Summary
Key challenges to the Welfare State
Tess Monzón Sociology, year 2
Lecture 1
Introduction
Welfare state: a powerful institution of the 20th century and beyond,
Result of a long historical development (You do not notice the welfare state, but it
has a lot of effect on one's life)
Debate: is the welfare state a “blessing” or a “curse”, because the welfare state
provides services, but it is expensive and whether the welfare state is too big or
too small.
What is a welfare state? – Thoenes (1962): “the welfare state is a society type,
which is characterized by a democratic system of government care, which
guarantees the collective social welfare of its subjects, while the capitalist
production system remains largely unaltered.”
The welfare state makes people more equal, connected to democracy (politics &
outcomes)
Only in democracies? If so, why? (Governments respond to voters → provide
welfare policies)
Is government the only provider of welfare state services (state, market, family,
Non-profits/charities)
The “collective” gets access to the welfare state:
Mostly welfare states in capitalist countries: because in capitalist countries there
are individuals who cannot contribute and need help to prevent inequality
What is a welfare state:
1. Social security: insurances, social assistance, pensions, maternity leave,
etc.
2. Health care: health insurance, funding of hospitals, rehabilitation centres,
etc.
3. Education: funding of schools, student grants, education laws, etc.
4. Social housing: funding affordable homes, property regulations, etc.
(sociale woningbouw)
5. Social welfare: elderly people’s homes, debt assistance, shelters, etc.
Origins of the welfare state comes from social change: factories (People moved
away from safety net to the city) Welfare state
Social change 3 drives:
1. Industrialization: from agriculture to industrialization
2. Individualization: moving away from family, so immediately
individualization
3. Rise of the nation/national state: Bureaucracy and control, quest for
national unity
,Otto von Bismarck (1880): social insurance acts, protection of blue-collar workers
Other countries followed (1900-1940)
After World War II further expansion of
welfare state: more categories of
population covered, more generous
Golden age of the welfare state (1950s –
1970)
More than 100% is covered because
some people have multiple jobs, for
example
Gosta Esping Andersen: institutional
differences between welfare states
(outdated?)
- Who is entitled to what and when
- Generosity: benefit levels
- Immunization from market dependency, “decommodification”: capitalism
changes people to commodities (merchandise)
Three welfare state regime types (Esping Andersen):
- Liberal welfare state: all citizens covered (but means tested, if you meet
certain income/wealth conditions), generosity is low, decommodification is
also low (rely on a job/income from the market) . (For example: UK, Ireland,
USA, Australia)
- Conservative welfare state: mainly (male) breadwinners covered,
generosity: rather high, decommodification: medium (for example:
Germany, Italy, Austria, etc.)
- Social democratic welfare state: all citizens covered, generosity is high,
decommodification is high (examples: Sweden, Norway & Denmark)
Critique on view Esping Andersen: “types are caricatures”, what about: southern
Europe: the family (families take care of each other), Eastern Europe: communist
past, hybrids: the Netherlands. outdated?
Welfare state after the golden age:
The crisis of the welfare state (1975 –present?) Economic crisis of the 1970s and
1980s. The rise of neo-liberalism (Markets should play the biggest role in society)
Welfare state reform: 1980s and early 1990s: Spending cuts, restriction of
access
Late 1990s and 2000s: new organizational structures, new policy types:
activation, socialization, etc.
2010s and 2020s: preparing for ‘aged society’, facing calamities (financial crisis,
COVID-19, etc)
Readings week 1:
De Swaan, A. (1988). The beginnings of social security in Western
Europe and the United States. In A. de Swaan, In care of the state:
Health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the
modern era (pp. 187-217). New York: Oxford University Press.
,The article explains how the development of social security systems—an
essential pillar of the welfare state—was shaped by political conflicts, class
relations, and institutional structures, rather than emerging naturally or uniformly
across countries. A central argument is that the timing and form of welfare state
development depended on the balance of power between key actors: the state,
workers, employers, and especially small property owners. Social security
represents a major step in the collectivization of risk, where the state organizes
protection against unemployment, illness, and old age through compulsory
systems, thereby reducing individuals’ dependence on markets and family
support.
