Jens Alber

The European Social Model and the United States

The notion of a European social model assumes that European societies have certain features in common that distinguish them from the United States. Analysing longitudinal data on the dimensions of state, economy and society three findings stand out: (1) for most indicators the range of variation within the European Union is bigger than the gap between Europe and the United States; (2) counter to the idea of policy convergence, differences in the developmental trajectories of countries with different institutional arrangements persist; (3) despite having extended welfare states similar to those of Continental European countries, Scandinavian nations have performed as well as the Anglo-Saxon countries in terms of employment and growth dynamics. Hence there are not only different social models in Europe but also different pathways to success.

What the European and American welfare states have in common and where they differ : facts and fiction in comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States

The classification of the American welfare state as ‘residual’ does not square with the empirical facts. The US system is dominated by public provisions for welfare among which social insurance programme, particularly Social Security and Medicare, clearly predominate, while public pensions are more universal, redistributive and generous than in some European countries. Key differences persist with respect to a stronger reliance on private provisions in pensions and health, a stronger emphasis on work-conditioned benefits and a greater importance of selective schemes. The term ‘work-conditioned’ welfare state captures some of these key features more adequately than the concept of the ‘residual’ welfare state. EU member states have not converged towards the US; private welfare spending increased without catching up, and the relative importance of selective benefits shrunk in most countries. There is some convergence on the level of policy discourse, where the idée directrice of European social policies has changed from social protection to activation, whereas the US is moving closer to Europe with respect to health care and the acceptance of state responsibilities.

Modernisierung als Peripetie des Sozialstaats

Tief greifende Veränderungen wie der demographische Wandel, zunehmende Frauenerwerbstätigkeit, wachsende Beschäftigungsprobleme gering Qualifizierter sowie die ethnisch-kulturelle Heterogenisierung als Resultat von Migrationsprozessen setzen die Sozialpolitik europäischer Gesellschaften zunehmend unter Veränderungsdruck. Welche politischen Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, bestimmt sich daraus, was politische Eliten für geboten erachten und einflussreiche Verbände und Wähler für akzeptabel halten. Die Analyse des jüngsten Wandels der Sozialpolitik in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU zeigt, dass die Ausdehnung traditioneller sozialpolitischer Programme zwar zu Beginn der 90er Jahre ihren Höhe- und Wendepunkt erreicht hat, dass Umstrukturierungen der Leistungs- und Finanzierungsstruktur des Sozialstaats sich bislang aber in engen Grenzen hielten. Die aktuelle Suche nach einem neuen Dritten Weg zwischen liberaler angelsächsischer Wachstumspolitik und sozialdemokratischer europäischer Arbeits- und Sozialpolitik ist von einer erheblichen Ambivalenz gekennzeichnet. Geht es einerseits darum, die Formierung einer Unterklasse durch die möglichst breite Integration gering Qualifizierter in den Arbeitsmarkt zu verhindern, so sind andererseits mit der Verpflichtung zur Eigenverantwortung und Arbeitsaufnahme auch disziplinierende und repressive Elemente verbunden. Die Anpassung des Sozialstaats an gesellschaftliche Veränderungen besteht insofern keineswegs ausschließlich in seiner Flexibilisierung im Sinne des Abrückens von Normalitätsfiktionen, sondern auch in der Durchsetzung von Standards des Wohlverhaltens, die in ethnisch-kulturell heterogenisierten Gesellschaften als Fremdkontrollen an die Stelle weniger allgemeiner Selbstkontrollen treten.SummaryEuropean welfare state arrangements have to adapt to a set of dynamic social changes. These include not only demographic changes, which challenge the traditional preponderance of pension payments. The growing female labour force participation calls for a wider supply of social services, whereas the intensifying labour market problems of the low skilled require new employment policies. Immigration entails a greater ethnic and cultural heterogeneity of the citizens which makes the legitimation of universal basic income schemes more difficult. An analysis of recent changes in European social policies shows that the expansion of classical social programs reached a turning point in the early 1990ies, but changes in the benefits and financing structure of the welfare state remained fairly limited so far. The present search for a „third way“ between Anglo-Saxon liberal policies and continental European social and labour policies is characterized by a considerable ambivalence. Whilst the emphasis on work and personal responsibility aims at the prevention of exclusion by integrating low skilled groups into the labour market, it also entails an intensification of disciplinary social controls. In this sense, the present adaptation of social policies to changing social conditions does not merely imply more flexibilization with a departure from traditional normality fictions, but also an external enforcement of standards of behavior which in ethnically and culturally heterogeneous societies substitute for less widely shared norms of appropriate behavior.RésuméLa mutation démographique, le travail féminin croissant, le chômage des peu-qualifiés en hausse, l’hétérogénéité ethno-culturelle comme résultat de processus de migration: tous ces changements profonds mettent la politique sociale des sociétés européennes devant la nécessité croissante d’évoluer. Les mesures politiques prises à cet endroit dépendent de ce que les élites politiques jugent bien fondé et de ce que les électeurs et les groupements influents estiment acceptable. Bien que l’expansion des programmes sociaux traditionnels ait atteint son point culminant au début des années 90, l’analyse de la mutation récente de la politique sociale dans les états membres de l’Union européenne montre que la restructuration des structures d’exécution et de financement de l’état social est d’une portée restreinte. L’actuelle recherche d’une troisième voie entre la politique de développement libérale anglo-saxonne et la politique sociale-démocrate européenne se caractérise par une considérable ambivalence. S’il s’agit d’une part d’éviter la formation d’une classe inférieure au moyen d’une intégration aussi large que possible des peu-qualifiés dans le marché du travail, on trouve d’autre part des éléments disciplinant et répressifs, liés aux engagement, de responsabilité personnelle et de prise d’emploi. L’adaptation de l’état social à des changements sociaux ne consiste pas du tout exclusivement en son assouplissement dans l’esprit du recul par rapport à des fictions de normalité, elle consiste également à imposer des standards de bon comportement qui, dans des sociétés devenues hétérogènes ethno-culturellement, se présentent comme des contrôles extérieurs à la place des moins généraux contrôles personnels.

Book ReviewsSmeedingTimothy M., O'HigginsMichael and RainwaterLee (eds) Poverty, Inequality and Income Distribution in Comparative Perspective: The Luxembourg Income StudyHertfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990, pp. 193, ISBN 0745 003354DeaconBob and SzalaiJulia (eds) Social Policy in the New Eastern EuropeAvebury, Gower Publishing Company Ltd, 1990, pp. 234, ISBN 1 85628 050 0OlssonSven E.Social Policy and Welfare State in SwedenArkiv förlag, 1990, 348 pp, ISBN 91 7924 0534

Some fifteen years ago Malcolm Sawyer published a widely discussed study on Income Distribution in OECD countries (Paris 1976). One of the major findings was that there are vast differences in the degree of economic inequality in western countries. The problem with Sawyer’s study was that it had to rely on pre-structured administrative data which used widely discrepant statistical definitions and did not allow him to make any major corrections. Since then the interest in comparative analyses of social structure and public policies has considerably grown not only among scholars but also among policy-makers. This important book fully satisfies the growing demand; it has an interesting history in itself. In order to facilitate comparisons, European and American researchers decided to undertake a joint effort to develop a comparative database which would allow access to national microdata in a standardized way. After an initial conference held in 1982, they succeeded in getting support from the Ford Foundation and the Luxembourg government for establishing a permanent home base for the project in Luxembourg hence the name Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). The project now constitutes a databank of income surveys that can be used to study the extent of poverty, inequality and economic well-being in a truly comparative perspective. The original microdata set covered information on income (by source), taxes and household or family composition in 1979/81 for seven countries Canada, Israel, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the USA and West Germany. By 1989 the project was extended to additional countries Australia, the Netherlands and Switzerland and to additional time-points in the mid1980s so that in the future comparative trendanalyses will also become possible.