Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-vbn2q Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-08-02T23:27:17.127Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Robert Henry Cox
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma

Abstract

This article seeks to explain why Denmark and the Netherlands made dramatic progress reforming their welfare systems in the 1990s and why Germany had a relatively slow start. Some possible explanations found to be incomplete are institutional differences in welfare programs, the uniqueness of circumstances (for example, German unification), and the balance of political power in governing institutions. An important part of the puzzle is an increasing perception of the need to reform that was more widespread in Denmark and the Netherlands. The social construction of an imperative to reform in these countries generated a political consensus that was elusive in Germany but that may be developing under Gerhard Schroder's government.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2001

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

1 Pinzler, Petra, “Die Niederlande Haben Ihren Sozialstaat Erfolgreich Umgebaut: Ein Vorbild Auch für Uns?Die Zeit, January 10, 1997, 3Google Scholar; Kleinfeld, Ralf, “Was Können die Deutschen vom Niederländischen ‘Poldermodell’ Lernen?” in Schmid, Josef and Niketta, Reiner, eds., Wohlfahrtsstaat: Krise und Reform im Vergleich (Marburg: Metropolis, 1998).Google ScholarWorld Politics 53 (April 2001), 463–98

2 Full credit for coining the concept of path shaping goes to Torfing, Jacob, “Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regime: Path-Shaping and Path-Dependency in Danish Welfare State Reform,” Economy and Society 28, no. 3 (1999), 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Ploug, Niels, “The Welfare State in Liquidation?” in Ploug, Niels and Kvist, Jon, eds., Recent Trends in Cash Benefits in Europe (Copenhagen: Danish National Institute of Social Research, 1994), 1126.Google Scholar

4 Clayton, Richard and Pontusson, Jonas, “Welfare-State Retrenchment Revisited: Entitlement Cuts, Public Sector Restructuring, and Inegalitarian Trends in Advanced Capitalist Societies,World Politics 51 (October 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See Abrahamson, Peter, “The Scandinavian Welfare Model in a Time Of Change,” in Cave, William M., ed., The Welfare Society in Transition: Problems and Prospects of the Welfare Model (Copenhagen: Danish Cultural Institute, 1994)Google Scholar; Visser, Jelle and Hemerijck, Anton, A Dutch Miracle: Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Corporatism in the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alber, Jens, “De Deutsche Sozialsstaat im Licht International Vergleichender Daten,Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 26 (June 1998)Google Scholar; Pierson, Paul and Smith, Miriam, “Bourgeois Revolutions? The Policy Consequences of Resurgent Conservatism,” Comparative Political Studies 25(January 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Decommodificaton is the term favored by those who emphasize qualitative differences in the character of welfare states. Decommodification refers to the degree of market independence welfare states give to citizens, and the concept allows welfare states to be classified as more or less decommodified. See Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

7 For a full discussion of these changes, see Cox, Robert Henry, “The Consequences of Welfare Reform: How Conceptions of Social Rights Are Changing,Journal of Social Policy 26 (January 1998).Google Scholar

8 Loftager, Jørn, “Solidarity and Universality in the Danish Welfare State: Empirical Remarks and Theoretical Interpretations” (Paper presented at the 7th BIEN International Congress, Amsterdam, September 10–12, 1998).Google Scholar

9 Veen, Romke van der and Trommel, Willem, “Managed Liberalization of the Dutch Welfare State: A Review and Analysis of the Reform of the Dutch Social Security System, 1985–1998,Governance 12 (July 1999).Google Scholar

10 Cox, Robert Henry, “From Safety Net to Trampoline: Labor Market Activation in the Netherlands and Denmark,Governance 11 (October 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Empel, Frank van, The Dutch Model: The Power of Consultation in the Netherlands (The Hague: Stichting van de Arbeid, 1997).Google Scholar

12 Pierson, Paul, “The New Politics of the Welfare State,World Politics 48 (January 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Scharpf, Fritz, Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

14 Teulings, Coen, Veen, Romke van der, and Trommel, Willem, Dilemma's van Sociale Zekerheid: Een Analyse van 10 Jaar Herziening van het Stelsel van Sociale Zekerheid (The Hague: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken, 1997).Google Scholar

15 Giaimo, Susan, “Health Care Reform in Britain and Germany: Recasting the Political Bargain with the Medical Profession,Governance 8 (July 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borchert, Jens, Die Konservatieve Transformation des Wohlfahrtsstaates: Groβbritannien, Kanada, die USA und Deutschland im Vergleich (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1995).Google Scholar

