State and Society in Europe - Essay Example

AND SOCIETY IN EUROPE by 14 December and Society in Europe Introduction Throughout the evolution of political science, “welfare states” have been among the most intriguing and, simultaneously, most problematic concepts. On the one hand, the development and establishment of “welfare” states marked the new stage of the economic and social progress in Europe. Alternatively, the meaning of the word “welfare” remains extremely vague. Differences in meaning and interpretation lead scholars in political science to develop their own, unique vision of welfare state. Esping-Andersen’s classification of welfare states is just one of many examples of how welfare states in political science can be classified. Esping-Andersen uses the principles of labor and decommodification as the principal criteria of his analysis and this is one of the essential merits of his classification: labor and decommodification produce a complex picture of welfare and its effects on the economic and social performance within the states. Unfortunately, this classification is neither flexible nor dynamic. Esping-Andersen’s classification is limited to income and decommodification and does not account for other factors of states’ performance, e.g. gender relations. Finally, the rapid speed of political, social, and economic globalization changes the meaning of welfare. Today, Esping-Andersen’s vision of welfare states needs to be reviewed, to adjust its political and economic principles to the new conditions of state performance in Europe. Esping-Andersen, welfare states, and decommodification That the concept of “welfare states” is unclear and inexact cannot be denied. In the simplest terms, the word “welfare” describes well-being or the material preconditions for improving and sustaining well-being (Pierson 2006). “Welfare” exemplifies a collective meaning, which comprises the submeanings of social, economic, and state welfare (Pierson 2006). In this situation, it comes as no surprise that dozens of political scientists tried to define and classify “welfare states”, based on their economic, social and other characteristics. Esping-Andersen (1990) was not the first to classify welfare states and define the differences between them. However, Esping-Andersen (1990) was different from the rest of his colleagues in that he relied on decommodification of labor as the principal criterion of comparing and categorizing welfare states. According to Esping-Andersen (1989), welfare states cannot be understood solely in terms of grants and rights; rather, welfare states exemplify a triangle of family, market activities, and social provision (Esping-Andersen 1989). Based on this definition, Esping-Andersen (1989) recognizes the three typical forms of welfare states: (1) “liberal”, (2) “corporatist” and (3) “social democratic” (Esping-Andersen 1989). According to Esping-Andersen (1989), liberal welfare states uniquely combine the features of “means-tested assistance, modest social insurance plans, and modest universal transfers” (Esping-Andersen 1989). Simply stated, benefits in liberal welfare states are modest; social stratification borders on stigmatization and labeling; traditional work-ethic norms serve a serious barrier to social progress, and the state, passively or actively, encourages the market (Esping-Andersen 1989). These states exist in the atmosphere of relative equality between the poor, minimal decommodification of labor, market-differentiated benefits for the majority, and apparent political dualism (Esping-Andersen 1989). In distinction from the liberal states, corporatist states seek to preserve and even reinforce the existing social differentials: rights are attaches to status and class (Esping-Andersen 1989). Here, state tends to displace the market and turns into the main welfare provider (Esping-Andersen 1989). Corporatist regimes are heavily influenced by the Church and operate within the realm of traditional familyhood (Esping-Andersen 1989). Finally, social democratic welfare states create the smallest cluster of regimes, which promote the highest standards of equality across all social classes and universal decommodification of the social rights (Esping-Andersen 1989). Needless to say, Esping-Andersen’s classification presents a number of merits. Esping-Andersen: the merits of decommodification That Esping-Andersen applies to incomes and commodification as the primary criteria of analysis is one of the primary benefits of his classification. The link between welfare, economy, politics, and social provision is well-recognized. Personal, civil society and economy produce key influence on the social outcomes (Piachaud 2005). Therefore, the choice of income and social guarantees as the basis for classification is not surprising. In a welfare state, a commodified worker is a person, who has a definite price (Cammisa 1998). An individual in a welfare state is capable of defining the scope of skills and knowledge he needs, to earn enough money and meet his social and material needs (Cammisa 1998). In an ideally free market, workers are absolutely free to choose a profession and material benefits without any negative consequences for themselves. In reality, however, these choices are either limited or associated with numerous negative ramifications. Stability is the only condition, where commodification of workers and wages is possible (Esping-Andersen 1989). Therefore, it is essential to understand, how various economic and social conditions limit or enable free choice and decommodification in welfare states. Decommodification creates and maintains a complex picture of interrelations between welfare states, social provision, the price of labor, and social rights/ benefits. Esping-Andersen’s classification sheds the light on how different welfare states organize their production facilities and capabilities, to create and deliver a wide range of social services (Cammisa 1998). Income has always served one of the primary measures of stability in progress in welfare states. Economic development became the central object of public attention in the 20th century. Esping-Andersen’s classification of welfare states is also an effective measure of comparison, and according to Cochrane, Clark and Gewitz (2001), comparative analysis facilitates exploration of the special and essential features of individual welfare states. However, the use of income as the primary measure of social and economic