Bent Greve

Concluding remarks: New method or just cheap talk?

Some years after its formal launch, the open method of co-ordination (OMC) continues to pose more questions than it seems to answer. Conceived politically as a fresh mode of dealing with old political issues in the European Union (EU) (Scott and Trubek 2002; Armstrong 2003; Ekengren 2002), the truth is that the OMC is still surrounded by much uncertainty; uncertainty as to what extent the open method might provide effective solutions to thorny coordination problems without further transfer of powers to Brussels; uncertainty as to how far the OMC might introduce novel mechanisms of deliberative and participatory democracy in the complex machinery of EU/member state political processes; and, all in all, uncertainty as to how far the OMC will succeed in managing diversity. The articles in this special issue bear witness to this. Taken collectively, their message is that the OMC introduces interesting novelties in the ways of understanding and carrying out EU policy and politics, but that these novelties are only able to make a change if some specific conditions are fulfilled. The absence of some of these political conditions has been behind the critical remarks of most authors and the normative lessons arising from their studies. So far, the OMC is able to generate optimism among scholars. But, as time goes by, more and more of this optimism is turning out to be conditional. This article aims to go back over the important questions raised in this special issue, and to provide some concluding (but not conclusive) remarks in the light of the evidence and the studies of the previous articles. In particular, we examine the nature of the OMC in relation to its large diversity across policy areas; we again take up the issue of effectiveness and compliance in the absence of sanctions, and discuss whether it is possible that the OMC will move away from bureaucratic management towards a new implementation of democratic values outside the classical democratic representation channels. Last but not least, we discuss the question of the limits to the use of the OMC.

Happiness and Social Policy in Europe

Contents: 1. Introduction Bent Greve 2. Life Satisfaction and Happiness in the Czech Republic Tomas Sirovatka and Steven Saxonberg 3. Happiness and Welfare State in Slovakia Miroslav Beblavy 4. Happiness in a Small Country: Luxembourg Carlo Klein 5. Subjective Well-being in Germany: Evolutions, Determinants and Policy Implications Heinz-Herbert Noll and Stefan Weick 6. Happiness in the United Kingdom Bill Jordan 7. Happiness and Socio-economic Transformations in the Russian Federation Alfio Cerami 8. Happiness in the Extensive Welfare State. Sweden in a Comparative European Perspective Filip Fors 9. Happiness and Social Policy in Denmark Bent Greve 10. Welfare and Happiness in Italy Marco Zupi 11. Income Inequality and Happiness in 119 Nations: In Search for an Optimum that Does Not Appear to Exist Ruut Veenhoven and Maarten Berg Bibliography Index

When is Choice Possible in Social Security

In recent years, the provision of public services has been reformed in many European welfare states. Inspired by ‘Public Choice’ and ‘New Public Management’ thinking, changes have emphasised competition, user involvement, and more efficient service delivery. Quasi-markets and vouchers have often been central elements in these developments. The provision of services – public or private – can be regarded as an alternative to the provision of support in cash. Thus, the choice between income transfers and service delivery e.g. in relation to care of the elderly or of children, will have a (quantitative and qualitative) effect on the ways in which society supports the provision of care. This article describes these changes and analyses new modes of delivery (which are often associated with ‘marketisation’). It discusses when choice is possible for service users and whether, given the need for greater efficiency, it can be combined with use of the market-mechanism. It specifically analyse the use of vouchers and the conditions under which vouchers can contribute to achieving the combination of increased empowerment of users and greater efficiency without having a detrimental impact on access to services or the distribution of welfare. Vouchers are employed as a means of ascertaining whether, and under what conditions, choice is possible. In this sense greater use of free choice is construed as being positive if it can combine increased empowerment and greater efficiency without any negative distributional impact. The paper concentrates on elements of choice within the social services, emphasising variations between different service areas. It concludes by attempting to emphasise the aspects that decision-makers must be aware of when increasing the extent of choice offered to the users of public services.

The impact of the financial crisis on happiness in affluent European countries

The impact of income on happiness has received much academic attention. In general, countries with a higher income per capita have higher levels of happiness; nevertheless, as Easterlin has observed, an increase in income is not necessarily correlated with an increase in happiness. Easterlins paradox has been central to the debate. By contrast, studies do not, in general, analyse the opposite situation; that is, whether a decline in income will have a negative impact on the level of happiness. Based upon recent data from the European Social Survey this article tries to fill this gap by looking at changes in happiness in the wake of the recent financial crisis and consequent change in income as measured by gross domestic product per capita. The article, using data for 15 European countries released in 2011 covering the year 2010, concludes that such a causal relationship cannot be confirmed on the basis of the present limited data. The reason why the relationship cannot be confirmed needs to be explored further.

Social Security Reforms in Europe

In the last 10–15 years we have witnessed much discussion through Europe about changes in social security systems. The debate has been diffuse and the emphasis has shifted over time according to the various economic, political and cultural backgrounds of the different countries. In some, the debate has concerned the overall level of spending and the fiscal deficit, in others it has focused on centralisation/decentralisation, and in yet others on the specific mode of delivery of particular social goods and services (i.e. private or public).

Denmark: Still a Nordic Welfare State After the Changes of Recent Years?

This article presents as a case analysis, mainly by using official Danish documents and national and Eurostat data, a picture of and reasons for the development in the Danish welfare state in recent years with the core focus after the start of the financial crisis in 2008. The analysis points to the fact that changes have taken place including more of a work-first approach and increasing pressure on those receiving social benefits, whereas with regard to investments in social services and social capital, this is still high on the agenda and continues, despite the crisis, to have a universal approach and focus.

Prevention and Integration: An Overview

Th is special issue includes four papers that were originally presented at the EISS Conference on ‘Prevention and Integration’ that took place at Roskilde in September 2006. Prevention and integration are both classical elements in social security and, at the same time, new ones in the sense that they have recently come onto the agenda in relation to social inclusion. Social inclusion cannot only be achieved through the labour market since it involves the individual’s relationship to society in a broader sense. Preventing people from becoming socially excluded is the best means of off ering individuals a better life. However, if social exclusion has already taken place then, in order to achieve societal cohesion, integrative policies are needed. Prevention and integration have become important aspects of social security policies at all levels (supranational, national, regional and local) in Europe in recent years. At the supranational level, they have formed part of the guidelines for National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (NAPSIncl) (EU Commission, 2006). Nationally and locally, NAPSIncl themselves form a part of welfare policies aimed at improving the welfare of Europe’s citizens. Furthermore, the ambition of the EU and its member states to create cohesive societies, with fewer people living below the poverty line, has also been on the agenda. Prevention, integration and poverty are thus connected themes. In this overview, some of the major considerations concerning prevention, poverty and integration are discussed as an introduction to the main topics considered in this issue of the journal, i.e. prevention and integration. Although the main aim is to provide a general framework for the articles themselves, it will also present some comparative data as background to the articles.

Migrants and health in the Nordic welfare states

This article probes into the health of migrants with a focus on the situation in the Nordic universal welfare states. The Nordic welfare states are further compared to each other with a comparison to the EU28 if possible, including investigation of the differences among the four Nordic countries. This is done by analyzing central parameters related to access to and inequality in health care.The article concludes that ethnicity does not give rise by itself to differences in health care, including access to care, but can be seen as a marker of where health problems might arise due to other specific socioeconomic factors, such as the impact of economic inequality. Moreover, the healthy migrant paradox cannot be confirmed.

Ways forward for the welfare state in the twenty-first century

Pressure from the internationalization of economies and the globalization of nationally defined and managed welfare states could be a reason for converging trends in welfare states. On the other hand, it could be a reason for developing a more uniform type of welfare state, since a more uniform type, it could be assumed, would be under less pressure than a number of differing types. This may apply in particular in the case of welfare state models with high emphasis on state.nancing, such as the Scandinavian welfare state model, which, it has been argued, has come under immense pressure from globalization. According to Geyer, this pressure would imply that: “the welfare states of the advanced industrial countries should become increasingly similar as the forces of globalization squeeze them into a market-oriented welfare-state model. In essence it does not matter whether the national institutional contexts are conservative or social democratic, if the welfare state is conservative, liberal or social democratic; or if a leftist or rightist party is in power, the constraints have become so extreme that only market-conforming welfare-state structures will be allowed.” But it also seems that “despite undeniable problems posed by economic internationalisation, social democratic welfare states and employment regimes have proven to be highly resilient.“ This article will discuss these contradictory viewpoints by way of analysing convergence, especially on the macro-level.

Introduction: social investment: a buzzword – but has it reached the stakeholders?

Social investment has been a buzzword in political rhetoric over the last 10–15 years – and a substantial number of articles and books on the subject has emerged. In 2017 alone, google scholar returns 5070 elements using ‘social investment’ as search term.Naturally, they are not all dealing with social policy, and even less with long-term care for elderly persons. Social investment has been seen as a new response to meeting needs, sometimes even as part of the debate on the third way in welfare states development, and also as a reaction to New Public Management and neoliberal approaches to welfare states development. Furthermore, the literature on social investment often focuses on social services and activities where there is a possibility of long-term impact of an investment, for example, in relation to day-care for children. These long-term impacts might not always be the case if discerning effect of investment in long-term care as a consequence of the lower number of years where the investment can work, including that some might die suddenly even after an investment takes place. Stakeholders perception of and understanding of social investment is often not taken into consideration and analysed in relation to impact. The articles in this themed section, based upon research in a Horizon 2020 project ‘SPRINT’, try to depict and investigate if and how stakeholders in different welfare states, with very different approaches to long-term care know about social investment. The countries under consideration are Denmark (Nordic), Portugal (Southern Europe) and Lithuania (Eastern Europe). They have different state emphasis on delivery of care and different traditions, although in all countries civil society is an important aspect in the daily support of older people. The articles show that remarkably, the concept of social investment as such is not widely recognised among stakeholders, which here consist of a broad group of institutions, actors and organisations. However, when discussing different kinds of interventions and the way they might work in practice, stakeholders appear to have an understanding what social investment represents, and, also that it is something which they support as a way to improve long-term care. Therefore, social investment, without being recognised as a formal policy aim, is certainly recognised as an idea informing practice among those interested and involved in long-term care delivery in very different welfare states. This finding suggests that more abstract policy ‘ideas’ do influence the direction of development of welfare states on the ground.