A key finding is that small property owners (the petty bourgeoisie) were
often the strongest opponents of social security. They feared that compulsory
insurance would undermine private savings, increase state control, and reinforce
workers’ dependence on wages instead of property ownership. This resistance
significantly delayed welfare state development, as seen clearly in France and
the United States. In contrast, support for social security grew as societies
industrialized and the proportion of wage-earners increased, making collective
protection more necessary and politically feasible.
The article also highlights the importance of coalitions in building welfare states.
Social security systems typically emerged when alliances formed between
governments, segments of the labor movement, and sometimes employers.
However, these coalitions varied across countries. For example, France
experienced long delays due to fragmented alliances and strong opposition from
small property owners and mutual organizations, resulting in a late and highly
fragmented system. In the United States, the federal structure and weak labor
movement initially hindered development, but the Great Depression created a
sudden “big bang” moment in which social security was rapidly introduced under
Roosevelt. In the Netherlands, by contrast, welfare state development was
gradual and incremental, shaped by corporatist cooperation between employers,
workers, and the state within a pillarized society.
Another important concept is the role of existing institutions, such as mutual
aid societies, company funds, and local welfare arrangements. These often acted
as both precursors and obstacles to state welfare systems. On the one hand, they
provided early forms of social protection; on the other hand, they created vested
interests that resisted national, compulsory systems. This explains why countries
with strong voluntary or private arrangements (like France or the US) often
experienced delays in developing universal welfare systems.
The article further shows that welfare states are not only about redistribution but
also about control and organization of labor relations. Employers
sometimes supported social security because it stabilized the workforce and
shifted long-term risks (such as pensions) away from individual firms to collective
systems. At the same time, welfare institutions could be used to discipline
workers or tie them to employers, especially in earlier company-based schemes.
Finally, the expansion of welfare states, especially after World War II, led to the
growth of what the article calls “transfer capital”—resources redistributed
through the state via taxes and benefits. This contributed to a more equal
distribution of income, although it also shifted resources away from private
, capital. Over time, welfare states became self-reinforcing systems, expanding
through political competition, economic growth, and increasing public
expectations.
Cousins, M. (2005). Welfare state theories. In M. Cousins, European
welfare states: Comparative perspectives (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
The article explains differences in welfare state development by focusing on
state-centred and institutional theories. It starts by comparing countries like
Sweden, the United States, and Great Britain, showing that they responded
differently to unemployment and economic crises. Sweden developed a strong
full-employment model with active public spending, while the US adopted
Keynesian ideas during the Great Depression. In contrast, Great Britain was
slower to expand welfare and remained committed to traditional economic
thinking for longer.
To explain these differences, the authors reject simple theories like functionalism
or working-class power and instead emphasize state structures and policy
traditions. Two key factors matter: existing policy approaches (e.g. public works
vs. unemployment benefits) and the extent to which economic experts are
involved in policymaking. For example, Sweden incorporated economists into
policy decisions, while British policymaking was dominated by the Treasury,
which resisted innovation.
This leads to a broader institutional or polity-centred approach, especially
associated with Skocpol. This perspective argues that welfare states are shaped
not just by social groups, but by the interaction between state institutions,
political parties, and organised groups. Political institutions influence which
groups have power, what policies are possible, and how earlier policies shape
future developments (policy feedback). In the United States, for instance,
fragmented political institutions limited welfare state expansion.
The article also highlights that other factors—such as religion and family
structures—can influence welfare state development. For example, religious
traditions (like Catholicism) can shape policies on family, labour markets, and
welfare provision. Similarly, family-based economic systems (e.g. family farming)
can reduce reliance on state welfare.
The final part of the article discusses current developments in welfare state
theory. These include:
Further integration of different theories (e.g. adding the role of employers)
Increased attention to gender, though still underdeveloped
The rise of welfare state typologies (especially Esping-Andersen)
A return to structural explanations, such as globalisation and
deindustrialisation
A key debate is whether globalisation pressures welfare states, but some scholars
argue that deindustrialisation (the shift from industry to services) is more
important. This shift creates labour market risks, increasing demand for welfare
protection.