16 Johansen, Lars Nørby, “Denmark,” in Flora, Peter, ed., Growth to Limits: The Western European Welfare States since World War II (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986).Google Scholar

17 Rigter, D. P. et al., Tussen Sociale Wil En Werkelijkheid: Een Geschiedenis Van Het Beleld Van Het Ministerie Van Sociale Zaken (The Hague: VUGA Uitgeverij B. V., 1995)Google Scholar; Abrahamson, Peter, “Dänische Experimente mit der Sozialpolitik: Neuerungen Während der 80er und 90er Jahre,” in Fricke, Werner and Fricke, Else, eds. Jahrbuch Arbeit und Technik, 1995 (Berlin: J. H. W. Dietz Nachfolger, 1995).Google Scholar

18 Baldwin, Peter, The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875–1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Andersen, Bent Rold, “Rationality and Irrationality of the Nordic Welfare State,” Daedalus 113, no. 1 (1984)Google Scholar; Wolfe, Alan, Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar

20 Wijnbergen, Christina van, “The Politics of Reforms: Battling Unemployment in Germany and the Netherlands” (Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Ga., September 2–5, 1999)Google Scholar; Green-Pedersen, Christopher, “The Danish Welfare State under Bourgeois Reign: The Dilemma of Popular Entrenchment and Economic Constraints,” Scandinavian Political Studies 22, no. 3 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Borchert (fn. 15).

22 This point is based on Max Weber's outline of the difference between power and authority. Power, he argued, is the ability to bend others to one's will. Authority, by contrast, is the exercise of power sanctioned by a sense of legitimacy rather than brute force. See Weber, Max, “The Fundamental Concepts of Sociology,” and “The Types of Authority and Imperative Coordination,” in Parsons, Talcott, ed., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Free Press, 1947), 52, 328Google Scholar; Diamant, Alfred, “The Bureaucratic Model: Max Weber Rejected, Rediscovered, Reformed,” in Heady, Ferrel and Stokes, Sybil, eds., Papers in Comparative Public Administration (reprint; Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Administration, University of Michigan, 1980).Google Scholar

23 March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo, Introduction, in Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pierson, Paul, “Not Just What, but When: Issues of Timing and Sequence in Comparative Politics” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998).Google Scholar

24 Steinmo, Sven and Watts, Jon, “Its the Institutions, Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Health Insurance Always Fails in America,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 20, no. 2 (1995), 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25 Pierson (fn. 12).

26 Schmid, Günther, “Beschäftigingswunder Niederlande?Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 25, no. 3 (1997)Google Scholar; Esser, Josef and Schröder, Wolfgang, “Neues Leben für den Rheinischen Kapitalismus: Vom Bündnis für Arbeit zum Dritten Weg,” Blätter für Deutsche und Internationale Politik 1 (January 1999)Google Scholar; Theisen, Heinz, “Korporatismus und Konfliktkultur als Ursachen der ‘Deutschen Krankheit,’Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 2930 (1998).Google Scholar

27 Clasen, Jochen, “Beyond Social Security: The Economic Value of Giving Money to Unemployed People,” European Journal of Social Security 1, no. 2 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werner, Heinz, “Die Arbeitsmarkt Entwicklungen in Niederlande: Welche Lehren für Uns?Arbeit und Sozialpolitik 52, no. 12 (1998)Google Scholar; Manow, Philip, “Social Insurance and the German Political Economy,” MPIfG Discussion Paper 97/2 (Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, 1997)Google Scholar; Ritter, Gerhard, “Probleme und Tendenzen des Sozialstaates in den 1990er Jahren,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22 (1996).Google Scholar

28 Esping-Andersen (fn. 6).

29 Deacon, Alan, “But Not Just America: The Influence of European and American Ideas upon ‘New Labour’ Thinking on Welfare Reform” (Paper presented at the European Forum, European University Institute, Florence, March 25, 1999).Google Scholar

30 Pierson, Paul, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics” (The Jean Monnet Visiting Professor Lecture, European University Institute, Florence, April 1997).Google Scholar

31 Czada, Roland, “Vereinigungskrise und Standortdebatte: Der Beitrag der Wiedervereinigung zur Krise des Westdeutschen Modells,” Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 26 (March 1998), 2425.Google Scholar

32 Jarausch, Konrad H., The Rush to German Unity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 137–43.Google Scholar

