Introduction

In the previous chapter we showed how citizens’ support for the welfare state differs from individual to individual and fluctuates over time. Based on that chapter, the idea of ‘fit’ between the design of social policies and citizens’ opinions seems almost an illusion: it has to take into account the sometimes conflicting aspects of legitimacy as well as the great variance in citizens’ beliefs. Still, we do not abandon our exploration into the backgrounds of responsive social policies.

Initially, it seems to be self-evident in a representative, democratic system that policy provides an answer to social problems and can count on public support. However, a significant number of comparative studies into reforms in the welfare state have conclusively demonstrated that historical factors, formal procedures, state tradition, policy legacies and the balance of power between politicians, administrators, interest groups and citizens – in addition to public preferences – have a major influence on the design of the welfare state's institutions. The construction and structure of the institutions of the modern welfare state may, therefore, be regarded as historical coincidences.

Once the welfare state's arrangements and institutions have emerged, like all institutions they start to live their own lives; they develop their own dynamics (see Streeck and Thelen, 2005; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). These specific dynamics are partly shaped by the reflexive nature of (modern) societies: citizens, businesses, interest groups and other actors adapt their behaviour to, and as a result of, the new institution, which thereby becomes more than just a regulation or organisation that has been created – and may also be terminated – at a random moment in time. At the same time, the dynamics appear because the environment changes, public preferences change and actors with power have an interest in the continuation, destruction or adaptation of the institution. It is amidst these dynamics that the institutions of contemporary European welfare states developed, and that they are now forced to formulate a response to the challenges of the current economic crisis. To make things worse, this response needs to include two elements that are almost incompatible: a contribution to the long-term financial sustainability of their governments and relief of the burdens for those affected by the economic crisis.