Key challenges to the Welfare State
Tess Monzón Sociology, year 2
Lecture 1
Introduction
Welfare state: a powerful institution of the 20th century and beyond,
Result of a long historical development (You do not notice the welfare state, but it
has a lot of effect on one's life)
Debate: is the welfare state a “blessing” or a “curse”, because the welfare state
provides services, but it is expensive and whether the welfare state is too big or
too small.
What is a welfare state? – Thoenes (1962): “the welfare state is a society type,
which is characterized by a democratic system of government care, which
guarantees the collective social welfare of its subjects, while the capitalist
production system remains largely unaltered.”
The welfare state makes people more equal, connected to democracy (politics &
outcomes)
Only in democracies? If so, why? (Governments respond to voters → provide
welfare policies)
Is government the only provider of welfare state services (state, market, family,
Non-profits/charities)
The “collective” gets access to the welfare state:
Mostly welfare states in capitalist countries: because in capitalist countries there
are individuals who cannot contribute and need help to prevent inequality
What is a welfare state:
1. Social security: insurances, social assistance, pensions, maternity leave,
etc.
2. Health care: health insurance, funding of hospitals, rehabilitation centres,
etc.
3. Education: funding of schools, student grants, education laws, etc.
4. Social housing: funding affordable homes, property regulations, etc.
(sociale woningbouw)
5. Social welfare: elderly people’s homes, debt assistance, shelters, etc.
Origins of the welfare state comes from social change: factories (People moved
away from safety net to the city) Welfare state
Social change 3 drives:
1. Industrialization: from agriculture to industrialization
2. Individualization: moving away from family, so immediately
individualization
3. Rise of the nation/national state: Bureaucracy and control, quest for
national unity
,Otto von Bismarck (1880): social insurance acts, protection of blue-collar workers
Other countries followed (1900-1940)
After World War II further expansion of
welfare state: more categories of
population covered, more generous
Golden age of the welfare state (1950s –
1970)
More than 100% is covered because
some people have multiple jobs, for
example
Gosta Esping Andersen: institutional
differences between welfare states
(outdated?)
- Who is entitled to what and when
- Generosity: benefit levels
- Immunization from market dependency, “decommodification”: capitalism
changes people to commodities (merchandise)
Three welfare state regime types (Esping Andersen):
- Liberal welfare state: all citizens covered (but means tested, if you meet
certain income/wealth conditions), generosity is low, decommodification is
also low (rely on a job/income from the market) . (For example: UK, Ireland,
USA, Australia)
- Conservative welfare state: mainly (male) breadwinners covered,
generosity: rather high, decommodification: medium (for example:
Germany, Italy, Austria, etc.)
- Social democratic welfare state: all citizens covered, generosity is high,
decommodification is high (examples: Sweden, Norway & Denmark)
Critique on view Esping Andersen: “types are caricatures”, what about: southern
Europe: the family (families take care of each other), Eastern Europe: communist
past, hybrids: the Netherlands. outdated?
Welfare state after the golden age:
The crisis of the welfare state (1975 –present?) Economic crisis of the 1970s and
1980s. The rise of neo-liberalism (Markets should play the biggest role in society)
Welfare state reform: 1980s and early 1990s: Spending cuts, restriction of
access
Late 1990s and 2000s: new organizational structures, new policy types:
activation, socialization, etc.
2010s and 2020s: preparing for ‘aged society’, facing calamities (financial crisis,
COVID-19, etc)
Readings week 1:
De Swaan, A. (1988). The beginnings of social security in Western
Europe and the United States. In A. de Swaan, In care of the state:
Health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the
modern era (pp. 187-217). New York: Oxford University Press.
,The article explains how the development of social security systems—an
essential pillar of the welfare state—was shaped by political conflicts, class
relations, and institutional structures, rather than emerging naturally or uniformly
across countries. A central argument is that the timing and form of welfare state
development depended on the balance of power between key actors: the state,
workers, employers, and especially small property owners. Social security
represents a major step in the collectivization of risk, where the state organizes
protection against unemployment, illness, and old age through compulsory
systems, thereby reducing individuals’ dependence on markets and family
support.
