welfare state change: concepts and empirical findings · prepared for presentation at tagung des ak...

Welfare State Change:

Concepts and Empirical Findings Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Prepared for presentation at Tagung des AK Vergleichende Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung in der DVPW

April 28, 2017

I thank Constantin Reinprecht for his research assistance

Argument

§  To analyse change, we need to take a long-term perspective and have a clearly defined reference point.

§  Based on various indicators, and with very few exceptions, large-scale welfare state retrenchment and cutbacks did not occur in the period of ‘permanent austerity’ for the APW/AW.

§  We can identify a limited shift towards a social investment state, as a consequence of family policy expansions. The overall picture that emerges for ALMP is one of stagnation and cutbacks.

Concepts of Change

§  Kinds of change: §  Path dependence, drift, layering, exhaustion (Mahoney/Thelen

2010) §  retrenchment/austerity (Pierson 1994/2001), de-/re-

commodification (Offe 1984), defamilialisation (Lister 1994), recalibration (Pierson 2001), explicit and implicit disentitlement (Standing 1995), dualization of social protection (Leibfried/Tennstedt 1985; Seeleib-Kaiser et al. 2012)

§  Degrees of change (Peter Hall 1993)

Concepts of the State §  Welfare State:

“A term that emerged in the 1940s to describe situations where the state has a major responsibility for welfare provision via social security systems.” (Oxford Dictionary of Sociology)

§  Enabling State: Highlights the role of the state in providing incentives for private providers and marketization (Gilbert/Gilbert 1989)

§  Social Investment/Activating State: Social policy as future-oriented, preventative and activating (Widmaier 1970: “Aspects of Active Social Policy: The Political Economy of Social Investment”).

§  From Ford to Lego? (Jensen/Saint-Martin 2002)

§  From the welfare state to the social investment state? (Ferrera 2009)

Measuring Policy Change

§  Reference point 1980 §  welfare state growth had reached its limits in the early 1980s (Flora

1986) §  the ideal-typical classification of welfare state regimes introduced by

Esping-Andersen (1990; 1999) relies on data from 1980, a point in time at which according to Danforth’s (2014) longitudinal analysis -- including a broader array of institutional and outcome variables -- welfare regimes have become salient.

§  Measures §  Generosity (taking into account years of contribution/qualifying

periods, replacement rates, benefit duration, waiting days), Scruggs et al. 2014.

§  Spending (OECD spending data) §  Coverage (percentage of workforce covered)

Classification of Countries

Liberal Conservative

Australia Japan

United States France

New Zealand Germany

Canada Finland

Ireland Switzerland

United Kingdom Austria

Belgium

Social Democratic Mediterranean

Netherlands Italy

Denmark Portugal

Norway Spain

Sweden Greece

Welfare State Generosity

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

501971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

SocDemavg.

Conserva9veavg.Mediterraneanavg.Liberalavg.

Source: CWED2 Dataset: Scruggs, Lyle, Detlef Jahn and Kati Kuitto. 2014.

Social Expenditure (% of GDP) (Public and Mandatory Private)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

SocDemavg.

Conserva9veavg.

Mediterraneanavg.

Liberalavg.

Source: OECD SOCX

Pension Generosity

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

SocDemavg.

Conserva9veavg.

Mediterraneanavg.

Liberalavg.

Pension Expenditure (% of GDP)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

SocDemavg.


Occupational Pension Coverage

Mid-1990s

Early to mid-2000s 2010s

Percentage of Pensioners’

Households in Receipt OP

OP Coverage among

Older EmployeesOECD Coverage Rate among Working Age

Population 15-64 years

Coverage Rate among Older Employees

(SHARE)

Countries with low occupational pension coverage

Austria 2.9 8.6 7.4 6.9

Italy 0.8 14.2 3.3 11.4

Spain 1.0 6.4 3.3 4.9

Countries with medium occupational pension coverage

Belgium 2.4 16.1 45.2 27.4

Germany 17.5 29.8 56.4 36.5

United Kingdom 62.0 61.7 30.0 58.1

Countries with high occupational pension coverage

Netherlands 56.1 91.2 88.0 86.0

Sweden 57.5 72.4 90.0 92.3

Source: Pavolini/Seeleib-Kaiser forthcoming

Prospective Net Replacement Rate for an Average Worker (base year 2012)

RR Public Pensions RR Voluntary and Mandatory Private

Pensions

Total RR

Austria 90.2 0.0 90.2

Belgium 50.1 18.5 68.6

Germany 55.3 21.1 76.4

Italy 78.2 0.0 78.2

Netherlands 33.0 68.2 101.1

Spain 80.1 0.0 80.1

Sweden 33.7 21.5 55.3

United Kingdom 38.0 40.2 78.1

Source: OECD 2013

Unemployment Generosity

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

SocDemavg.


