Welfare state

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welfare state refers to a state that takes far-reaching measures to increase the social, material and cultural well-being of its citizens.

In international parlance and in science, the welfare state is used as a generic term for all more or less extensive models. In the German-speaking world, the terms welfare state and welfare state are sometimes used synonymously. In some cases, however, the welfare state is also identified with the concept of the supply state with a polemical intention , and contrasted with the welfare state , which only has the goal of helping people in (especially through no fault of their own) emergencies that they can no longer cope with on their own and to prevent this through long-term measures (→ subsidiarity ).

term

overview

In German usage, the welfare state and welfare state are often used synonymously. In addition, the welfare state in the sense of a “leaner”, on core functions of social security, such as B. the social insurance, understood as a limited state, while the welfare state is associated with comprehensive care and strong state regulation.

“Welfare state” is also used as a populist demarcation of the model of the social market economy from the Scandinavian model , which in turn is called the “supply state” in populist terms. In international usage there is no equivalent to the word welfare state. In Dutch the verzorgingsstaat is a synonym for “welfare state”; the conceptual history is closely linked to the name Willem Drees .

Internationally, a conceptual demarcation between the welfare state and social policy is common. Social policy in the sense of an intervention in the living conditions of the population has already existed in earlier historical phases (the poor legislation beginning in England in the 16th century is considered an early form ). Social policy has only been seen as a state task since the 19th century. In science, one speaks of a welfare state when social policy is no longer aimed solely at needy groups, but at the majority of the population. Most states developed into welfare states between the 1920s and 1960s.

Welfare state as a battle term

The term welfare is much older than the term welfare state. In modern, enlightened absolutism , the king or prince had an unlimited position of power, which he wanted to use in his self-image only to the extent necessary for the “welfare” of his subjects . The content of the “welfare” or “good police”, which formed a limitation on the ruler's legitimate exercise of power, was defined by the authorities at their own discretion. One speaks here of "welfare absolutism". As far as the term welfare state is used in connection with princely absolutism, this is mostly done in connection with attributes such as “absolutist”, “mercantilist” or “premodern”. The term welfare state is usually reserved for the “modern” welfare state, which was formed in the 19th century in the course of the socio-economic upheavals caused by industrialization , the development of nation states and democratization . However, while the corresponding English term welfare state is descriptively neutral, the term welfare state is used in Germany as a fighting term with a pejorative connotation . Whether and to what extent the negative connotation can be traced back to the classical, liberal criticism of Kant and others of “welfare absolutism” remains to be seen. In any case, the term welfare state is often understood in German as an exaggeration or overgrowth, which is contrasted with the welfare state as a reasonable type of state.

In scientific sociological parlance, the welfare state is used descriptively-neutrally in accordance with international parlance.

Emergence

The development of the welfare state is based on the social upheavals in the age of industrialization . With the establishment of the industrial mode of production, the population group of workers was exposed to new risks such as invalidity (due to an accident at work) and unemployment. Other risks such as illness and old age were not new, but the traditional support systems such as the extended family lost their importance due to the need for professional mobility or, as in the case of the guild system, were abolished in the 19th century.

The most important political prerequisite is the emergence of trade unions and socialist parties, which posed a threat to public order. On the one hand the legitimate interests of the workers had to be met and on the other hand social conflicts with the emerging workers had to be pacified. A cultural prerequisite was the change in social patterns of interpretation. The Enlightenment gave rise to the idea that living conditions are neither given by God nor unchangeable according to natural law. In the 19th century the idea gradually gained acceptance that the state was the most suitable instrument for dealing with complex collective tasks.

The basic structure of the German welfare state was laid with the introduction of the most important social insurance systems ( pension insurance , health insurance and accident insurance ) towards the end of the 19th century as part of the Bismarckian social reforms. In the beginning, however, only factory workers were covered by social insurance. Other parts of the population in need of protection, such as the rural population, white-collar workers and industrial workers, were only gradually recorded. It has only been possible to speak of a fully developed welfare state since the late 1960s.

The Christian (Protestant and Catholic) social teachings also made an important contribution to shaping the welfare state .

