Jochen Clasen

BEYOND ACTIVATION REFORMING EUROPEAN UNEMPLOYMENT PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN POST-INDUSTRIAL LABOUR MARKETS

ABSTRACT Though activation has been a key theme in recent comparative scholarship on social policy, existing research has arguably failed to capture some important cross-national differences in the extent of welfare state adaptation it entails. Conceptualising activation as but one unemployment policy reform indicator alongside ‘unemployment support homogenisation’ and ‘unemployment policy co-ordination’, and empirically sketching reform trends in four European states, this article argues it is possible to identify a cleavage between countries where activation policies are part of an unambiguous adaptation of labour market policies to the emergent post-industrial economy, and countries in which similar trends of policy adaptation have been more constrained, hesitant and uneven. To account for this fracture it is necessary to understand the differing ways that conventional unemployment policies were institutionally articulated within national political economies, as this bears on the feasibility of a new paradigm of labour market regulation emerging.

Changing principles in European social security

The provision of social security benefits rests on normative principles of social justice. Most strongly manifest in earnings-related social insurance, the principle of reciprocity has been increasingly questioned on grounds of equity, adequacy and fiscal viability, in the wake of socio-economic changes (e.g. post-industralisation, globalisation) and political developments (e.g. Europeanisation). Universalist programmes seem extraordinarily expensive under tight public budgets, and could be criticised as inequitable at a time when middle classes increasingly rely on individual and occupational forms of income security. The principle of need appears to have become more prominent within modern European social security systems keen on targeting resources. Is there empirical evidence which would reflect these alleged trends? Concentrating on three principles inherent in social security transfers (need, universalism and reciprocity) the major concerns of this article are conceptual and empirical. First, it addresses the problem of operationalising social security principles and delineating indicators of change over time. Second, it applies two of these indicators in order to identify and compare the extent to which the three principles have gained or lost prominence since the early 1980s, with empirical evidence taken from the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany and Scandinavia. The article argues first that, applying either indicator, there is no cross-national trend towards squeezing reciprocity-based social insurance, but that a convergence between erstwhile strong (Bismarckian) and weak (Beveridgean) principled programmes can be identified. Second, a clear trend towards needs-based social security can be identified within the ‘legal’ but not within the ‘volume’ perspective, at least in some programmes and some claimant groups. This is due to both policy changes and favourable labour market conditions. Third, two countries indicate very diverse trends. British social security is distinctive in terms of the erosion of Beveridgean reciprocity, as well as the growing strength of the needs principle. In the Netherlands, there have been considerable shifts in principles underlying certain programmes, but no general trend in either direction can be observed. On the whole, Dutch social security continues to exhibit a strong mix of principles.

Unemployment Protection and Labour Market Reform in France and Great Britain in the 1990s: Solidarity Versus Activation?

Standard accounts of unemployment protection and labour market policy reform tend to put France and the UK at opposing ends of the spectrum of values and policy directions in Europe. British efforts in the 1990 so f switching emphasis from ‘passive’ benefit payment towards promoting participation in ‘active’ programmes of labour market integration are widely understood as a product of liberalism, individualism and increasing labour market flexibility, introducing a degree of workfare into the overall structure of unemployment support. By contrast, in France the resistance of traditional values and a ‘social treatment of unemployment’ are often portrayed as having put a brake on labour market reform and retrenchment of unemployment protection. After a reflection on the respective national discourses, the article challenges this view and points to a more complex reality that includes not only acknowledgement of labour market differences but also trends of convergence and counterintuitive developments. Secondly, it claims that in the 1990 sB ritain and France have both moved increasingly towards an unemployment policy based on activation, but in forms which reflect, to a great extent, different political incentive structures. The political implications of differentially institutionalised interests have in this way driven unemployment policy in different, but not opposing, directions. Recognition of this more nuanced reality should enable ab etter theoretical understanding of the social and political conditions for successful activation policies.

Levels and Levers of Conditionality: Measuring Change Within Welfare States

Bold claims are often made about the current development of welfare states, both by critical theorists of social policies and by the politicians that are reforming them. But characterizing the nature and magnitude of the changes that welfare states have undergone in recent decades seems to pose major problems for empirical – and particularly comparative empirical – analysis. The lively debate concerning the range of factors that may result in (more or less) change in social protection arrangements – including most importantly structural socioeconomic forces, changing power resources, new ideas, party competition, institutions, policy legacies and path dependence (for overviews, see van Kersbergen, 1995; Amenta, 2003) – is complicated by the fact that analysts struggle to agree on what, exactly, is the real character and extent of change to be explained. Controversies and contradictory readings abound in the comparative social policy literature. Have we, as some maintain, witnessed a ‘paradigm shift’ in the techniques and strategies for managing social risks, or merely a series of adjustments at the margins? And if recent reforms are leading to the emergence of a distinctively new ‘type’ or ‘form’ of social policy, is this equally true in all developed welfare states, or only (to date) in some? While in social sciences there is always scope for differing interpretations, convincingly and consistently answering these kinds of questions arguably turns first and foremost on the identification of the most appropriate data for examination. Differently put, the key challenge for assessing the extent of certain hypothesized or postulated changes in welfare state programmes is not so much one of accurate measurement, but rather of developing more adequate conceptualizations and operationalizations of the possibly variable qualities of welfare state programmes. Arguments about new forms of social policy provision or regulation speak to certain welfare state properties in

Voluntary Unemployment Insurance and Trade Union Membership: Investigating the Connections in Denmark and Sweden

The high rate of trade union membership in Nordic countries is often attributed to the way in which unemployment insurance is organised: that is, as a voluntary scheme which is administered by trade union-linked funds (the so-called Ghent system). However, since trade unions and unemployment insurance funds are formally independent from each other, and alternatives to traditional trade union-linked unemployment funds are available, it is far from clear why the more expensive option of a dual membership in trade union and unemployment insurance is generally favoured. Comparing current characteristics and the operation of the Ghent system in Denmark and Sweden, the article identifies incentives for joining an unemployment insurance fund per se and, secondly, factors which make such a dual membership appealing. It shows that some of these apply to both countries, such as the strong identification with trade unions or the lack of a transparent institutional separation; while others are country-specific, such as job search support in Denmark and access to improved benefit provision in Sweden.

