Key challenges to the welfare state – Summary 2026
Content
Week 1......................................................................................................2
Cousins (2005) — Welfare State Theories.................................................2
De Swaan (1988) — The Beginnings of Social Security............................4
Lecture 1: Key Challenger to the Welfare State........................................5
Week 2......................................................................................................8
Webster (1995) — Bell's Post-Industrial Society.......................................8
Bonoli (2007) — Postindustrialisation and Welfare State Adaptation........9
Lecture 2: Post-industrialisation..............................................................11
Week 3....................................................................................................16
Van Gerven (2022) — Studying Social Policy in the Digital Age..............16
Greve (2019) — The Digital Economy and the Future of European Welfare
States......................................................................................................17
Lecture 3: Technology and the Welfare state..........................................19
Meier & Werding (2010) — Ageing and the Welfare State: Securing
Sustainability..........................................................................................23
WRR (2024) — European Ageing in Focus: Dealing with Pension and
Budgetary Risks......................................................................................25
Lecture 4: Ageing....................................................................................27
Week 5....................................................................................................28
Reeskens & Van der Meer (2019)............................................................28
Seibel & Renema (2021).........................................................................30
Lecture 5: Migration, opportunities and challenges for the welfare state
................................................................................................................32
Week 6....................................................................................................38
Ciccia & Sainsbury (2018).......................................................................38
Leitner (2003).........................................................................................40
Lecture 6: Gender...................................................................................41
Week 7....................................................................................................45
Lecture 7: Conclusion..............................................................................45
,Week 1
Cousins (2005) — Welfare State Theories
a. The Six Theories in Simple Terms
The logic of industrialisation thesis says that welfare states appeared
because industrialisation made them necessary. When people moved from
farms to factories, they could no longer rely on their families if they got
sick or lost their job. Governments and employers had to step in to provide
some kind of safety net. According to this theory, all industrialising
countries would eventually develop welfare states, because they all face
the same problems.
The functionalist Marxist approach agrees that welfare states are tied
to capitalism, but sees them as serving a double — and somewhat
contradictory — purpose. On one hand, welfare keeps workers healthy and
productive, which helps the capitalist economy run smoothly. On the other
hand, it keeps the population calm and accepting of the system,
preventing rebellion. The problem is that paying for both functions at the
same time puts the state under constant financial and political pressure.
Modernisation theory is a broader version of the industrialisation thesis.
It argues that the welfare state is not just a response to factories and
urban poverty, but to the overall transformation of society — including
population growth, urbanisation, the spread of democracy, and the
political awakening of the working class. Countries developed welfare
states when a combination of these factors reached a tipping point.
The power resources approach focuses on politics and power rather
than economic necessity. It argues that welfare states are bigger and more
generous where workers are well-organised — in strong trade unions and
left-wing parties. Workers can use their votes and collective organisation
to push for redistribution, even though employers and the wealthy
dominate the economy. In short: the stronger the labour movement, the
better the welfare state.
The social organisation of production thesis looks at how the
economy is structured in a specific country — which industries dominate,
how unionised workers are, how much power the state has relative to
employers — and argues that these factors shape what kind of welfare
state develops. It acknowledges that welfare programmes have always
existed in some form, but their exact shape depends on local economic
and political conditions.
The institutional approach shifts the focus to the rules of the game: the
structure of government, the party system, and existing policies. This
,approach argues that it is not just about who has power, but about how
political institutions work. Countries with fragmented political systems (like
the US with its federal structure) find it harder to build large welfare
states. Once a welfare system is in place, it tends to stay that way
because it creates its own supporters and becomes politically difficult to
dismantle — this is called "path dependency."
b. Are the theories mutually exclusive (i.e. can only one theory be
true while all the other are false) or can they be combined, and if
so: how?
Yes, absolutely. The theories are not mutually exclusive — they do not
contradict each other so much as each emphasises a different piece of the
puzzle. Cousins himself notes that most serious comparative studies
combine insights from several approaches.
For example, industrialisation (theory 1) might explain why a welfare state
becomes necessary at all, while the power resources approach (theory 4)
explains why some countries built more generous systems than others.
The institutional approach (theory 6) can then explain why countries with
similar economies and labour movements still ended up with different
systems — because their political institutions funnelled reform in different
directions. Think of them as zoom levels: some theories explain the big
picture, others explain the details and differences between countries.
c. Each of the six approaches tells us something about the origins
of the welfare state, but do you think that (some of) the
approaches can still help us to understand what is happening to
the welfare state today?
Yes, several of them are still very relevant, though they now help us
understand why welfare states are under pressure rather than why they
grew.
The structural theories (industrialisation, modernisation) have come
back in a new form. Today, deindustrialisation and globalisation are
creating new labour market risks — similar to what industrialisation did in
the 19th century — putting welfare states under strain instead of building
them up.
The power resources approach is still used to study why some
countries are better at protecting their welfare states from cuts than
others. Where workers and left-wing parties remain strong, benefits tend
to hold up better.
The institutional approach is perhaps the most widely used framework
today. It explains why welfare states are surprisingly resilient even when
, governments want to cut them: existing programmes have millions of
beneficiaries who will vote against cuts, and complex institutional
structures make radical reform very difficult.
De Swaan (1988) — The Beginnings of Social Security
a. Which of Cousins' Theories Does De Swaan Use?
De Swaan does not simply apply one of the six theories. His approach is
closest to the power resources approach and the institutional
approach, but with his own twist. Rather than just looking at whether
workers were strong or weak, he looks at the specific political alliances
— between governments, large employers, and workers — that made
social security possible in each country. He also pays close attention to
who blocked reform: in most countries, small business owners and the self-
employed (the "petty bourgeoisie") were the main obstacle, because they
feared that compulsory insurance would threaten their independence and
property.
De Swaan treats the national government as a key actor in its own right
(consistent with the institutional approach), arguing that nothing could
happen without an activist political regime willing to push reform forward.
But a government alone was never enough — it always needed to build a
coalition with at least one of the other major groups: large employers or
organised workers.
b. Which Welfare State Type Developed in Each Country?
Esping-Andersen identified three types of welfare state: the liberal model
(limited benefits, emphasis on markets and self-reliance), the
conservative-corporatist model (benefits tied to your job and
contribution record, often managed by employers and unions together),
and the social democratic model (generous, universal benefits for all
citizens regardless of employment). Here is where each of De Swaan's five
countries fits:
Germany is the classic example of the conservative-corporatist model.
Bismarck's insurance system tied benefits directly to your occupation and
your contributions as a worker. Different groups of workers had different
funds, managed jointly by employers and workers. The goal was not
equality but stability — keeping workers loyal to the state while preserving
the existing social hierarchy.
Great Britain is more mixed, but leans toward a universalist/social
democratic direction, especially in its early pension legislation. The 1908
pension was paid from general taxes to all elderly poor citizens, with no
Content
Week 1......................................................................................................2
Cousins (2005) — Welfare State Theories.................................................2
De Swaan (1988) — The Beginnings of Social Security............................4
Lecture 1: Key Challenger to the Welfare State........................................5
Week 2......................................................................................................8
Webster (1995) — Bell's Post-Industrial Society.......................................8
Bonoli (2007) — Postindustrialisation and Welfare State Adaptation........9
Lecture 2: Post-industrialisation..............................................................11
Week 3....................................................................................................16
Van Gerven (2022) — Studying Social Policy in the Digital Age..............16
Greve (2019) — The Digital Economy and the Future of European Welfare
States......................................................................................................17
Lecture 3: Technology and the Welfare state..........................................19
Meier & Werding (2010) — Ageing and the Welfare State: Securing
Sustainability..........................................................................................23
WRR (2024) — European Ageing in Focus: Dealing with Pension and
Budgetary Risks......................................................................................25
Lecture 4: Ageing....................................................................................27
Week 5....................................................................................................28
Reeskens & Van der Meer (2019)............................................................28
Seibel & Renema (2021).........................................................................30
Lecture 5: Migration, opportunities and challenges for the welfare state
................................................................................................................32
Week 6....................................................................................................38
Ciccia & Sainsbury (2018).......................................................................38
Leitner (2003).........................................................................................40
Lecture 6: Gender...................................................................................41
Week 7....................................................................................................45
Lecture 7: Conclusion..............................................................................45
,Week 1
Cousins (2005) — Welfare State Theories
a. The Six Theories in Simple Terms
The logic of industrialisation thesis says that welfare states appeared
because industrialisation made them necessary. When people moved from
farms to factories, they could no longer rely on their families if they got
sick or lost their job. Governments and employers had to step in to provide
some kind of safety net. According to this theory, all industrialising
countries would eventually develop welfare states, because they all face
the same problems.
The functionalist Marxist approach agrees that welfare states are tied
to capitalism, but sees them as serving a double — and somewhat
contradictory — purpose. On one hand, welfare keeps workers healthy and
productive, which helps the capitalist economy run smoothly. On the other
hand, it keeps the population calm and accepting of the system,
preventing rebellion. The problem is that paying for both functions at the
same time puts the state under constant financial and political pressure.
Modernisation theory is a broader version of the industrialisation thesis.
It argues that the welfare state is not just a response to factories and
urban poverty, but to the overall transformation of society — including
population growth, urbanisation, the spread of democracy, and the
political awakening of the working class. Countries developed welfare
states when a combination of these factors reached a tipping point.
The power resources approach focuses on politics and power rather
than economic necessity. It argues that welfare states are bigger and more
generous where workers are well-organised — in strong trade unions and
left-wing parties. Workers can use their votes and collective organisation
to push for redistribution, even though employers and the wealthy
dominate the economy. In short: the stronger the labour movement, the
better the welfare state.
The social organisation of production thesis looks at how the
economy is structured in a specific country — which industries dominate,
how unionised workers are, how much power the state has relative to
employers — and argues that these factors shape what kind of welfare
state develops. It acknowledges that welfare programmes have always
existed in some form, but their exact shape depends on local economic
and political conditions.
The institutional approach shifts the focus to the rules of the game: the
structure of government, the party system, and existing policies. This
,approach argues that it is not just about who has power, but about how
political institutions work. Countries with fragmented political systems (like
the US with its federal structure) find it harder to build large welfare
states. Once a welfare system is in place, it tends to stay that way
because it creates its own supporters and becomes politically difficult to
dismantle — this is called "path dependency."
b. Are the theories mutually exclusive (i.e. can only one theory be
true while all the other are false) or can they be combined, and if
so: how?
Yes, absolutely. The theories are not mutually exclusive — they do not
contradict each other so much as each emphasises a different piece of the
puzzle. Cousins himself notes that most serious comparative studies
combine insights from several approaches.
For example, industrialisation (theory 1) might explain why a welfare state
becomes necessary at all, while the power resources approach (theory 4)
explains why some countries built more generous systems than others.
The institutional approach (theory 6) can then explain why countries with
similar economies and labour movements still ended up with different
systems — because their political institutions funnelled reform in different
directions. Think of them as zoom levels: some theories explain the big
picture, others explain the details and differences between countries.
c. Each of the six approaches tells us something about the origins
of the welfare state, but do you think that (some of) the
approaches can still help us to understand what is happening to
the welfare state today?
Yes, several of them are still very relevant, though they now help us
understand why welfare states are under pressure rather than why they
grew.
The structural theories (industrialisation, modernisation) have come
back in a new form. Today, deindustrialisation and globalisation are
creating new labour market risks — similar to what industrialisation did in
the 19th century — putting welfare states under strain instead of building
them up.
The power resources approach is still used to study why some
countries are better at protecting their welfare states from cuts than
others. Where workers and left-wing parties remain strong, benefits tend
to hold up better.
The institutional approach is perhaps the most widely used framework
today. It explains why welfare states are surprisingly resilient even when
, governments want to cut them: existing programmes have millions of
beneficiaries who will vote against cuts, and complex institutional
structures make radical reform very difficult.
De Swaan (1988) — The Beginnings of Social Security
a. Which of Cousins' Theories Does De Swaan Use?
De Swaan does not simply apply one of the six theories. His approach is
closest to the power resources approach and the institutional
approach, but with his own twist. Rather than just looking at whether
workers were strong or weak, he looks at the specific political alliances
— between governments, large employers, and workers — that made
social security possible in each country. He also pays close attention to
who blocked reform: in most countries, small business owners and the self-
employed (the "petty bourgeoisie") were the main obstacle, because they
feared that compulsory insurance would threaten their independence and
property.
De Swaan treats the national government as a key actor in its own right
(consistent with the institutional approach), arguing that nothing could
happen without an activist political regime willing to push reform forward.
But a government alone was never enough — it always needed to build a
coalition with at least one of the other major groups: large employers or
organised workers.
b. Which Welfare State Type Developed in Each Country?
Esping-Andersen identified three types of welfare state: the liberal model
(limited benefits, emphasis on markets and self-reliance), the
conservative-corporatist model (benefits tied to your job and
contribution record, often managed by employers and unions together),
and the social democratic model (generous, universal benefits for all
citizens regardless of employment). Here is where each of De Swaan's five
countries fits:
Germany is the classic example of the conservative-corporatist model.
Bismarck's insurance system tied benefits directly to your occupation and
your contributions as a worker. Different groups of workers had different
funds, managed jointly by employers and workers. The goal was not
equality but stability — keeping workers loyal to the state while preserving
the existing social hierarchy.
Great Britain is more mixed, but leans toward a universalist/social
democratic direction, especially in its early pension legislation. The 1908
pension was paid from general taxes to all elderly poor citizens, with no
