Ireland: Boston or Berlin?

David Jacobson

DCU

Mary Harney, 2000

“[T]he American way…

economic model …heavily based on enterprise and incentive, on individual effort and with limited government intervention.

[T]he European way…

strong concern for social harmony and social inclusion, with governments being prepared to intervene strongly through the tax and regulatory systems to achieve their desired outcomes.”

Mary Harney, 2000

“We in Ireland have tended to steer a course between the two but I think it is fair to say that we have sailed closer to the American shore than the European one.”

The Framework

Esping-Andersen (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism + many other writings

Welfare regimes emerge from historical evolution of national institutions, influenced by international factors

Key concepts: de-commodification of labour, familialism, welfare pillars, welfare regimes

De-commodification of

Labour

The greater the ease with which people can leave the labour force without suffering serious reduction in income, the greater the de-commodification of labour

Indicators: unemployment benefits, social income supports, rent supplements, social housing, etc.

Familialism

The greater the participation rate of women in the labour force, the less familialistic the society

Commodification of female labour is associated with de-familialised societies

Welfare pillars, welfare

regimes

Three welfare pillars:

Market

State

Family

Three welfare regimes:

Liberal – Example, USA

Social Democratic – Example, Sweden

Conservative (Corporatist) – Example, Germany

Welfare Regimes

Conservative

Social

Democratic Liberal Unclassified

Finland Austria United Kingdom Cyprus

France Belgium Ireland Greece

Germany Netherlands Luxembourg

Italy Denmark Malta

Sweden Portugal

Spain

Table 1: Countries classified according to Esping-Andersen (1990, Table 2.2)

Ireland in Context

In 22 (24) studies using quantitative

methods to categorise countries by

welfare regime, Table 2 shows findings for

Ireland (UK):

Table 2: Categorisation of Ireland and UK (Quant.)

Cons./Corp. Soc. Dem. Liberal

SE/M (Rud.) Other

Ireland (6) 27% (0) 0% (13) 59% (1*) 5% (2) 9%

UK (1) 4% (1) 4% (19) 79% (0) 0% (3) 13%

*Obinger and Wagschal, 2001

Table 3: Country Clusters, 1960-1995(Obinger and Wagschal, 2001)

Continental Scandinavian Anglo-Saxon Peripheral

Austria Denmark Canada Spain

Germany Sweden UK Portugal

France Norway USA Greece

Belgium Finland Australia Italy

Netherlands Ireland

Ireland in Context

In the vast majority of publications using

qualitative methods Ireland is again seen

as conforming to the characteristics of the

Liberal Welfare Regime:

Author(s) Year Welfare Regime NotesLib. Cons/Corp Soc. Dem. SE/M

McLaughlin 1993 X

Boucher and Collins 2003 X

McCashin 2004 X <X

Millar and Adshead 2004 X

NESC (O’Donnell) 2005 X*>Anglo-Sax., Dev., Hybrid.

Cousins 2005 X X

Payne and McCashin 2005 X

Lynch 2006 X

Murphy and Millar 2007 X

Kirby 2008 X

Millar 2008 X

Kirby and Carmody 2009 X

Kirby and Murphy 2011 X* CS not DS

Regan 2012 X X Hybrid

Begg 2014 X

Table 4: Categorisation of Ireland (Qual.)

New Research

“Welfare regime, welfare pillar and

southern Europe”

Journal of European Social Policy

(2014)

Minas, Jacobson, Antoniou and McMullan

Dimension Variables

Family People per Household

Age Leaving Home

State vs MarketExpenditure on Social Protection

as % of GDP

ReligionAttendance at Religious Service

at least Once a Week

Clientelism/CorruptionPerception of Corruption as Part

of Business Culture

Perception of Corruption as

Major Problem

Table 5: Dimensions, Variables

Table 5: Sources Dimension Variables Source Year

Family People per Household Eurostat 2011

Age Leaving Home (Male) Eurostat 2007

Age Leaving Home (Female) Eurostat 2007

State vs

Market

Expenditure on Social Protection as % of GDP (ESP/GDP) Eurostat 2010General Government Contributions to Receipts of Social Protection Schemes as % of GDP (GGC/GDP) Eurostat 2010

ReligionAttendance at Religious Service at least Once a Week ESS 2010

ClientelismPerception of Corruption as Part of Business Culture Eurobar. 2011Perception of Corruption as Major Problem Eurobar. 2011

Results

HCA Dendogram: where is Ireland?

Where is the UK?

What are the European clusters?

What are the main welfare regimes?

Fig. 1: HCA Dendogram

Table 6: “Distance” from Cluster Medoid

Cluster

Conservative SE/M Soc. Dem.

Country Distance Country Distance Country Distance

BE medoid PT medoid SE medoid

AT 0.76 CY 1.45 FI 0.85

UK 0.93 IT 1.45 DK 2.27

FR 1.10 ES 1.54

DE 1.28 EL 1.65

NL 1.85 Ireland 1.98

LU 2.39 MT 2.41

Results: Summary 1

Using primarily post-Celtic tiger data, Ireland falls firmly into the SE/M/P cluster

The UK falls firmly into the Conservative/Corporatist cluster

In terms of the clusters themselves, the SE/M cluster is more different statistically from the Liberal and Social Democratic clusters than they are from one another

Results: Summary 2

Esping-Andersen set the scene =>

with

welfare pillars the key factors:

State => Soc Dem

Market => Liberal

Family/Market/State => Cons/Corp

Cons/Corp Soc Dem Liberal

Results: Summary 2

New story?

with

welfare pillars the key factors:

State => Soc Dem

Family => SE/M/P

Family/Market/State => Cons/Corp

Cons/Corp Soc Dem SE/M/P

Fig. 2: New Typology of WSs

Dominant Pillar Welfare Regime Family State Market

Family SE/M or Peripheral Less More More

State Social Democratic More Less More

Market Liberal More More Less

Conservative in comparison,

with respect to: