Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:29:16.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Welfare-state transformations: From neo-liberalism to liberal neo-welfarism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

By
Maurizio Ferrera
Edited by
Vivien A. Schmidt  and
Mark Thatcher
Vivien A. Schmidt
Affiliation:
Boston University
Mark Thatcher
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Introduction

What has been the influence of the neo-liberal ideology on welfare-state transformations since the 1980s? How resilient is such ideology and what is its influence today – that is, in the early 2010s? In the context of this book's themes, we would expect to find in this policy area a high degree of influence and resilience. After all, neo-liberalism emerged as an attack on Big Government, with a view to rescuing individual freedom from the torments of taxation, bureaucracy, and regulation (including in the social realm). This chapter recognizes the high relevance (and not only rhetorical) of neo-liberalism for welfare-state developments since the 1980s – but with two decisive qualifications. The first has to do with meanings: gauging neo-liberal resilience requires a prior clarification of what is connoted by the term ‘neo-liberalism’. The second qualification has to do with timing: I argue that the influence of neo-liberalism on the welfare state has followed a broad parabola, which reached its peak in the early 1990s but started to decline thereafter in the wake of ideological changes and discursive reorientations.

I start with the meaning attributed to the term ‘neo-liberalism’ and, more precisely, to both the noun (liberal) and the prefix (neo). Unfortunately, the English language conflates in the noun three connotations that Italian (and Italy's political-theory tradition) separates by using different nouns. The Italian language, in fact, distinguishes among liberalesimo, liberalismo, and liberismo. The first term has the widest connotation: It refers to the entire, complex, and diverse thought tradition that began with the philosophical contractualism of John Locke and with the doctrines about the constitutional protection of individual freedoms. Liberalesimo thus embraces the entire range of offspring that ‘germinated’ from the Lockean core: its outer perimeter ends where authoritarianism and collectivism begin and the ideas of negative freedom, its constitutional protection, and its lexicographic primacy are rejected.

Type
Chapter
Information
Resilient Liberalism in Europe's Political Economy , pp. 77 - 111
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armingeon, Klaus, and Bonoli, Giuliano (eds.). 2006. The Politics of Postindustrial Welfare States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bale, Tim. 2012. The Conservatives since 1945: The Drivers of Party Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beech, Matt. 2006. The Political Philosophy of New Labour. London: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar
Béland, Daniel, and Cox, Robert H (eds.). 2011. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergh, Andreas, and Erlingsson, Gissur O.. 2009. ‘Liberalizing without Retrenchment: Understanding the Consensus on Swedish Welfare State Reforms’, Scandinavin Political Studies 32 (1): 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blond, Phillip. 2010. Red Tory. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Bone, John. 2012. ‘The Neoliberal Phoenix: The Big Society or Business as Usual?’, Sociological Research Online 17 (2): 16, available at .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantillon, Bea, and Vandenbroucke, Frank. (In press). For Better, for Worse, for Richer for Poorer: Labour Market Participation, Social Redistribution and Income Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cantillon, Bea, Verschueren, Herwig, and Ploscar, Paula. 2012. Social Insurance and Social Protection in the EU. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Castles, F., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., and Pierson, C.. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croce, Benedetto. 1928. Elementi di Politica. Rome-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Diamond, Patrick. 2011. The New ‘Progressive’ Conservatism in Europe. London: Policy Network.Google Scholar
De Ruggiero, Guido. 1977. Storia del Liberalesimo Europeo. Milano: Feltrinelli (first ed. 1925).Google Scholar
Luigi, Einaudi. 2004. Lezioni di politica sociale. Torino: Einaudi (first ed. 1948).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2005. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A concerted strategy for modernizing social protection. (1999) 347 final.
Evers, Adelbert, and Guillemard, Anne-Marie (eds.). 2012. Social Policy and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, Gerda. 2010. ‘European Union’. In Castles et al. (eds.), pp. 292–305.
Ferrera, Maurizio. 1993. ‘EC Citizens and Social Protection’. Brussels: European Commission, available at .
Ferrera, Maurizio. 1994. ‘The Rise and Fall of Democratic Universalism: Health Care Reform in Italy, 1978–1994’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 20 (2): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2005. The Boundaries of Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2006. ‘Friends, not Foes: European Integration and National Welfare States’. In Global Europe, Social Europe, edited by Giddens, A., Diamond, P., and Liddle, R. (257–78). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2008. ‘The European Welfare State: Golden Achievements, Silver Prospects’, West European Politics 31 (1–2): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrera, Maurizio, and Rhodes, Martin. 2001. Recasting European Welfare States. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Flora, Peter, and Heidenheimer, Arnold. 1981. ‘The Historical Core and Changing Boundaries of the Welfare State’. In The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, edited by Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. ( 17–34). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Freeden, Michael. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Freeden, Michael. 2008. ‘European Liberalisms’, European Journal of Political Theory 7 (9): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeden, Michael. 2012. ‘Ideology and Political Theory’, Journal of Political Ideology 11: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Andrew. 1994. The Free Economy and the Strong State: The Politics of Thatcherism. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glossner, Christian L., and Gregosz, David (eds.). 2009. 60 Years of Social Market Economy Formation: Development and Perspectives of a Peacemaking Formula. Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.Google Scholar
Gowan, Peter. 1999. The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, David. 2007. Breve storia del neo-liberismo. Milano: Saggiatore.Google Scholar
Häusermann, Silja. 2010. The Politics of Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, Silja. 2012. ‘The Politics of Old and New Social Policies’. In The New Welfare State in Europe, edited by Bonoli, Giuliano and Natali, David (111–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2001. ‘The Crisis of Keynesianism and the Rise of Neoliberalism in Britain: An Ideational Institutionalist Analysis’. In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by Campbell, John L. and Pedersen, Ove K. (193–218). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, Anton. 2012. Changing Welfare States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huo, Jingjing. 2009. Third Way Reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobert, Bruno. 1994. Le tournant neoliberal. Paris : L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kildal, Nanna, and Kuhnle, Stein (eds.). 2005. The Normative Foundations of the Welfare State: The Nordic Experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kvist, Jon, Fritzell, Johan, Hvinden, Bjorn, and Kangas, Olli (eds.). 2012. Changing Social Equality: The Nordic Welfare Model in the 21st Century. Bristol, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2011. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laborde, C. 2002. ‘The Reception of John Rawls in Europe’, European Journal of Political Theory 1: 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Christian A., and Andersen, Jorgen Goul. 2009. ‘How New Economic Ideas Changed Integration and Globalization’, Social Policy and Administration 34 (1): 44–63.Google Scholar
Le Pen, Marine. 2011. Projet pour la France (November), available at .
Leibfried, Stephan. 2005. ‘Social Policy: Left to Judges and Markets?’. In Policy Making in the European Union, edited by Wallace, Helen, Pollack, Mark, and Young, Alasdair (250–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindbom, Anders. 2008. ‘The Swedish Conservative Party and the Welfare State’, Government and Opposition 43 (4): 539–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnette, Paul. 2009. ‘The Fragility of Liberal Europe’, European Political Science 8: 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, Luke. 2011. Radical Left Parties in Europe. London: Routldege.Google Scholar
Marlier, Eric, and Natali, David. 2010. Europe 2020: Towards a More Social EU. Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Martin, José Luis, and Pettit, Philip. 2010. A Political Philosophy in Public Life: Civic Republicanism in Zapatero's Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morel, Nathalie, Palier, Bruno, and Palme, Joakim. 2011. Towards a Social Investment State?Bristol, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudge, Stephanie. 2008. ‘What Is Neo-liberalism?’, Socio-economic Review 6: 703–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. W. 2009. ‘The Triumph of What (If Anything)? Rethinking Political Ideologies and Political Institutions in XX Century Europe’, Journal of Political Ideologies 14: 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Palier, Bruno. 2002. Gouverner la securité sociale. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1991. Equality or Priority? The Lindley Lecture. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (first ed.).Google Scholar
Rhodes, Martin. (In press). Labour Markets, Welfare States and the Contemporary Dilemmas of European Social Democracy.
Roy, Ravi K., Denzau, Arthur T., and Willet, Thomas D. (eds.). 2006. Neoliberalism: National and Regional Experiments with Global Ideas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rueda, David. 2007. Social Democracy Inside Out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Charles, and Zeitlin, Jonathan (eds.). 2010. Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1978. ‘The Relevance of Liberalism in Retrospect’. In The Relevance of Liberalism, edited by Sartori, G. (1–31). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 2009. ‘Europe's Neo-Liberal Bias’. In After Shocks. Economic Crisis and Institutional Choice, edited by Hemerijck, Anton, Knapen, Ben, and van Doorne, Ellen (228–34). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. 2010. ‘Parties’. In Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, edited by Castles et al. (211–26). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien. 2008. ‘Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin, van Dyk, Silke, and Roggenkamp, Martin. 2008. Party Politics and Social Welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Sevilla, Jordi. 2002. De Nuevo Socialismo. Madrid: Editorial Critica.Google Scholar
Steger, Manfred, and Roy, Ravi K.. 2010. Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjerno, Steiner. 2005. Solidarity in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Diane, and Denham, Andrew (eds.). 2004. Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary. 2007. Ideology and Welfare. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, Peter (ed.). 2001. Welfare States under Pressure. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tilton, Timothy A. 1990. The Political Theory of Swedish Social Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, Frank. 2001. ‘European Social Democracy and the Third Way: Convergence, Divisions and Shared Questions’. In New Labour and the Future of Progressive Politics, edited by White, S. (171–4). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, Frank. 2002. ‘Foreword’. In Why We Need a New Welfare State, edited by Andersen, Gosta Esping, Gallie, Duncan, Hemerijck, Anton, and Myles, John (6–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, Frank. 2012. ‘Europe: The Social Challenge. Defining the Union's Social Objective Is a Necessity Rather Than a Luxury.’ Brussels: European Social Observatory, Opinion Paper No. 11.
Van Kersbergen, Kees, and Hemerijck, Anton. 2004. ‘Christian Democracy, Social Democracy and the Continental “Welfare without Work” Syndrome’. In Social Policy Review 16, edited by Ellison, Nick, Bauld, Linda, and Powell, Martin (167–86). Bristol, England: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×