Summary Literature
Key Challenges to the Welfare State: Social Policy and
Social Change
(201800294)
,Summary Literature Key Challenges to the Welfare State: Social Policy and Social Change .............. 1
The beginnings of social security in Western Europe and the United States ....................................... 3
Welfare state theories ................................................................................................................14
The information society as post-industrialism: Daniel Bell..............................................................23
Time matters: Postindustrialisation, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced
industrial democracies ..............................................................................................................34
Studying social policy in the digital age ........................................................................................44
The digital economy and the future of European welfare states .......................................................49
European ageing in focus: dealing with pension and budgetary risks Summary .................................55
Ageing and the welfare state: securing sustainability .....................................................................60
The inevitable deservingness gap: A study into the insurmountable immigrant penalty in perceived
welfare deservingness ...............................................................................................................68
Afonso, A. (2020) in conversation with Dr Petra de Jong: "Welfare tourism?" The borders of equality
podcast ...................................................................................................................................74
Migrants’ and natives’ attitudes toward public healthcare provision in Denmark, Germany, and the
Netherlands .............................................................................................................................76
Gendering welfare state analysis: tensions between care and paid work..........................................81
Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective ........................89
, The beginnings of social security in Western Europe and the United
States
De Swaan (1988)
Bismarck’s beginning
→ Former Chancellor of the German Empire (1862-1890)
The first nationwide compulsory insurance scheme against income loss was
established in Germany by an authoritarian and activist regime: Bismarck’s all-German
government. It was imposed against the resistance of the worker’s movement and
against much opposition in the parliament. The scheme has however become the model
for other countries and in its broad outlines has survived two World Wars, National
Socialism and foreign occupation as the foundation of the West German welfare state.
Bismarck’s project reveals many essential traits of the social laws which other countries
were to adopt in the next half-century. His was an effort at state-building, quite self-
consciously designed to strengthen the new German state and to improve its ties with
the industrial working class. He envisaged a class of state pensioners loyal to the
government and wary of any change that might threaten their small benefits, people
without property and yet with a stake in the political order. Bismarck sought to curb the
workers’ movement and sideline the parliament by introducing social insurance while
simultaneously repressing socialists. He believed that these measures would make
workers more loyal to the state. In practice, this strategy failed: the Socialist Party grew
even stronger, parliamentary influence increased, and labour activists came to occupy
key positions within the social insurance system. Social security thus became not an
instrument of control, but a new arena for workers’ power. National insurance did
succeed in creating stronger bonds between the German workers and the new state.
But even though Bismark appeared to ignore the trade unions and bypassed the political
parties in the Reichstag (parliament) as much as he could, he did not simply create
national insurance by decree. It was a feat of careful, albeit groping, coalition building
and astute exploitation of the opposition’s weakness.
Scholars have pointed out that before 1900 compulsory insurance schemes were
adopted mainly by authoritarian regimes, and in countries where industrialisation had
not yet progressed very far. Clearly, the authoritarian political elites in this manner
attempted to circumvent the parties and to reach out directly to the working masses so
as to secure their loyalty. However, other scholars have suggested that in these
authoritarian regimes, primarily in the Kaiser’s Germany, not only were industrial
workers effectively excluded from government power, as they were at the time in many
parliamentary democracies too, but the petty bourgeoisie (=Small-property owners; de
groep kleine zelfstandigen en kleine ondernemers die tussen arbeiders en grote
kapitalisten in zit en vaak tegen staatsbemoeienis en sociale zekerheid is) also had little
influence, considerably less than in the democratic polities. In Germany, small property
owners held little political power, while large landowners, industrialists, and
bureaucrats dominated the state. This enabled the government to introduce social
legislation in cooperation with large employers, despite opposition from the petty
bourgeoisie. Because the state lacked strong support from the middle classes, it was
particularly sensitive to the demands of the growing working class.
, The coalition that carried national insurance through the vicissitudes of German politics
was one of the three typical alliances that may bring about the scheme: in this case, a
coalition between the administrative and political elites (the state) on the one hand and
the large-scale industrial employers on the other. National insurance was adopted
without the support, and even without the formal consultation, of workers’
organisations. But this did not mean that worker’s preferences were not taken into
consideration as it was anticipated what the workers wanted.