Classification of the welfare states

Following Esping-Andersen , three different basic types are distinguished:

The liberal welfare state type is characterized by a high proportion of state benefits for which a means test is a prerequisite. Universal and social security benefits are also less important. The redistribution of wealth fails low. Examples of liberal welfare states are e.g. B. the USA (→ Social Security (United States) ), Canada and Australia .

The conservative welfare state type is geared towards a much stronger grant of social security while maintaining status differences. The Christian social teaching exerts a great influence in these countries, therefore an obligation to maintain traditional family forms and the principle of subsidiarity is seen. In contrast to the liberal model, the importance of private security is marginal. But the redistributive effect is also rather low. The conservative welfare state is shaped by corporatist, statist and paternalistic structures. Examples of conservative welfare states are e.g. B. Germany (→ Social Insurance (Germany) ), Austria (→ Social Insurance (Austria) ) and France .

In the social democratic welfare state type , universality is the top design principle. Social security is therefore granted to the entire resident population here. There is also a high degree of decommodification , which means that a life that is independent of the market (especially not dependent on the labor market) is possible to a high degree , and the model is also designed to be independent of family support. In this model there is a higher redistributive effect than in the other two models. Examples of social democratic welfare states are e.g. B. Denmark , Sweden (→ Swedish Welfare State ), Norway .

Based on Leibfried, the fourth type of welfare state is sometimes named the rudimentary welfare state type. These are poorer, less industrialized countries with lower average incomes, such as B. Spain , Portugal and Greece . Here the social security system is only partially developed and there is no entitlement to welfare. In these countries, non-state support from the family or the parish still has an important social function.

Finally, the post-socialist welfare state is discussed as a separate, albeit very heterogeneous type that predominates in the transformative political systems of Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland ). The combination of liberal, conservative and social democratic elements is characteristic of post-socialist states, without any particular basic principle dominating the first three models.

Comparative analysis of social policy measures

In political science , the term welfare state is sometimes used differently and is considered a predominantly empirical category for the comparative analysis of the activities of modern states.

There are partial overlaps between Esping-Andersen and another classic typology of welfare states, namely the division into different types of financing. Research differentiates here

  • Beveridge systems - they are characterized by strong tax funding, and
  • Bismarck systems, on the other hand, in which social security systems have a high priority.

Esping-Andersen's liberal and social-democratic types can both be assigned to the Beveridge systems, even if they represent different ends of the decommodification scale. The German conservative system, on the other hand, is a model of the insurance-centered Bismarck model.

In the German-speaking area, the " Heidelberg School " of political science, led by Klaus von Beyme and later Manfred G. Schmidt, made a significant contribution to the explanation of welfare state phenomena. Manfred G. Schmidt succeeded in identifying various determinants of welfare state policy. According to this, the social benefit quota of a country is, among other things, higher the lower the socio-economic problems; the more trade unions are involved in social policy decision-making; the fewer veto players are involved in decision-making and the more likely social democratic or conservative governments are in power.

Feminist theory adds another level of analysis . With studies by Lewis , Ostner and Pfau-Effinger , it focuses on the extent to which welfare state regimes reproduce, tighten or reduce gender arrangements and what kind of arrangements these arrangements are. As a criterion here z. B. Lewis and Ostner suggested the proximity or distance to the male breadwinner model ("male breadwinner model"). The term gender regime was later coined for such contexts .

Theorists and practitioners of the welfare state

Acceptance of the welfare state

The overall result of all studies on the acceptance of welfare state institutions and programs shows a high level of approval for systems of social security and socio-political goals. This finding applies to all developed welfare states and has meanwhile been quite a long time since acceptance research began. According to Professor Ullrich, a distinction must be made when it comes to the acceptance of the welfare state in the Federal Republic of Germany: it is not the acceptance of the existing welfare state arrangement that is high, but the acceptance of the welfare state itself.

Problems of the welfare state

In assessing the welfare state as a social order, the discussion ran for a long time between sociologists, who pointed to positive social consequences, and economists, who criticized the burdens on the economy. Today the question of what form and what extent of social security is necessary and desirable is increasingly controversial, even among sociologists. In addition to the costs of welfare state coverage, there are four areas of inadequacy that can cast doubt on the effectiveness and usefulness of social policy programs:

  1. Certain old, unsolved problems such as B. the relative poverty of certain population groups or growing inequality relations . The extent to which this can be viewed as a failure depends of course on the political standpoint of the beholder. Thus, one can only condemn continuing inequality as a failure to liberal or conservative welfare states to a limited extent.
  2. The accusation that the welfare state solidifies existing problem areas such as inequality between the sexes. However, the allegation is difficult to verify.
  3. The welfare state creates new kinds of problems, the generation conflict is seen as an example.
  4. The welfare state creates claims to which it cannot respond appropriately if, as in the German model, legal "normality fictions" such as single-income households and continuous employment are adhered to.

Ultimately, the welfare state must also respond to changing preferences in society. Paternalistic coercive structures are not compatible with the need for self-determination and individual freedom of choice, the willingness to show solidarity is looking for new “more contemporary objects” (e.g. single parents), while the single-earner marriage loses its solidarity acceptance.

Although it is unlikely that larger parts of the population will turn away from the welfare state or even the principle of the welfare state, it can be assumed that the current legal structure of the German welfare state is increasingly being called into question. The welfare state can respond to these challenges in three basic ways: by reducing, expanding or restructuring the social security system. According to Carsten G. Ullrich , it can be assumed that there will be parallel dismantling, expansion and reconstruction, at the end of which, however, not just any, but a more comprehensive form of welfare state will be preserved.

According to Michael Bommes , the welfare state establishes an “inequality threshold” for immigrants. The attempt to maintain the inequality threshold paradoxically also contributes to the growth of illegal migration.

reception

Liberal criticism

In neoliberal criticism, the welfare state is primarily portrayed as patronizing individuals and restricting personal initiative and responsibility. For example, Ludwig Erhard stated that “nothing is more unsocial than the welfare state that relaxes human responsibility and reduces individual performance.” Erhard's draft of a social market economy was the utopia of a depoletarianized society of property owners without social security. Wilhelm Röpke regards the welfare state as a continuation of socialism by other means.

Friedrich August von Hayek wrote: “If the government not only wants to facilitate the achievement of certain standards for the individual, but wants to ensure that everyone achieves them, it can only do so by depriving the individual of any choice. In this way, the welfare state becomes a budgetary state in which a paternalistic authority controls most of the community's income and allocates it to individuals in the form and amount they believe they need or deserve. "

According to Thomas Straubhaar , “the development of welfare states from a subsidiary practice of the helping hand via a conservative custody of the protective hand to the too demanding tactic of the redistributive hand means that the invisible hand of the market can no longer generate the welfare that is already in the social budget is permanently guaranteed and planned. "

The American political scientist Paul Pierson tries in his research to identify determinants of welfare state politics. He unfolds his thesis against the background of the so-called blame avoidance phenomenon: Political parties avoid being ascribed political guilt for economic and social problems for the sake of re-election. According to Pierson's theory, this pattern of action also applies to welfare state politics: It is pure clientele politics and is always geared towards the prototypical electorate of the parties in power.

Left criticism

Marxists and communists criticized the welfare state for the fact that its social policy measures were merely of a compensatory nature and that they would preserve the unjust social power relations based on capitalism . While the reformist part of the socialists saw the further expansion of the welfare state as a way to achieve socialism, the other part held against it that this was only possible through class struggle .

According to the political scientist Claus Offe , in the Keynesian welfare state the state would take on more and more economic responsibility. In this way, the state itself becomes more and more part of the conflict of conflicting class interests, the balancing of which overstrains it in the long term.

André Gorz writes in his work, Critique of Economic Reason , that “it is only an expression of a moronic ideology when the welfare state is pilloried in the name of economic liberalism. The welfare state has by no means stifled society and shackled the spontaneous development of economic rationality; Rather, it emerged from its development itself: as a replacement for the social and family solidarity relationships that the expansion of the commodity relationship had destroyed - and as a necessary framework to prevent the market economy from ending in collective disaster. ”Gorz also writes that it is true “that the welfare state itself never was nor will be socially creative; but neither is the market. "