Social Insurance and the Contributory Principle: A Paradox in Contemporary British Social Policy

At the outset of the twenty-first century, the situation of British National Insurance is one of paradox. Due to socioeconomic changes and successive government policies over the past three decades, the contributory principle, which was a cornerstone of social security reconstruction after World War II, has been in remarkable decline. At the same time contributions to the National Insurance Fund increased significantly and continues to represent a substantial form of total social security revenue. The contributory principle has a broad public appeal, but National Insurance does not figure prominently in public debates and the system is poorly understood. Recent policies have added to the ambiguity as to how far the contributory principle confers social rights, and have further eroded its rationale. The article states that this situation is not matched by developments in other European countries. Despite substantial reforms and heated debates marked by controversy, the prospect for social insurance and the contributory principle appears considerably better than in the UK. One major explanation is, the article argues, the distinctive notion of social insurance in Britain and particularly the lack of “wage-replacement” transfers. Elsewhere in Europe, earnings-related transfers sustain a very different incentive structure, institutional involvement and wider public participation in matters of social insurance.

Comparative Welfare State Analysis and the ‘Dependent Variable Problem’

Reforms of public pension schemes, health care systems and labour market programmes have been amongst the most salient political issues for some years. The reasons for governments to engage in welfare reform vary across countries, but generally include budgetary pressures and projected increases in spending on health care, social services and public pension systems. Economic internationalization and associated shifts in production and employment patterns have jointly contributed to new labour market risks, problems of long-term unemployment or labour market inactivity. Changing household formations as well as political forces, either of a domestic or a supranational nature (e.g., Europeanization), put additional pressures on policy makers to adapt existing forms of welfare state provision, and reinforce perceptions of welfare reform as a political topic which is likely to remain high on the public policy agenda for some time to come. Moreover, in terms of the political discourse, traditional left concepts favouring big welfare statism have become rather scarce. Instead of the public provision of social protection perceived as market restricting and correcting, current debates and new policies appear to present a shift towards market enabling principles. Within social science the notion of changing welfare states as a topic for comparative research is not new. In fact, it was the emergence and subsequent expansion of social protection until the 1970s which stimulated a large number of investigations into the causes for welfare state growth (e.g. Flora, 1987a) as well as processes of cross-national variation (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990). However, mirroring the more recent challenges to and current reform initiatives within advanced welfare states, the focus of research has shifted profoundly over the last decade. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s most social scientists were studying the economic context, social

Comparative social policy analysis and active labour market policy: Putting Quality before Quantity

In the past decade, active labour market policy (ALMP) has become a major topic in comparative social policy analysis, with scholars exploiting cross-national variation to seek to identify the determinants of policy development in this central area of the ‘new welfare state’. In this paper, we argue that better integration of this policy field into social policy scholarship requires rather more critical engagement with considerable methodological, conceptual and theoretical challenges in order to analyse these policies comparatively. Most fundamentally, rather more reflection is needed on what the substantially relevant dimensions of variation in ALMP from a social policy perspective actually are, as well as enhanced efforts to ensure that it is those that are being analysed and compared.

Beyond Social Security: The Economic Value of Giving Money to Unemployed People:

Within a traditional social security perspective, the quality of national income maintenance schemes tends to be assessed and compared as far as the degree of income protection is concerned. The respective embeddedness of transfer programmes within national political economies has received much less attention. By contrasting unemployment insurance systems in three European countries, this article discusses both sets of cross-national differences with an emphasis on identifying country-specific roles of benefit programmes, over and above the provision of transfers for those out of work; that is as substituting employment regulation and contributing to labour mobility and maintaining collaborative industrial relations in Denmark; as reinforcing work incentives and allowing wages to fall, particularly for younger workers in Britain; and acting as an instrument for workforce restructuring by circumventing labour law regulation in Germany. These functions are rarely addressed in cross-national comparisons of income maintenance systems but are crucial for a fuller understanding of the role of social security in modern capitalism.

Modern Social Democracy and European Welfare State Reform

The European political landscape in the 1990s was characterised by centre-left parties returning to power in several countries after long periods in opposition. Following intensive internal debates over policy direction and policy revision, once back in power some centre-left governments in some countries have used terms such as the ‘third way’ and ‘new social democracy’, or the ‘Neue Mitte’ as an indication that contemporary policies should be seen as distinct from those pursued by both previous social democratic administrations and neo-liberal governments in the interim (e.g. Gamble and Wright, 1999; White, 2001). What, if anything, exactly constitutes the ‘third way’ has been a matter of considerable debate, as has been the question of how far traditional social democratic values and aspirations, such as solidarity and equality, are still relevant within ‘third way’ policies. More than previously, modern social democratic policy is geared towards reducing non-wage labour costs, fostering private forms of social protection, such as funded pensions, intensifying labour market integration and subsidising low-skilled jobs, but also incorporating new social risks and new social needs (Vandenbrouke, 2001).