stability is one of the basic political mistakes. Income is an increasingly narrow category, which does not reflect an objective social situation in the society. In many aspects, Esping-Andersen’s classification of welfare states is associated with several noteworthy complexities. These complexities deserve particular attention. Esping-Andersen and welfare states: the limits of income categorization Esping-Andersen realized the difficulties, which his classification of welfare states could create in political science. In his work, he acknowledged three essential limitations. First, his approach to welfare states was too narrowly focused on material aspects of welfare states’ performance (Wincott 2001). Second, his typology of welfare states was inherently static (Wincott 2001). Third, “he concentrated too much on a state-market duality and failed to take account of households and families” (Wincott 2001). Really, the categories of income and decommodification are extremely narrow and do not reflect an objective social situation in welfare states. Stability and progress in welfare states are being influenced by a multitude of factors. Therefore, the use of income as the principal category leads political thinkers to ignore other drivers of social evolution. For example, gender relations exemplify a crucial source of influences on social performance within welfare states. Welfare states may reinforce preexisting gender roles, participate in the construction of gendered citizenship, or try to ameliorate gender inequalities (Orloff 1996). Which path a welfare state chooses in regard to the gender differences in society will also predetermine the scope and opportunities for labor decommodification. Esping-Andersen’s categorization of welfare states does not leave any room for flexibility and social dynamics. In brief, Esping-Andersen’s categories are static and do not reflect the changes in production and organization of the social services provision in welfare states. Contemporary political science emphasizes “the ongoing transition to a service-based economy” (Pierson 2000). In light of the postmodern economic complexity and the growing scope of globalization forces (both in the economy and politics), radical shifts in the organization of production and social forces present one of the essential challenges to traditional welfare structures (Pierson 2000). The emergence of the service economy is universally common across all welfare states, but what problems they face because of it depends on the type of the welfare regime (Pierson 2000). Not only should the proposed classification be adjusted to the new economic conditions, but the difficulties, which welfare states face in their transition to the service economy, need to be identified. Several essential limitations stem from within Esping-Andersen’s classification. These are associated with the meanings of liberalism, corporatism, and social democracy, which Esping-Andersen uses to define welfare state regimes. For example, the concept of liberalism implies freedom of markets and freedom of choice. Poverty in a liberal state is nothing but a product of individuals’ failure to compete with the market and social forces and develop effective foresight (Espring-Andersen 1989). Simultaneously, Esping-Andersen (1989) links the notion of liberalism to the concept of the minimum social wage, which limits individuals in their choice and does not give them a chance to develop better thrift and foresight. Modern liberal states are being torn between freedom and commodification – the latter results from the lack of economic and social stability. Means testing, about which Esping-Andersen (1989) speaks in his classification, makes free entrance to competitive markets extremely problematic and complicates decommodification of labor in liberal welfare states. Thus, Esping-Andersen’s (1989) classification represents an effective attempt to categorize and classify welfare states from the viewpoint of their production ideology. However, in light of the existing limitations of Esping-Andersen’s analysis, it is only a starting point in the development of a comprehensive picture of welfare in Europe. Globalization, the emergence of the service economy, and ongoing economic evolution will have to become the three crucial elements of a new model of welfare states in Europe. Conclusion The concept of “welfare state” has long been one of the most controversial topics in political science. The meaning of welfare is inexact. Different scholars and scientists hold different perceptions about welfare. Esping-Andersen’s typology is a reliable source of knowledge about production and labor processes in welfare states. Esping-Andersen uses income and decommodification of labor as the primary classification criteria, and these are the primary merits of his typology. Unfortunately, the proposed classification has several essential weaknesses. First, Esping-Andersen’s typology is increasingly static and does not reflect the changes in the global political and economic environments. Second, Esping-Andersen does not account for non-economic factors that influence progress in welfare states, e.g., gender relations. Finally, even the meaning of “liberalism” is paradoxical and confusing. Apparently, Esping-Andersen’s typology is the starting point in the analysis of welfare states in Europe, and globalization and transition to the service economy must become the crucial elements of the future models of welfare states in Europe. References Cammisa, AM 1998, From rhetoric to reform? Welfare policy in American politics, Boulder: Westview Press. Cochrane, A, Clarke, J & S Gewirtz 2001, Comparing welfare states, London: SAGE. Esping-Andersen, G 1989, ‘The three political economics of the welfare state’, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, vol.26, no.2, pp.10-33. Esping-Andersen, G 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Orloff, A 1996, ‘Gender in the welfare state’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol.22, pp.51-78. Pierson, P 2000, ‘Three worlds of welfare state research’, Comparative Political Studies, vol.33, pp.791-819. Pierson, C 2006, Beyond the welfare state?: The new political economy of welfare, Polity. Piachaud, D 2005, ‘Social policy and politics’, The Political Quarterly Publishing, pp.2-8. Wincott, D 2001, ‘Reassessing the social foundations of welfare (state) regimes’, New Political Economy, vol.6, no.3, pp.409-28. Read More