By 1880, German workers had strong organizations of their own and deeply distrusted
the state because of repression. For this reason, they were unwilling to cooperate with
Bismarck or to give up control over their own insurance funds. Once national social
insurance had been introduced, however, Social Democratic leaders quickly realized
that these institutions offered new opportunities to organize workers and to build
political power.
The preferences of large-scale industrialist played a much more immediate part in
shaping the scheme. For a long time many companies had operated their own insurance
funds under state supervision and large-scale entrepreneurs had little reason to oppose
insurance as long as the government protected them against foreign competition with
tariffs and maintained the relative advantages among domestic rivals by unitary
regulation. Many of them were quite willing to accept part, or even all, of the costs of
insurance if this would leave them master on the factory floor and in full control of the
funds’ management.
The regime sought ways to control the labour movement and to bind workers more
closely to the state. For this reason, the regime sought full control over the system and
was willing to bear costs and financial risks to achieve it. The creation of an extensive
administrative apparatus was not a side effect but a core element of state- and nation-
building. Social insurance was seen as necessary to produce a strong, loyal, and
productive workforce capable of supporting Germany in international economic and
political competition. At the same time, employers could not be expected to carry the
full financial burden, as this would weaken their position vis-à-vis foreign competitors.
But in return for state support by means of legal coercion and financial subsidies (paid in
part from protective tariff revenues) employers had to go along with a system that was to
be compulsory for them too.
In the 1880s, three major compulsory insurance laws were passed: on accident
insurance, disability and sickness. Its principles have remained the guidelines of
compulsory national insurance ever since and showed themselves quite compatible
with the subsequent extension to new groups of the population and new fields of
coverage in Germany and elsewhere.
The British breakthrough
The next wave of social innovation came almost 25 years later, in Britain, where the
working class had a longer history and was more numerous and better organised than
elsewhere. But here too, initiative was mostly with an activist regime of politicians out to
conquer the working-class vote and administrators eager to try the new techniques of
government. In England, however, large-scale employers hardly played a part, while the
Key Challenges to the Welfare State: Social Policy and
Social Change
(201800294)
,Summary Literature Key Challenges to the Welfare State: Social Policy and Social Change .............. 1
The beginnings of social security in Western Europe and the United States ....................................... 3
Welfare state theories ................................................................................................................14
The information society as post-industrialism: Daniel Bell..............................................................23
Time matters: Postindustrialisation, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced
industrial democracies ..............................................................................................................34
Studying social policy in the digital age ........................................................................................44
The digital economy and the future of European welfare states .......................................................49
European ageing in focus: dealing with pension and budgetary risks Summary .................................55
Ageing and the welfare state: securing sustainability .....................................................................60
The inevitable deservingness gap: A study into the insurmountable immigrant penalty in perceived
welfare deservingness ...............................................................................................................68
Afonso, A. (2020) in conversation with Dr Petra de Jong: "Welfare tourism?" The borders of equality
podcast ...................................................................................................................................74
Migrants’ and natives’ attitudes toward public healthcare provision in Denmark, Germany, and the
Netherlands .............................................................................................................................76
Gendering welfare state analysis: tensions between care and paid work..........................................81
Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective ........................89
, The beginnings of social security in Western Europe and the United
States
De Swaan (1988)
Bismarck’s beginning
→ Former Chancellor of the German Empire (1862-1890)
The first nationwide compulsory insurance scheme against income loss was
established in Germany by an authoritarian and activist regime: Bismarck’s all-German
government. It was imposed against the resistance of the worker’s movement and
against much opposition in the parliament. The scheme has however become the model
for other countries and in its broad outlines has survived two World Wars, National
Socialism and foreign occupation as the foundation of the West German welfare state.
Bismarck’s project reveals many essential traits of the social laws which other countries
were to adopt in the next half-century. His was an effort at state-building, quite self-
consciously designed to strengthen the new German state and to improve its ties with
the industrial working class. He envisaged a class of state pensioners loyal to the
government and wary of any change that might threaten their small benefits, people
without property and yet with a stake in the political order. Bismarck sought to curb the
workers’ movement and sideline the parliament by introducing social insurance while
simultaneously repressing socialists. He believed that these measures would make
workers more loyal to the state. In practice, this strategy failed: the Socialist Party grew
even stronger, parliamentary influence increased, and labour activists came to occupy
key positions within the social insurance system. Social security thus became not an
instrument of control, but a new arena for workers’ power. National insurance did
succeed in creating stronger bonds between the German workers and the new state.
But even though Bismark appeared to ignore the trade unions and bypassed the political
parties in the Reichstag (parliament) as much as he could, he did not simply create
national insurance by decree. It was a feat of careful, albeit groping, coalition building
and astute exploitation of the opposition’s weakness.
Scholars have pointed out that before 1900 compulsory insurance schemes were
adopted mainly by authoritarian regimes, and in countries where industrialisation had
not yet progressed very far. Clearly, the authoritarian political elites in this manner
attempted to circumvent the parties and to reach out directly to the working masses so
as to secure their loyalty. However, other scholars have suggested that in these
authoritarian regimes, primarily in the Kaiser’s Germany, not only were industrial
workers effectively excluded from government power, as they were at the time in many
parliamentary democracies too, but the petty bourgeoisie (=Small-property owners; de
groep kleine zelfstandigen en kleine ondernemers die tussen arbeiders en grote
kapitalisten in zit en vaak tegen staatsbemoeienis en sociale zekerheid is) also had little
influence, considerably less than in the democratic polities. In Germany, small property
owners held little political power, while large landowners, industrialists, and
bureaucrats dominated the state. This enabled the government to introduce social
legislation in cooperation with large employers, despite opposition from the petty
bourgeoisie. Because the state lacked strong support from the middle classes, it was
particularly sensitive to the demands of the growing working class.
, The coalition that carried national insurance through the vicissitudes of German politics
was one of the three typical alliances that may bring about the scheme: in this case, a
coalition between the administrative and political elites (the state) on the one hand and
the large-scale industrial employers on the other. National insurance was adopted
without the support, and even without the formal consultation, of workers’
organisations. But this did not mean that worker’s preferences were not taken into
consideration as it was anticipated what the workers wanted.
By 1880, German workers had strong organizations of their own and deeply distrusted
the state because of repression. For this reason, they were unwilling to cooperate with
Bismarck or to give up control over their own insurance funds. Once national social
insurance had been introduced, however, Social Democratic leaders quickly realized
that these institutions offered new opportunities to organize workers and to build
political power.
The preferences of large-scale industrialist played a much more immediate part in
shaping the scheme. For a long time many companies had operated their own insurance
funds under state supervision and large-scale entrepreneurs had little reason to oppose
insurance as long as the government protected them against foreign competition with
tariffs and maintained the relative advantages among domestic rivals by unitary
regulation. Many of them were quite willing to accept part, or even all, of the costs of
insurance if this would leave them master on the factory floor and in full control of the
funds’ management.
The regime sought ways to control the labour movement and to bind workers more
closely to the state. For this reason, the regime sought full control over the system and
was willing to bear costs and financial risks to achieve it. The creation of an extensive
administrative apparatus was not a side effect but a core element of state- and nation-
building. Social insurance was seen as necessary to produce a strong, loyal, and
productive workforce capable of supporting Germany in international economic and
political competition. At the same time, employers could not be expected to carry the
full financial burden, as this would weaken their position vis-à-vis foreign competitors.
But in return for state support by means of legal coercion and financial subsidies (paid in
part from protective tariff revenues) employers had to go along with a system that was to
be compulsory for them too.
In the 1880s, three major compulsory insurance laws were passed: on accident
insurance, disability and sickness. Its principles have remained the guidelines of
compulsory national insurance ever since and showed themselves quite compatible
with the subsequent extension to new groups of the population and new fields of
coverage in Germany and elsewhere.
The British breakthrough
The next wave of social innovation came almost 25 years later, in Britain, where the
working class had a longer history and was more numerous and better organised than
elsewhere. But here too, initiative was mostly with an activist regime of politicians out to
conquer the working-class vote and administrators eager to try the new techniques of
government. In England, however, large-scale employers hardly played a part, while the