Unemployment Generosity: Mediterranean Regime

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Greece

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Mediterraneanavg.

Development of Unemployment Insurance

Source: Ferragina/Seeleib-Kaiser/Tomlinson 2013

Note: Finland 2 represents the position of Finland in the 1980s, Finland 3 in the 1990s and Finland 4 in the 2000s and so forth for the other countries. Countries abbreviations: see table 1.

Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4

Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2Bel2


Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4

Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3

Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4

Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2

Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3 Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4

Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3 Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4

Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2Fra2


Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4

Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2Ger2


Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4

Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2

Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4

Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3

Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4

Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2Jap2


Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4

NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2 NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3

NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4

Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4

Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3

Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4

Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4

Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3

Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4

Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4

UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2 UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3

UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2

US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3

US4US4US4US4US4US4US4US4US4

-2-1

01

2dim2

-2 -1 0 1 2dim1

RADICALS

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC

LIBERALS

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC

High replacement medium long duration

Medium-high replacement rates, medium long duration

Low replacement rate short qualifying period

Low Replacement rate. short duration, long qualifying period

Percentage of Unemployed Receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits D/USA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80% 19

71

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

Germany

United States (Regular UI)

United States (All UI including Extra Benefits)

Source: Seeleib-Kaiser et al. 2012; Bundesagentur für Arbeit (http://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Navigation/Statistik/Statistik-nach-Themen/Zeitreihen/Zeitreihen-Nav.html)

ALMP Expenditure (% of GDP)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

SocDemavg.


ALMP Expenditure (% of GDP)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Denmark

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

SocDemavg.

Family Policy (R)evolution (1980-2008)?

Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2Aus2

Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3Aus3

Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4Aus4


Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel3Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4Bel4

Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2Can2

Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3Can3

Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4Can4

Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den2Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3Den3

Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4Den4

Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2Fin2

Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin3Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4Fin4


Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra3Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4Fra4


Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger3Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4Ger4 Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2Ire2

Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3Ire3

Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4Ire4

Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita2Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3Ita3

Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4Ita4



Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4Jap4

NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ2NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3NZ3

NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4NZ4Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2Net2

Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net3Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4Net4

Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2Nor2

Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3Nor3

Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4Nor4

Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2Ost2

Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3Ost3

Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4Ost4

Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2Swe2

Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3Swe3

Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4Swe4

Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2Swi2

Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi3Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4Swi4

UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2UK2

UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3UK3

UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4UK4

US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US2US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US3US4US4US4US4US4US4US4US4US4

-2-1

01

2dim2

-2 -1 0 1 2dim1

CHRISTIANDEMOCRATIC

RADICALS&LIBERALS

SOCIALDEMOCRATIC Comprehensivechildcare,longduraBonofleaveandhighreplacementrates

Mediumchildcareservices,medium-longduraBonofleaveandmediumreplacementrates,buthighchildallowance

Noncomprehensive/residualfamilypolicyalongalldimensions

Low-mediumcomprehensivechildcareservicesandshort-mediumduraBonofleave

Source: Ferragina/Seeleib-Kaiser/Tomlinson 2013

Outcome Perspective: Beyond the APW/AW

§  Deliberately chose old versus new risks distinction, as it builds on the core aim of welfare states to insure against social risks

§  The extent of insurance against old social risks might be measured by the incidence of poverty among pensioners, unemployed and prime-aged (male) workers, as well as replacement rates for pensioners and the overall unemployment rate.

§  Indicators for measuring outcomes of policies addressing new social risks might be: child and youth poverty rates, percentage of youth in education and female labor force participation.

