Introduction

The targeting of welfare has regained a central position in the social policy debate in many European countries. In Western Europe, in the prosperous 1960s and 1970s, as well as in Eastern Europe under socialist regimes, the issue of strategic targeting, concerned with the allocation of resources between categories of need or of needy groups, seemed to have been solved definitely. However, with the economic downturn following the 1979 oil crisis, a process of the restructuring of Western welfare states set in, while in the East the political turnovers of the late 1980s and early 1990s were the starting point for the redesign of welfare.

In both parts of Europe ‘rethinking welfare’ basically means a revival of the debate on the crucial targeting question of who should get what type and degree of social protection, and why. The opinions expressed in the debate vary, and form a mix of economic, political and cultural arguments.

Economic arguments, mostly stemming from budgetary concerns and a wish to protect competitiveness in the global economy, are most often heard. They tend to lead to more selective targeting, so that fewer people are entitled, to lower degrees of social protection.

Political arguments often stress the need for legitimising welfare in the eyes of the ‘abused taxpayer’ (Rose and Peters, 1978) or the ‘individualised middle mass’ (Wilensky, 1974). The assumption of these arguments is that the taxpaying middle class dislikes paying for the welfare of others; therefore, welfare should be targeted at the truly and most needy only. Other political arguments relate to basic ideologies. The liberal right, which in the past decades gained a strong position in socioeconomic thinking, on principle argues for individual responsibility, implying a more selective protection. The social democratic left, which traditionally is inclined to solidaristic and collective protection, shifted in practice towards a more ‘pragmatic’ middle position, or ‘third way’, in which individual and communal responsibility is stressed also (cf Blair in the UK, Kok in the Netherlands, and Schroeder in Germany). Christian Democrats regularly express their concern over the negative effects of individualisation and the decline of citizenship, which are both seen as a consequence of too liberal and generous a system of welfare provision.