Gorz criticizes the immaturity, the tutelage of the citizen by the welfare state. Gorz is, however, "not about razing the welfare state, but rather it to the extent that the economically earmarked working hours decrease in order to relieve certain tasks that are currently - apart from the costs - from an oppressive caring control of the welfare recipients by the Welfare bureaucracy. "

Positive reception

The economist and former Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt sees the “widely diversified welfare state, which almost all Western European nations from Sicily to the North Cape have created in a fairly similar way, as the last great cultural achievement of the Europeans” and an “indispensable part of the states common political culture of the European Union ”.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Franz-Xaver Kaufmann: Challenges of the welfare state. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1997, p. 21.
  2. ^ Franz-Xaver Kaufmann: Challenges of the welfare state . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1997, p. 21.
  3. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 16.
  4. ↑ Drees was 'minister van Sociale Zaken' from 1945-1948 and laid the basis for social laws in 1947 with the 'Noodwet Ouderdomsvoorziening'. Drees shaped the post-war period in the Netherlands; he was Minister-President and Minister van Algemene Zaken from 1948 to 1958 .
  5. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 17.
  6. ↑ Thomas Steinforth: Self-esteem in the welfare state A socio-ethical investigation to justify and determine state welfare promotion. Herbert Utz Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-8316-0054-6 , p. 47.
  7. ↑ Janos Vehervary, Wolfgang Stangl, Menschenrecht und Staatsgewalt, WUV Universitätsverlag, 2000, Vienna, ISBN 3-85114-487-2 , p. 49.
  8. ↑ Thomas Steinforth: Self-esteem in the welfare state A socio-ethical investigation to justify and determine state welfare promotion. Herbert Utz Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-8316-0054-6 , pp. 47, 48.
  9. ↑ Thomas Steinforth: Self-esteem in the welfare state A socio-ethical investigation to justify and determine state welfare promotion. Herbert Utz Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-8316-0054-6 , p. 48.
  10. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 23.
  11. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 23.
  12. ↑ On the emergence of Bismarck's social insurance cf. Collection of sources on the history of German social policy from 1867 to 1914 , Section I: From the time when the Reich was founded to the Imperial Social Message (1867–1881), Volumes 2, 5 and 6; Collection of sources on the history of German social policy from 1867 to 1914, section II: From the Imperial Social Message to the February decrees of Wilhelm II (1881–1890), Volume 2, Part 1 u. 2; Volume 5 u. 6th
  13. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 25.
  14. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 46.
  15. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 46.
  16. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 47.
  17. ^ Antonio Ricciardi: The German and Italian Welfare State Model: Conservative Regime? . GRIN-Verlag, 1st edition. 2010, ISBN 978-3-640-65286-0 , p. 15.
  18. ^ Raj Kollmorgen : Post-socialist welfare regime in Eastern Europe - part of the "Three Worlds" or a separate type? In: Birgit Pfau-Effinger, Sladana Sakac Magdalenic, Christof Wolf: International comparative social research. 1st edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16524-0 , p. 65 ff.
  19. ^ Raj Kollmorgen: Post-socialist welfare regime in Eastern Europe part of the "Three Worlds" or a separate type? In: Birgit Pfau-Effinger, Sladana Sakac Magdalenic, Christof Wolf: International comparative social research. 1st edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16524-0 , p. 80.
  20. ^ Josef Schmid: welfare state . ( Memento of February 7, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Political Economy - Comparative Political Field Analysis, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen .
  21. ↑ Jane Lewis: Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. In: Journal for European Social Policy. Vol. 2, 1992, pp. 159-173.
  22. ↑ Ilona Ostner: Poor without a husband? Social policy regulation of life chances for women in an international comparison. In: From Politics and Contemporary History . B36-37, 1995, pp. 3-12.
  23. ↑ Birgit Pfau-Effinger: Employment partner or working wife. Socio-cultural arrangements of employment for women in comparison. In: social world. Vol. 45, 1994, pp. 322-337.