A key finding is that small property owners (the petty bourgeoisie) were
often the strongest opponents of social security. They feared that compulsory
insurance would undermine private savings, increase state control, and reinforce
workers’ dependence on wages instead of property ownership. This resistance
significantly delayed welfare state development, as seen clearly in France and
the United States. In contrast, support for social security grew as societies
industrialized and the proportion of wage-earners increased, making collective
protection more necessary and politically feasible.
The article also highlights the importance of coalitions in building welfare states.
Social security systems typically emerged when alliances formed between
governments, segments of the labor movement, and sometimes employers.
However, these coalitions varied across countries. For example, France
experienced long delays due to fragmented alliances and strong opposition from
small property owners and mutual organizations, resulting in a late and highly
fragmented system. In the United States, the federal structure and weak labor
movement initially hindered development, but the Great Depression created a
sudden “big bang” moment in which social security was rapidly introduced under
Roosevelt. In the Netherlands, by contrast, welfare state development was
gradual and incremental, shaped by corporatist cooperation between employers,
workers, and the state within a pillarized society.
Another important concept is the role of existing institutions, such as mutual
aid societies, company funds, and local welfare arrangements. These often acted
as both precursors and obstacles to state welfare systems. On the one hand, they
provided early forms of social protection; on the other hand, they created vested
interests that resisted national, compulsory systems. This explains why countries
with strong voluntary or private arrangements (like France or the US) often
experienced delays in developing universal welfare systems.
The article further shows that welfare states are not only about redistribution but
also about control and organization of labor relations. Employers
sometimes supported social security because it stabilized the workforce and
shifted long-term risks (such as pensions) away from individual firms to collective
systems. At the same time, welfare institutions could be used to discipline
workers or tie them to employers, especially in earlier company-based schemes.
Finally, the expansion of welfare states, especially after World War II, led to the
growth of what the article calls “transfer capital”—resources redistributed
through the state via taxes and benefits. This contributed to a more equal
distribution of income, although it also shifted resources away from private
, capital. Over time, welfare states became self-reinforcing systems, expanding
through political competition, economic growth, and increasing public
expectations.
Cousins, M. (2005). Welfare state theories. In M. Cousins, European
welfare states: Comparative perspectives (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
The article explains differences in welfare state development by focusing on
state-centred and institutional theories. It starts by comparing countries like
Sweden, the United States, and Great Britain, showing that they responded
differently to unemployment and economic crises. Sweden developed a strong
full-employment model with active public spending, while the US adopted
Keynesian ideas during the Great Depression. In contrast, Great Britain was
slower to expand welfare and remained committed to traditional economic
thinking for longer.
To explain these differences, the authors reject simple theories like functionalism
or working-class power and instead emphasize state structures and policy
traditions. Two key factors matter: existing policy approaches (e.g. public works
vs. unemployment benefits) and the extent to which economic experts are
involved in policymaking. For example, Sweden incorporated economists into
policy decisions, while British policymaking was dominated by the Treasury,
which resisted innovation.
This leads to a broader institutional or polity-centred approach, especially
associated with Skocpol. This perspective argues that welfare states are shaped
not just by social groups, but by the interaction between state institutions,
political parties, and organised groups. Political institutions influence which
groups have power, what policies are possible, and how earlier policies shape
future developments (policy feedback). In the United States, for instance,
fragmented political institutions limited welfare state expansion.
The article also highlights that other factors—such as religion and family
structures—can influence welfare state development. For example, religious
traditions (like Catholicism) can shape policies on family, labour markets, and
welfare provision. Similarly, family-based economic systems (e.g. family farming)
can reduce reliance on state welfare.
The final part of the article discusses current developments in welfare state
theory. These include:
Further integration of different theories (e.g. adding the role of employers)
Increased attention to gender, though still underdeveloped
The rise of welfare state typologies (especially Esping-Andersen)
A return to structural explanations, such as globalisation and
deindustrialisation
A key debate is whether globalisation pressures welfare states, but some scholars
argue that deindustrialisation (the shift from industry to services) is more
important. This shift creates labour market risks, increasing demand for welfare
protection.
