|
|
ESRC-funded Seminar Series, 2003–2004 Seminar 1 Researching the European Social Model from a Comparative Perspective
Provisional Abstracts
Georg VOBRUBA
The central hypothesis of the paper is that the European welfare state is a quintessential strength and a basic requirement for the further successful development of Europe in the wake of intensifying globalisation effects. Yet, these effects pose threats to its survival, placing the European social model in something of a dilemma. Nonetheless, whilst recognising the challenge to EU welfare states of the rapidly increased capital mobility of labour, it is argued that social policy is a necessary legitimising factor for globalisation to compensate losers in the process. Although it is being increasingly challenged, the continuing impact of ‘path dependencies’ in welfare policy should not be underestimated. These contentions form the parameters for an investigation of conceptual and methodological problems in unravelling the effects of globalisation on the European social model. The paper suggests ways of approaching the measurement of globalisation in terms of time, spatial and sectoral effects as a means of assessing which social models are economically, socially and politically feasible in the long-run. Themes to be addressed include approaches to the conceptualisation and measurement of globalisation, the economic and social impacts of social policy, and conceptual and methodological concerns in delimiting transformation processes. The discussion also covers conceptual problems in defining the social model in comparative perspective. Georg VOBRUBA is Professor of Sociology at the University of Leipzig and has written extensively on conceptual analysis of such phenomena as globalisation and social exclusion. His books include Arbeiten und Essen (Passagen Verlag, 1989), Gemeinde ohne Moral (Passagen Verlag, 1994), Autonomiegewinne (Passagen Verlag, 1997) and Integration und Erweiterung: Europa im Globalisierungsdilemma (Passagen Verlag, 2001). Contact address:
Nick MANNING
This paper examines welfare change in Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, since 1990. It draws upon the author’s extensive research in the region since 1991, in four major funded projects, including fieldwork in Estonia, Hungary and Russia, and a UNICEF pan-European welfare policy survey. The paper starts with one of the classic questions that the collapse of state socialism has posed for the understanding of macro-change in European societies: How have the societies of Central and Eastern Europe diverged in their development since 1990, and why? In particular, has there been diversity from a common origin, or path dependency from diverse origins? What are the models that are emerging in Eastern Europe? The difficulty with such general comparisons is whether they hold right across a society, or even across its welfare system. What are we comparing? To what extent does the particular welfare area that we examine affect the argument? A further issue in tackling these questions is that of the methods that we can use. Examples are drawn from case studies, panel surveys, omnibus surveys, and the UNICEF monitoring project. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, but together they can offer a multi-method basis for identifying the main contours of welfare change, and the social issues with which they have to grapple. This pattern of change is examined by looking at two welfare areas, income support and healthcare, as they have developed in different countries. An alternative way of posing this question is to think about the extent to which changes are consistent across social groups, and this is examined by looking at the interests of women and children as they have been affected by changing policies. A fundamental question here is whether we are witnessing the effects of Europeanisation or globalisation. Market imperatives and the way they are filtered through institutional structures and networks, combined with the advice of international agencies, such as the OECD, have resulted in a variety of studies and a complex debate which is, to a certain extent, shaped by different concepts, methods, and foci. The paper concludes with a discussion of recent debates about the forces for European change, which have been developed in the EU COST A15 project: Does the size of a country matter? How long do historical continuities cast a shadow over policy innovation? To what extent can variations in policy actor networks help us to understand and predict the direction of travel? Nick MANNING is Professor of Social Policy and Sociology in the School of Sociology and Social Policy of the University of Nottingham. His research interests in this area are in social change and social policy in Russia and East/Central Europe, using original data gathered through surveys and interviews. His main publications in this area include: Work and Welfare in the New Russia (with O. Shkaratan and N. Tikhonova, Ashgate, 2000); After the Fall: Central and Eastern Europe since the Collapse of Communism (ed. with R. Bradshaw and S. Thompstone, Olearius Press, 2003), Global Social Policy, vol.3, no.2, special issue on globalisation and Europeanisation (ed. with B. Palier, 2003), Poverty and Social Exclusion in the New Russia (with N. Tikhonova, Ashgate, 2003). Contact address:
Milena BUECHS
This paper examines the impact of the European Employment Strategy (EES) on policy making and labour market policies in Germany and the UK. The EES is presented as an example of the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC), the term used to describe a range of informal policy methods that have recently been introduced in various social policy areas in the EU, based on non-binding instruments, including guidelines, recommendations, monitoring and peer reviews. Germany and the UK have been selected as case study countries to compare and contrast the role of the EES in the development of labour market policies, because of the differences between them in institutional background and approaches to employment policy. The paper focuses on the response to the EES by each country and addresses issues of policy learning and policy transfer. The conceptual approach adopted in the paper is to confront two models of analysis. The first model attempts to theorise the functioning of the OMC with reference to concepts such as policy learning, diffusion, shaming, networks and deliberation, as proposed by David and Louise Trubek. The second, the institutionalist approach, focuses on path dependency and policy legacies to explain the obstacles to convergence and to analyse country-specific ways of implementing international policies. The aim of the paper is to specify the levels at which convergence might be possible and the extent to which the OMC may impact on it, while also identifying the limits of convergence through the OMC. The paper addresses the methodological problems that arise in an investigation of policy learning and convergence and in attempting to track the influence of the OMC on social policies in EU member states. Milena BUECHS is a doctoral student at the Institute for Social Science of the Humboldt University of Berlin and currently Marie Curie Fellow at the Centre for Comparative Research in Social Welfare of the University of Stirling, UK. Her research interests are in European and EU social policy, using a comparative case study approach. Contact address:
Denis BOUGET
After the Second World War, the view that the people of every nation would be entitled to experience rising standards of living pervaded all corners of the globe. Convergence was seen as a positive way of achieving a Golden Age and a peaceful and affluent utopia, through modernisation and technical progress. Within this general belief, the development of national social welfare systems in Europe in the postwar period appears to be the outcome of autonomous national processes. The construction of Europe, which imposed common rules in many areas, was nonetheless consistent with the national development of social welfare systems within each national culture. The idea of a common system of social protection has always been linked to European political and economic construction, which was expected to create a more cohesive society. Reference is made constantly to convergence as a catching-up process in the comparative evaluation of national social policies, but the implementation of an ambitious European system of social protection and the creation of harmonised national welfare systems have always proved to be impossible. The paper focuses on two specific topics. Firstly, it examines attempts to quantify convergence among EU and OECD countries at the macroeconomic level, using social indicators to assess the convergence or divergence of social expenditure. The evidence of convergence is shown to be ambiguous due to a number of methodological problems. Secondly, two main interpretations of convergence are examined: economic forces and legal frameworks. The paper shows that the analysis of national trajectories of social expenditure and the link with economic development can enrich the analysis of convergence or divergence in social protection. Even if the maturation or reform of national social policies explain the origins of increases in social expenditure, macroeconomic pressures, or constraints (globalisation, Single Market), on public expenditure can fuel certain type of convergence. In all the developed countries, social welfare systems are based on national legal frameworks. A goal of social Europe is not only to work towards European solidarity but also to build common social rights throughout Europe. Convergence of national social welfare systems can, therefore, be interpreted as a component in a general process of convergence in law within the developed countries, especially within Europe. However, common explanations of convergence in social welfare systems often neglect elements of divergence. They, therefore, conceal the complexity of the process and very often underestimate the full extent of divergence. Denis BOUGET is Director of the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme Ange Guépin in Nantes. His research interests are in the reform of social protection systems in Europe. He is a member of the European Commission funded COST A 15 programme on this topic, and is also leading a research programme on the extension of social protection to non-European countries. His main publications in this area include an edited volume on Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Nordic Europe and France (with B. Palier, MIRE-DREES, 2000). Contact address:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
