countries that belong to the Social Democratic and Corporatist welfare state regimes. Deviations from such a course are the most evident in the Mediterranean welfare state regimes, especially in Greece and Portugal where austerity measures have been formulated under the strong influence of the Troika.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document