33 Visser and Hemerijck (fn. 5).

34 Ruggie, John Gerard, “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Checkel, Jeffrey, Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior and the End of the Cold War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

35 Geertz, Clifford, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1993)Google Scholar; Winch, Peter, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958)Google Scholar; Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar

36 Blyth, Mark M., “Any More Bright Ideas? The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy,” Comparative Politics 29, no. 2 (1997), 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Checkel, Jeffrey, “Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe,” International Studies Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McNamara, Kathleen, The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

38 See, for example, Lichbach, Mark I., “Social Theory and Comparative Politics,” in Lichbach, Mark, Zuckerman, Alan, and Katznelson, Ira, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture And Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Ruggie (fn. 34); Checkel (fn. 34).

39 Baldwin, Peter, The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875–1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R., “Political Science and the Three New Institution-alisms,” Political Studies 44, no. 5 (1996), 936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Clasen, , “Motives, Means and Opportunities: Reforming Unemployment Compensation in the 1990s” (Manuscript, European University Institute, Florence, 1999), 24.Google Scholar

42 Torfing(fn.2).

43 Majone, Giandomenico, Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

44 Ashford, Douglas, The Emergence of the Welfare States (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google Scholar; Alber, Jens, “Continuities and Changes in the Idea of the Welfare State,” Politics and Society 16, no. 4 (1988), 447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Thurow, Lester C., Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America (New York: Morrow, 1992).Google Scholar

46 Krasner, Stephen D., “Sovereignty: An Institutionalist Perspective,” Comparative Political Studies 21, no. 1 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Coughlin, Richard, Ideology, Public Opinion and Welfare Policy: Attitudes toward Taxes and Spending in Industrialized Societies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Andersen, Jørgen Goul, “Sources of Welfare-State Support in Denmark: Self-interest or Way of Life?” in Hansen, Erik J. et al., eds., Welfare Trends in the Scandinavian Countries (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1993).Google Scholar

48 Rochon, Thomas, Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

49 Andersen, Bent Rold, “Rationality and Irrationality of the Nordic Welfare State,” Daedalus 113, no. 1 (1984)Google Scholar; Einhorn, Eric and Logue, John, Modern Welfare States: Politics and Policies in Social Democratic Scandinavia (New York: Praeger, 1989).Google Scholar

50 Meyer, Niels I., Helveg Petersen, K., and Sørensen, Villy, Revolt from the Center (London: Marion Boyars, 1981).Google Scholar

51 Andersen, Jørgen Goul and Christiansen, Peter Munk, Skatter Uden Velfærd: De Offentlige Udgifter i International Belysning (Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1991), 316–20.Google Scholar

52 The author is grateful to Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard for pointing out the origins of the phrase.

53 Indeed, the Social Commission was not the only important committee. The Zeuthen Committee, established in the late 1980s, was charged with examining labor-market and unemployment policy. Its recommendations were the basis for the Act on Municipal Activation, discussed below. See Torfing (fn. 2).

54 Socialkommissionen, , Reformer: Socialkommissionens Samlede Forslag (Copenhagen: Socialkommissionen, 1993a), 82Google Scholar, author's translation. See also Socialkommissionen, , Socialkommissionens Reform-forslag: Resumé (Copenhagen: Socialkommissionen, 1993b), 3.Google Scholar

55 Socialkommissionen (1993a), 81–83.

56 Andersen, Jørgen Goul, “Changing Labour Markets, New Social Divisions and Welfare State Support: Denmark in the 1990s,” in Svallfors, Stefan and Taylor-Gooby, Peter, eds., The End of the Welfare State? Responses to State Retrenchment (London: Routledge, 1999), 19.Google Scholar

57 Ministry of Labor, The Danish Labour Market Model and Developments in the Labour Market Policy (Copenhagen: Ministry of Labor, 1994).Google Scholar

58 Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, From Passive to Active: Sickness Benefit, Cash Assistance, Activation and Rehabilitation (Copenhagen: Ministry of Social Affairs, 1995), 1618.Google Scholar

59 For an excellent summary of the details of the two laws, see Efherington, David, “From Welfare to Work in Denmark: An Alternative to Free Market Policies?Policy and Politics 26, no. 2 (1998).Google Scholar

60 Cox, Robert Henry, “The Consequences of Welfare Retrenchment in Denmark,Politics and Society 25 (September 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Nordheim-Nielsen, Fritz von, “The Politics of Aging in Scandinavian Countries,” in Myles, John and Quadagno, Jill, eds., States, Labor Markets, and the Future of Old-Age Policy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and idem, “The Three Dimensional Character of Occupational Pensions and the Case of Danish Pension Politics in the 1980's,” in Shalev, M., ed., Occupational Welfare and the Welfare State in Comparative Perspective (New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1994).Google Scholar

idem

62 Schwartz, Herman, “The Danish Miracle: Luck, Pluck or Stuck?” Comparative Political Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar

63 Stephens, John D., “The Scandinavian Welfare States: Achievements, Crisis, and Prospects,” in Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, ed., Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies (London: Sage, 1996), 5455.Google Scholar

64 Levy, Jonah, “Vice into Virtue? Progressive Politics and Welfare Reform in Continental Europe,Politics and Society 27 (June 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economic Survey of the Netherlands (Paris: OECD, March 1998).Google Scholar

66 de Jong, M. J. and van Schoonhoven, R., Afscheid van de Zorgeloze Versorgingsstaat (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1992).Google Scholar

67 Teulings, Veen, and Trommel (fn. 14).

68 See Visser and Hemerijck (fn. 5); Rigter et al. (fn. 17).

69 Ackermann, C. H., van Bolhuis, M., and van Weeren, J., Spaarregelingen (The Hague: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, September 1994).Google Scholar

70 Bikker, J. A., “Spaarloon: Een Kunstgreep Met Grote Effecten,” Economisch Statistisch Berichten (November 6, 1994)Google Scholar; Storm, R. P. J. and de Krujik, A., “Een op de Drie Werknemers Maakt Gebruik van Nieuwe Bedrijfsspaarrelelingen,” Financiele Maandstatistiek 95, no. 5 (1995), 610.Google Scholar

71 Bolkestein, Frits, “The Dutch Model,” Economist, May 22, 1999.Google Scholar

72 OECD (fn. 65).

73 Bussemaker, Jet, “Rationales of Care in Contemporary Welfare States: The Case of Childcare in the Netherlands,” Social Politics 5, no.l (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Kremer, Monique, Het Deense Werkgelegenheids—offensief: Kansen Voor Zorg en Arbeid (Utrecht: Nederlands Instituut voor Zorg en Welzijn, 1995).Google Scholar

75 Schmid, Josef, “Mehrfache Desillusionierung und Ambivalenz: Eine Sozialpolitische Bilanz,” in Wewer, Göttrik, ed., Bilanz Der Ära Kohl: Christlich-liberale Politik in Deutschland, 1982–1998 (Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 1998), 94101.Google Scholar

76 Borchert (fn. 15), 117–19.

77 Schmähl, Winifried, “The 1992 Reform of Public Pensions in Germany: Main Elements and Some Effects,” Journal of European Social Policy 3, no. 1 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 Ibid., 48.

79 Clasen (fn. 27).

80 For a good summary of the positions, see Heinze, Rolf G., Schmid, Josef, and Strünck, Christoph, Vom Wohlfahrtsstaat sum Wettbewerbsstaat: Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialpolitik in den 90er Jahren (Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 1999), 6574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 Silvia, Stephen J., “The Alliance for Jobs: Social Democracy's Post-Keynesian/Process-Oriented Employment Creation Strategy,” German Politics and Society 17 (Spring 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Fink, Ulf, “Die Sozialhilfereform 1996,Sozialer Fortschritt 46, no. 3 (1997), 7475Google Scholar; Gebhardt, Thomas and Jacobs, Herbert, “Amerikanische Verhältnisse? Sozialhilfe in den USA und Deutschland: Ein Vergleich aus Historischer, Institutioneller und Rechtlicher Perspektive,” Zeitschrift für Sozial-reform 43 (August 1997).Google Scholar

83 Theisen(fn.26).

84 “The Chancellor Gets His Deal,” Economist (July 22,2000), 47.

85 Bundesministerium für Arbeit un Sozialordnung, Die Rentenreform 2000: Ein Mutiger Schritt zu Mehr Sicherheit (Berlin: Bundesministerium für Arbeit un Sozialordnung, August 2000).Google Scholar

86 Pierson, Paul, “Timing, Sequences and the Study of Comparative Politics” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998).Google Scholar

87 Eurobarometer Survey 37.1, “Consumer Goods and Social Security,” conducted April-May 1992 (Cologne: Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, 1999).Google Scholar

221
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *