The Experts below are selected from a list of 81501 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kathleen Thelen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
varieties of liberalization and the new politics of Social Solidarity
2014Co-Authors: Kathleen ThelenAbstract:For the past few decades, much of the scholarship on the political economy of the rich democracies has been organized around a broad distinction between an inegalitarian “liberal” model of capitalism that prevails in much of the Anglo-Saxon world and a more egalitarian “Social” model found in many European countries (e.g., Pontusson 1997; Acemoglu et al. 2012). While both models seemed equally viable in the Golden Era of postwar development, many contemporary trends seem to spell trouble for the European Social model. The litany of pressures on these systems is long and includes heightened competition in international markets, footloose finance, deindustrialization, declining union power, fiscal distress, and ascendant neoliberal ideology, among others. In light of these trends, some observers have suggested that the Golden Era of egalitarian capitalism may be over and that in the end, there is just one model of capitalism after all – the harsher one in which the market prevails over Social Solidarity (e.g., Howell 2003; Glyn 2006). While sharing many of the concerns that animate these analyses, I argue here against the idea of a uniform slide toward Anglo-Saxon-style liberalization. I propose a new, more differentiated way of thinking about contemporary changes in the political economies of the rich democracies. The framework offered here breaks with the continuum models on which much of the traditional literature has been based, in which countries are arrayed along a single dimension according to their degree of corporatism or, more recently, of coordination. In doing so, it reveals combinations – declining Solidarity in the context of continued coordination, and continued high levels of equality with significant liberalization – that other frameworks rule out by definition. Moreover, and against the dominant view of institutional stability as grounded in vested interests and straightforward feedback effects, I suggest that the institutions of egalitarian capitalism survive best not when they stably reproduce the politics and patterns of the Golden Era, but rather when they are reconfigured – in both form and function – on the basis of significantly new political support coalitions.
-
varieties of liberalization and the new politics of Social Solidarity industrial relations institutions
2014Co-Authors: Kathleen ThelenAbstract:We can begin the analysis of divergent trajectories of change with an examination of developments over the past two decades in industrial relations. This is an area in which scholars who are focusing on different measures often reach wildly different conclusions concerning the relative stability of traditional arrangements (see Thelen 2012). VofC scholars expect stability, at least in CMEs. They argue that even though employers in liberal market economies may well seek deregulation, those in CMEs will continue to support traditional arrangements because their competitive strategies rely on a high degree of labor cooperation, wage moderation, and peaceful plant relations – all elements that the institutions and practices associated with coordinated bargaining safeguard and protect. VofC critics, by contrast, maintain that employers in CMEs are no more supportive of these arrangements – or for that matter of unions – than their counterparts in the Anglo-Saxon world, and in fact seek at all turns to escape from the regulatory constraints imposed on them by organized labor and the state. VofC critics maintain that globalization has tilted the balance of power against labor, emboldening and empowering firms to increase flexibility and lower costs (Kapstein 1996; Katz and Darbishire 1999; Martin and Ross 1999). The direction of change is the same cross-nationally – neoliberalism – and any observed variation in the pace of institutional change is for them a matter of successful labor defense, not divergent employer preferences.
-
varieties of liberalization and the new politics of Social Solidarity vocational education and training
2014Co-Authors: Kathleen ThelenAbstract:Skill formation forms a second arena of importance within the VofC literature – VET being one of several complementary institutions that distinguish LMEs from CMEs. LMEs feature systems that encourage the acquisition of general skills, while the systems of education and training in CMEs provide strong vocational training in industry- or firm-specific skills. These differences are important not just in economic terms; they also have relevance to the political and distributional outcomes of central interest in this book. In LMEs, educational stratification often reflects and reinforces economic inequalities. In CMEs, by contrast, well-developed vocational tracks traditionally have offered opportunities for working-class youth to move into stable and relatively well-paid work, especially in manufacturing. The transition to the new “knowledge-based” economy poses important new challenges to both models (Morel et al. 2011: 1). The outsourcing of lower-skilled manufacturing jobs and the automation of production and services have transformed the kinds of competencies and skills required in these political economies. The relevant changes involve “not only a shift away from more narrow job-specific skills toward broader, more analytic general skills…[but also] a much more rapid turnover in the content…of training than in the past” (Mayer and Solga 2008: 2). This chapter considers the ways in which different national systems of education and training have been reconfigured to address these new challenges.
-
varieties of capitalism trajectories of liberalization and the new politics of Social Solidarity
2012Co-Authors: Kathleen ThelenAbstract:This essay reviews recent literature on varieties of capitalism, drawing on insights from existing studies to propose a new, more differentiated way of thinking about contemporary changes in the political economies of the rich democracies. The framework offered here breaks with the “continuum models” on which much of the traditional literature has been based, in which countries are arrayed along a single dimension according to their degree of “corporatism” or, more recently, of “coordination.” In so doing, it reveals combinations—continued high levels of equality with significant liberalization, and declining Solidarity in the context of continued significant coordination—that existing theories rule out by definition. I argue that these puzzling combinations cannot be understood with reference to the usual dichotomous, structural variables on which the literature has long relied, but require instead greater attention to the coalitional foundations on which political-economic institutions rest. A coalitional approach reveals that institutions that in the past supported the more egalitarian varieties of capitalism survive best not when they stably reproduce the politics and patterns of the Golden Era but rather when they are reconfigured—in both form and function—on the basis of significantly new political support coalitions.
-
sase annual meeting 2009 paris france economic regulation and Social Solidarity conceptual and analytic innovations in the study of advanced capitalism
2010Co-Authors: Kathleen ThelenAbstract:The title for this year’s SASE conference, ‘Capitalism in Crisis: Economic Regulation and Social Solidarity after the Fall of Finance Capitalism’, reflects the turbulent times in which we find ourselves. Policymakers struggle to respond to rapidly unfolding developments, while academics assess how well their theories capture those features of the contemporary situation that best reflect the choices these actors confront. Contemporary developments pose a special challenge for institutionalist theories of political economy since many of the institutional arrangements on which our explanations of cross-national policy differences are based are themselves in flux. The most widely used framework in the literature is that proposed by Peter A. Hall and David Soskice in their influential volume Varieties of Capitalism (2001). The framework they lay out is based on national models defined by
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
free movement and equal treatment in an unequal union
2018Co-Authors: Susanne K Schmidt, Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg MartinsenAbstract:The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European Social Solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.
Anne Mills - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Solidarity and willingness to tolerate risk and income related cross subsidies within health insurance experiences from ghana tanzania and south africa
2012Co-Authors: Jane Goudge, James Akazili, John E Ataguba, August Kuwawenaruwa, Josephine Borghi, Bronwyn Harris, Anne MillsAbstract:The importance of ill-health in perpetuating poverty is well recognized. In order to prevent the damaging downward spiral of poverty and illness, there is a need for a greater level of Social protection, with greater cross-subsidization between the poor and wealthy, and the healthy and those with ill-health. The aim of this paper is to examine individual preferences for willingness to pre-pay for health care and willingness to cross-subsidize the sick and the poor in Ghana, South Africa and Tanzania. Household surveys in the three countries elicited views on cross-subsidization within health care financing. The paper examines how these preferences varied by socio-economic status, other respondent characteristics, and the extent and type of experience of health insurance in the light of country context. In South Africa and Ghana, 62% and 55% of total respondents, respectively, were in favour of a progressive financing system in which richer groups would pay a higher proportion of income than poorer groups, rather than a system where individuals pay the same proportion of income irrespective of their wealth (proportional). In Tanzania, 45% of the total sample were willing to pay for the health care of the poor. However, in all three countries, a progressive system was favoured by a smaller proportion of the most well off than of less well off groups. Solidarity has been considered to be a collective property of a specific socio-political culture, based on shared expectations and developed as part of a communal, historical learning process. The three countries had different experiences of health insurance and this may have contributed to the above differences in expressed willingness to pay between countries. Building and 'living with' institutions that provide affordable universal coverage is likely to be an essential part of the learning process which supports the development of Social Solidarity.
John J Rodger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Solidarity welfare and post emotionalism
2003Co-Authors: John J RodgerAbstract:The article critically examines the assumption implicit in the research on Social Solidarity and popular attitudes that institutional Solidarity equates with mutual care in society. Following a review of a selection of recent empirical research on Social Solidarity and popular attitudes to welfare it is concluded that the evidence points to general support for welfare based on self-interest and the principle of mutual insurance rather than Social altruism. The analysis proceeds by arguing that Social and economic changes which have resulted in Social polarisation have weakened ‘functional democracy’ (the reciprocal dependency of one Social group or class on another) leading to possible ‘decivilising tendencies’ and a decline in mutual empathy. The article argues that post-emotionalism may be the result of these processes: the breakdown in mutual knowledge across the class divide; the intellectualisation of feelings; interaction based on false ‘niceness’; the manipulation of emotions. The paper concludes by suggesting that post-emotional attitudes are the by-product of government Social steering towards amoral familism in Social policy through the provision of a ‘vocabulary of motives’ which are negative to state welfare.
Christopher Deeming - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the politics of fractured Solidarity a cross national analysis of the class bases of the welfare state
2018Co-Authors: Christopher DeemingAbstract:This article considers the politics of Social Solidarity from a cross-national perspective. In the analysis, we rely on four waves of international Social survey data for our sample of Western nations, representative of different welfare state traditions. The time span is a twenty-year period and the total country-wave sample comprises over 40,000 records. While there is popular support for governmental actions to protect citizens in old-age and sickness, views about the Social rights of unemployed citizens are shifting. High-profile activating labour-market reforms are reapportioning the burden of risk in society. With the rise of right-wing populism in Europe and the US, this article examines how interests change as citizens lose their stake in the means of security – revealing an ever more fragile and fractured Social Solidarity.