Duco Bannink

Hidden change: disaggregation of welfare state regimes for greater insight into welfare state change

In this article, we propose a method for the disaggregation of welfare state regimes that enhances our insight into innovative welfare state change; that is, change beyond the borders of regime logic. Welfare states, we argue, are composed of different approaches to various social risks, and the approach to each social risk is often ‘hybrid’: it consists of various types of arrangements. It is no coincidence that risk approaches, and consequently welfare states, are often hybrid entities. We argue that a singular approach to a social risk creates a social residue that may evoke social pressure which can in turn be diminished by hybridizing the arrangement; that is, changing allocation rules to include new social groups or to cover previously uncovered needs. In itself, however, a hybrid arrangement is unstable. This is why hybridization may be followed by either a return to a singular risk approach so that social pressure re-emerges, or by the establishment of a new, additional arrangement so that a hybrid risk approach emerges. This is innovative change. We do not argue that innovative change inevitably occurs. Change requires that groups facing residues are able to employ sufficient power resources. However, some level of autonomous institutional welfare state change is to be expected as an outcome of the continuous creation of residues.

The Dutch Pension System and Social Inclusion

This rigorous study sheds light on these issues. It assesses the extent to which six European multi-pillar pension regimes are socially inclusive, by micro-simulating retirement income for hypothetical citizens facing typical post-industrial risks. This timely book suggests that non-state provision has significant limitations, yet also identifies the political and institutional conditions under which private pensions are indeed reconcilable with social inclusion.

Decentralization: New Modes of Governance and Administrative Responsibility

Shifts in governance can be conceived of as a response to policy capacities being shared—in a material sense—between centralized and decentralized levels of government. A comparative case study is conducted of three conceptually different shifts in governance. Unclear responsibility relations lead to “paradoxes of decentralization,” in which the applied mode of governance blocks the intended improvements. Three case studies are presented to illustrate these mechanisms. There is no “best” way of decentralizing responsibilities; requirements of governance modes are ambiguous. The sharing of policy capacities between central and decentralized levels of governance requires internally inconsistent governance arrangementsShifts in governance can be conceived of as a response to policy capacities being shared—in a material sense—between centralized and decentralized levels of government. A comparative case study is conducted of three conceptually different shifts in governance. Unclear responsibility relations lead to “paradoxes of decentralization,” in which the applied mode of governance blocks the intended improvements. Three case studies are presented to illustrate these mechanisms. There is no “best” way of decentralizing responsibilities; requirements of governance modes are ambiguous. The sharing of policy capacities between central and decentralized levels of governance requires internally inconsistent governance arrangements.

From local to grobal, and back

This is a case study of Vlisco, a Dutch textile printing company since 1846 that produces batik cloth for the West African consumer market. We focus on the changing status of batik cloth in West Africa and related shifts in the relations of Vlisco with its consumers and local trade partners over a period of almost two centuries. We conclude that in the long run, globalisation does not necessarily result in the transformation of authentic and locally conceived products into empty mass products, and even if it does, in time the process can change direction.

Changing Life Courses and New Social Risks: The Case of Old Age Pensions

Abstract Old age pensions are one of the keystones of traditional solidaristic welfare states. They are based on systematic risk assessments, starting from the assumption of the typical standardized life course. From this perspective “ageing” is a predictable income risk, and one that has been managed by the traditional welfare state in applying actuarial principles and collectively shared entitlements. In this contribution we join the expectation in the contemporary welfare state debate that the traditional solidaristic welfare state is changing fundamentally. On the one side the assumed standardized life course is changing rapidly. On the other side the existing welfare state institutions and policies are changing at the same time. Together, these lead to the new social risk of an increasing “unpredictability” of the future for many individuals and for vulnerable groups in particular. We discuss the case of old age pensions and assess the impact on future income predictability that results from the destabilization of life courses. This argument will be grounded in a detailed empirical analysis of risk biographies and their effect on the old age pension income in the Netherlands, and a comparative assessment of the way the Dutch pension system responds to the new social risk of unpredictability.

Decentralisatie in de langdurige zorg en sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen onder ouderen: gemengde gevolgen

Anderhalf jaar na de decentralisatie van de langdurige zorg via de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning (Wmo) en de Wet langdurige zorg (Wlz) trekt de rook op en wordt het mogelijk om beter te kijken naar een beladen transitie waar veel, heel veel, van werd verwacht. Doel van de decentrale organisatie is om gemeenten en zorgaanbieders beter in staat te stellen effectiever en kostenefficiënt problemen en oplossingen te identificeren. Daarnaast zou de decentralisatie zelfredzaamheid, mantelzorg en vrijwilligerswerk bevorderen en de behoefte aan formele zorg verminderen. De beoogde kostenbesparing is daarbij door de rijksoverheid gestimuleerd door een reductie van 25% van het gemeentelijk Wmo-budget.

Ritzer malgré lui: Reply to ‘Still enamoured of the glocal: A comment on “From local to grobal, and back”’

Professor Ritzer’s (Ritzer & Richer, 2012) critical comment on our article ‘From local to grobal, and back’ (Hoogenboom, Bannink, & Trommel, 2010) somewhat surprises us. In our article we employ his theory to analyse and describe the changing status of Vlisco products over almost two centuries, and by doing so we believe we demonstrate the great value of Ritzer’s theoretical contribution to the academic globalisation debate. Admittedly, in the article we also formulate some critical comments on his work, but these comments predominantly (with one exception concerning the usefulness of the concept ‘local’, see below) concern the empirical evidence Ritzer presents in his book The globalization of nothing (2007) to back up his new theory. Despite our ultimately positive evaluation of Ritzer’s theory in our article, in his comment he formulates roughly five critical points. Firstly, he claims that we erroneously equate his theory in The globalization of nothing with the earlier theoretical insights he presented in The McDonaldization of society (first published in 1993). Secondly, and in addition to the first point of criticism, he argues that we wrongly claim that globalisation is the central theme of The McDonaldization of society. Thirdly, he denies that, as we claim in our article, in The globalization of nothing he suggests that in the end the ‘grobalisation of nothing’ is the dominant trait of the globalisation process. Fourthly, Ritzer criticises what he sees as our support for the idea developed by, amongst others, Robertson (1992, 1995, 2001) and Appadurai (1996) that ‘glocalisation’ is the dominant trait of the process of globalisation. Finally, Ritzer argues that we are wrong in saying that a service or product in our time can still be conceived of as ‘local’. Before we examine these five points, we would first like to say something about the tone professor Ritzer adopts in his comment on our article. Though he praises our article for standing ‘as something of a model of how to bridge the gap between abstract theory and empirical research’ (p. 798), the criticism he expresses on some of our claims in the article is very strongly worded. He claims, for example, that we employ ‘a strategy to tarnish a theory [Ritzer’s] that they [we] intend to criticise (even though they use it in their research) by making it seem dated, old-fashioned and simplistic’ (p. 799), and that we ‘chose to do violence to Ritzer’s original model’ (p. 802). Subsequently, he