  24. ↑ Birgit Pfau-Effinger: Analysis of international differences in the labor force participation of women. In: Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology. Vol. 48, 1996, pp. 462-492.
  25. ↑ Claudia Vogel: Attitudes towards employment of women. A comparison of West Germany. East Germany and Great Britain. (PDF; 1.6 MB) In: Potsdam Contributions to Social Research No. 11 December 2000, accessed on January 18, 2009 (ISSN No. 1612-6602). , P. 1 (PDF)
  26. ↑ Monika Goldmann u. a .: Gender mainstreaming and demographic change. (PDF; 1.5 MB) In: Documentation on the project “Gender Mainstreaming and Demographic Change”. May 2003, accessed on January 18, 2009 (ISSN No. 0937-7379).
  27. ↑ Jane Lewis, Ilona Ostner: Gender and the Evolution of European Social Policies. Center for Social Policy at the University of Bremen, Working Paper No. 4, 1994; quoted from: Teresa Kulawik: Welfare states and gender regimes in international comparison. (PDF; 278 kB) In: gender ... politics ... online. January 2005, archived from the original on January 30, 2012 ; Retrieved January 18, 2009 .
  28. ↑ Sigrid Betzelt: “Gender Regimes”: A profitable concept for comparative research. Literature study. (PDF) In: ZeS working paper No. 12/2007. Retrieved October 25, 2009 . P. 25 f.
  29. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich, The acceptance of the welfare state, preferences, conflicts, interpretation patterns. 1st edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008, ISBN 978-3-531-15702-3 , p. 59.
  30. ↑ Carsten G. Ullrich: The acceptance of the welfare state, preferences, conflicts, interpretation patterns. 1st edition. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008, ISBN 978-3-531-15702-3 , p. 124.
  31. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 227ff.
  32. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 230.
  33. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 230.
  34. ^ Carsten G. Ullrich: Sociology of the welfare state. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-593-37893-0 , p. 233.
  35. ^ Michael Bomme: Migration and national welfare state: A differentiation-theoretical draft , Springer-Verlag, 2013, ISBN 978-3-322-89053-5 . P. 193 .
  36. ^ Klaus Schubert, Martina Klein: Das Politiklexikon. 4th edition. Dietz, Bonn 2006, keyword “welfare state” (online at the Federal Agency for Civic Education ).
  37. ^ Gerd Habermann : Overcoming the welfare state: Ludwig Erhard's socio-political alternative. In: Karl Hohmann Karl Hohmann, Horst Friedrich Wünsche (ed.): Basic texts on the social market economy: The social in the social market economy. Lucius & Lucius Verlag, 1988, ISBN 3-437-40208-0 , p. 36.
  38. ↑ Gerd Habermann : Do utopias have to be socialist? In: ORDO, Yearbook for the Order of Economy and Society . Volume 55. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-8282-0275-6 , p. 114.
  39. ↑ “The welfare state of today is not a mere expansion of the old social security and welfare institutions, such as those created by Bismarck in Germany. In the meantime it has become an instrument of the social revolution in more and more countries, the goal of which is the most perfect equality of income and wealth [...]. ”Wilhelm Röpke: Beyond supply and demand. 1958, p. 232.
  40. ↑ Wilga Föste: Basic values ​​in the regulatory concept of the social market economy. Metropolis-Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-89518-576-0 , p. 587; Quote from: Friedrich August von Hayek: The constitution of freedom. Translated by Ruth Temper, Dietrich Schaffmeister and Ilse Bieling. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1991, p. 354.
  41. ↑ Thomas Straubhaar: Economics of Reform. According to Michael Wohlgemuth: Who raises the invisible hand? nzz, June 28, 2004, p. 13.
  42. ↑ Offe sees the main problem less in the overuse of economic resources by the modern welfare state than in the dwindling legitimacy potential of “distributive pacification”, ie the attempted stabilization through state redistribution. Claus Offe: structural problems of the capitalist state. Essays on political sociology. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1972, p. 113f.
  43. ↑ André Gorz: Critique of Economic Reason. Berlin 1989, p. 190.
  44. ↑ André Gorz: Critique of Economic Reason. Berlin 1989, p. 190, cf. also p. 261: The welfare state "was never a producer of society ..."
  45. ↑ André Gorz: Critique of Economic Reason. Berlin 1989, p. 335.
  46. ↑ Everyone has to work longer: The pension reform will suffice for the coming years, but not in the long term . In: Die Zeit , No. 2/2001.