The main aim of this study has been to explain the two major postwar transformations of the Dutch welfare state, which – after having acquired a reputation as a long-term laggard – grew into a remarkably generous and inclusive system of social protection during the 1960s and 1970s, before being subjected to various measures in subsequent years that successfully managed to reduce the growing dependency on benefits in the Netherlands. To account for these two remarkable transformations, the book has challenged conventional views on the political role of Christian democracy and the labor union movement, the importance of the political-religious segregation of Dutch society in the immediate postwar period, and the subsequent process of depillarization, as well as the relationship between welfare state development and collective wage bargaining. Moreover, it emphasized the extent to which the postwar introduction and transformation of social programs in the Netherlands came about through a system of institutionalized consultation with the top representatives of organized labor and business. During the first decades of the postwar period in particular, parliament often took a rather passive stance towards social insurance expansion and closely followed the recommendations that emerged through negotiations between labor union and business leaders.

Like in most other affluent countries, the most constant and significant source of political conflict over postwar welfare reform in the Netherlands did not concern how the welfare system could best cater to “average” or middle-class citizens; instead it focused on how to ensure that low-income and otherwise economically vulnerable groups could also obtain adequate levels of care and protection against labor market risks. Whereas the labor market position of the bulk of voters meant that it did not prove difficult or controversial to assure increasingly generous levels of economic security for them, doing the same for all members of society required introducing measures that were much more contentious. These included expanding the compulsory coverage of social insurance programs to fragile groups (including self-employed workers), easing eligibility rules for them and devising a more redistributive way of relating benefits to contributions. In addition, it was necessary to complement these programs with tax-financed programs that often catered specifically to particularly vulnerable groups.