Table1:Welfareoutcomes:PovertylevelsandinequalityacrosstheEU14(pre-2004EUmembersin2012)

Povertylevel(allages)* GiniCoefGicient Difference

inchange

Country Before After Change Before After Change (Gini%-

Poverty%)Austria 44.2 14.4 -67.4 47.1 27.6 -41.4 26.0Belgium 42.3 15.0 -64.5 47.7 26.6 -44.2 20.3Denmark 41.2 13.1 -68.2 53.4 28.1 -47.4 20.8Finland 41.3 13.2 -68.0 46.4 25.9 -44.2 23.9France 43.7 14.1 -67.7 49.8 30.5 -38.8 29.0Germany 43.3 16.1 -62.8 54.4 28.3 -48.0 14.8Greece 49.8 23.1 -53.6 56.9 34.3 -39.7 13.9Ireland 50.4 15.7 -68.8 53.5 29.9 -44.1 24.7Italy 44.5 19.4 -56.4 47.5 31.9 -32.8 23.6Netherlands 36.7 10.1 -72.5 46.1 25.4 -44.9 27.6

Portugal 45.4 17.9 -60.6 55.9 34.5 -38.3 22.3Spain 46.2 22.2 -51.9 52.8 35.0 -33.7 18.2Sweden 41.8 14.1 -66.3 52.4 24.8 -52.7 13.6UnitedKingdom

45.4 16.2 -64.3 57.3 32.8 -42.8 21.6

Source:GinicoefSicientofequivaliseddisposableincome(source:SILC)[ilc_di12];GinicoefSicientofequivaliseddisposableincomebeforesocialtransfers(pensionsincludedinsocialtransfers)[ilc_di12b]*Grossandnethouseholdincome<60%medianincome

Table2:Detailedwelfarestateoutcomeindicators:Povertylevelsbysocialgroupaftersocialtransfers(andchangecomparedtobeforetransferslevels)

NewRisks OldRisks

Children(<16) Youth(16-24) MaleWorker1 Old(75+) UE

Country Level Change Level Change Level Change Level2 Level2

Austria 18.3 (-56.8%) 17.3 (-41.9%) 12.5 (-47.2%) 16.6 44.9

Belgium 16.6 (-49.5%) 16.7 (-49.2%) 12.5 (-50.6%) 18.4 34.5

Denmark 10.0 (-59.0%) 39.4 (-27.3%) 12.1 (-49.2%) 22.4 26.9

Finland 11.2 (-64.1%) 24.9 (-39.7%) 10.7 (-44.8%) 27.6 45.3

France 18.8 (-46.3%) 23.0 (-41.2%) 12.0 (-47.8%) 11.4 36.2

Germany 14.9 (-53.0%) 20.7 (-36.7%) 13.7 (-60.9%) 12.6 69.3

Greece 26.5 (-15.9%) 33.1 (-26.4%) 21.9 (-60.8%) 20.0 45.8

Ireland 16.7 (-63.4%) 23.3 (-60.2%) 13.9 (-36.4%) 13.0 34.1

Italy 25.9 (-25.8%) 25.4 (-31.4%) 17.5 (-61.2%) 17.9 44.7

Netherlands 13.6 (-43.8%) 19.8 (-45.0%) 8.5 (-47%) 5.9 34.0

Portugal 21.1 (-34.7%) 22.2 (-42.2%) 15.3 (-51.2%) 21.5 38.5

Spain 28.9 (-22.7%) 28.4 (-35.7%) 22.0 (-63%) 15.9 46.4

Sweden 13.9 (-57.9%) 27.4 (-34.3%) 11.6 (-46%) 25.3 42.3

UnitedKingdom

18.1 (-60.1%) 24.1 (-40.9%) 13.0 (-49.4%) 18.9 52.2

Data: At-risk-of poverty rate bymost frequent activity status (source: SILC) [tessi124]&At-risk-of poverty rate by detailed age group (source: SILC) [tessi120],http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_li02&lang=en,extracted2014,June23rd.125-54yearsold.2Nobefore-transfersrisk-of-povertylevelsavailable,hencenoinformationonchange.

Table3:Proxyindicatorsforwelfarestateoutputtargetingnewandoldrisks.OldRisks NewRisk

CountryReplacementRate-

OldAge(%)1Unemploymentrate

(%)2YouthinEducation

(%,15-24)3FemaleEmployment

(%,16-64)2

Austria 58 4.3 55.5 67.3

Belgium 47 7.6 69.4 56.8

Denmark 42 7.5 71.6 70.0

Finland 49 7.7 69.0 68.2

France 65 9.8 59.3 59.9

Germany 47 5.5 65.9 68.0

Greece 52 24.5 64.4 41.9

Ireland Na 14.7 65.0 55.1

Italy 58 10.7 56.0 47.1

Netherlands 47 5.3 72.7 70.4

Portugal 58 15.8 62.1 58.7

Spain 58 24.8 64.9 51.2

Sweden 56 8.0 63.5 71.8

UnitedKingdom 50 7.9 51.9 65.1

Sources:1Aggregate replacement ratio (source: SILC) [ilc_pnp3]: “ratio of themedian individual gross pensions of 65-74 age category relative tomedian individual grossearningsof50-59agecategory,excludingothersocialbeneSits.”(Eurostat,2014).

2Employmentratesbysex,ageandnationality(%)[lfsa_ergan]basedonEU-LabourForceSurveys(EU-LFS).3Participation rates in education by age and sex [educ_thpar] (based on the joint UIS (UNESCO Institute of Statistics)/OECD/Eurostat (UOE) questionnaires oneducationstatistics).

Cluster Analysis: Outcomes

Conservative Social democratic LiberalMediterranean

Countries

050

100

Belgium

Irelan

dFran

ceAus

tria

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Netherl

ands

German

y

United

Kingdo

mGree

ceSpa

inIta

ly

Portug

al

Source: Ferragina/Seeleib-Kaiser/Spreckelsen 2015

Summary of Policy Change in Germany 1980 1990 2000 2010

Outcome Variables

Poverty Rate (40 % of median)

2.6 3 4 4.6

Poverty Rate (60 % of median)

10.6 11.8 12.7 16.4

Inequality (Gini) 0.244 0.258 0.266 0.286

Female Employment Rate

49.6 52.2 58.1 66.1

Unemployment Rate

3.8 7.2 10.7 8.6

Long-term Unemployment Rate

39.3 46.3 51.5 45.4

Percent of Unemployed Receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefit

51 42 44 32

Low-wage Employment (in percent of total)

N/A 13.9 15.9 20.5


Institutional Variables

Pensions

Pension Replacement Rate / single

73 76 73 61

Pension Prospective Net Replacement Rate (base year 2010) 56

Unemployment Compensation

Unemployment Insurance / Maximum Duration in Months

12 32 32 24

Unemployment Compensation Net Replacement Rate / Initial Period (single/average wage)

60 59

Unemployment Compensation Net Replacement Rate / Long-term Unemployed (single/average wage)

54 17

Source: Seeleib-Kaiser 2016


Family Policy

Parental Leave / Duration in Months

0 36 36 36

Parental Leave Benefit (per month)

0

€ 307

€ 307

65% of net wage max €1800

Childcare (no of places as a percentage of age group 0<3/3-6 yrs)

1.6/69.3 1.8/69.0 7.0/89.5 27.6/93.4

Notes: For Gini and poverty rates data is for 1981, 1989, 2000 and 2010; low-wage employment is for the years 1996, 2000 and 2010; long-term unemployment 1980=1983; childcare 1980=1985; 1998=2000; 2010=2012. Sources: Poverty and Inequality: LIS 2013; Unemployment rate: BMAS (2011); Employment/ long-term unemployment Statistics -- OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics (available at http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=lfs-data-en&doi=data-00310-en#); Pension Replacement Rate -- Scruggs et al. 2014; Pension Prospective Replacement Rate -- OECD 2012; Recipiency rate: own calculations based on annual average number of unemployed and unemployment insurance benefit recipients from BMAS 2012; Unemployment Insurance Replacement Rates -- OECD Tax-Benefit Models (http://www.oecd.org/els/benefits-and-wages-statistics.htm); childcare -- Bleses/Seeleib-Kaiser 2004; Statistisches Bundesamt 2012.

Conclusion §  Measuring change over long time periods, using the same

indicators §  Upwards convergence – catch-up of Mediterranean welfare states

with regards to spending and generosity §  Growth to limits – not permanent austerity? (data on unemployment

does not sufficiently capture increased conditionality) §  ‘Social investment’ with regard to family policy, but stagnation or

even reduction of ALMP, with DK being the great exception §  At the outcome level welfare state regime typology still applies –

path dependence? §  Dualization of unemployment and pension schemes in some

countries, particularly Germany §  Beyond the APW/AW: social protection indicators for atypical

workers, ethnic minorities and immigrants needed

welfare state change: concepts and empirical findings · prepared for presentation at tagung des ak...

Documents