지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2010.7
- 수록면
- 61 - 95 (35page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
After the golden age of welfare state development in Europe, the glorious thirty years from 1945 to 1974, perceptions changed and the welfare state was interpreted to be in crisis. One solution to the crisis was a neo-liberal approach emphasizing privatization and retrenchment. And at least rhetorically this perspective gained ground during the 1980s in Northwestern Europe and during the 1990s in the newly emerging market economies of Central and Eastern Europe. However, on the whole, social science literature has been more concerned about trying to explain welfare state resilience to change than identifying retrenchment even if parts of the literature do argue for such a perspective. This seeming contradiction within the scholarly community calls for a more precise definition of all three import concepts: What should be understood by neo-liberal reform or a neo-liberal approach? Which welfare policies are in question? And what parts of Europe are being investigated? Furthermore, the time perspective is crucial.
From the perspective of the late 2000s this paper argues first that neo-liberalism in the form of the so-called Washington consensus is no longer promoted by international organizations. Social policies are no longer regarded as a burden on economies, but rather as investment in human capital. Hence, we are now beyond neo-liberalism. Secondly, the widespread welfare reforms in Europe must be distinguished according to welfare regime. Thus, the paper discusses welfare reform within five different trajectories: former state-socialist states, Continental Europe, Atlantic Europe, Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Although the number and demarcations of welfare regimes are contested (for an excellent overview see Powell and Barrientos, 2008) it is a widespread perspective and a good tool to order European welfare states. Hence, I agree with Francis Castles and Herbert Obinger (2008: 321) when they write: “Our main conclusions are that country clustering is, if anything, more pronounced than in the past, that it is, in large part, structurally determined and that the EU now contains a quite distinct post-Communist family of nations.”
A superficial overview of spending on social protection in both relative and absolute terms from 1980 (1990 in Eastern Europe) to 2005 reveals no signs of retrenchment in any regime. But such summary indicators may mask a different distributional profile of benefits and an increase in risks and coverage. Therefore, the remainder of the paper discusses in more detail particular welfare reforms within each of the five welfare regimes. It is concluded that problems of welfare state development differ within the different regimes, but a strong commitment to welfare can be identified everywhere. However, within a bifurcated system where the middle class enjoys generous protection, the marginalized are subjected to increased obligations and reduced entitlements.
From the perspective of the late 2000s this paper argues first that neo-liberalism in the form of the so-called Washington consensus is no longer promoted by international organizations. Social policies are no longer regarded as a burden on economies, but rather as investment in human capital. Hence, we are now beyond neo-liberalism. Secondly, the widespread welfare reforms in Europe must be distinguished according to welfare regime. Thus, the paper discusses welfare reform within five different trajectories: former state-socialist states, Continental Europe, Atlantic Europe, Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Although the number and demarcations of welfare regimes are contested (for an excellent overview see Powell and Barrientos, 2008) it is a widespread perspective and a good tool to order European welfare states. Hence, I agree with Francis Castles and Herbert Obinger (2008: 321) when they write: “Our main conclusions are that country clustering is, if anything, more pronounced than in the past, that it is, in large part, structurally determined and that the EU now contains a quite distinct post-Communist family of nations.”
A superficial overview of spending on social protection in both relative and absolute terms from 1980 (1990 in Eastern Europe) to 2005 reveals no signs of retrenchment in any regime. But such summary indicators may mask a different distributional profile of benefits and an increase in risks and coverage. Therefore, the remainder of the paper discusses in more detail particular welfare reforms within each of the five welfare regimes. It is concluded that problems of welfare state development differ within the different regimes, but a strong commitment to welfare can be identified everywhere. However, within a bifurcated system where the middle class enjoys generous protection, the marginalized are subjected to increased obligations and reduced entitlements.
목차
Introduction
Beyond Neoliberalism?
Development of Social Expenditure
Welfare Reforms in Europe
Conclusion
References
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
왜 유럽인가?
한국사회와 행정연구
1997 .12
-
탈 - 사회주의 동유럽의 정치문화 갈등
유럽연구
1998 .12
-
(Book Review) The Future of Europe: Reform or Decline
Mediterranean review
2009 .01
-
The U.S. of Europe-1992 : Obstacles on the way
저스티스
1991 .12
-
남유럽국가들의 복지국가로의 발전 양상 : 문화적 특성, 국민의 복지인식 및 복지지출규모를 중심으로
한국사회와 행정연구
2010 .02
-
East Europe and The Third World
국제정치논총
1979 .12
-
유럽연합과 유럽평의회의 관계 : 유럽 인권보호의 맥락에서
한양법학
2010 .08
-
European Integration and the Competitiveness of Europe
유럽연구
1999 .12
-
Can the Burden be Shared? Europe, the Sea and the Liberal Order in Asia
Global Asia
2018 .06
-
From the Nation-State to the European Union : Politics of Interests in Europe
아세아연구
2001 .06
-
Europe Has a Lot to Offer On the Korean Peninsula
Global Asia
2019 .06
-
동유럽 시장경제화에 따른 정부조직개편 : 헝가리 사례
유럽연구
1999 .06
-
Convergence in Africa and Europe
한국방송학회 세미나 및 보고서
2006 .10
-
Capital Flows and Financial Stability : Lessons for Europe from Emerging Economies
Global Asia
2011 .12
-
한국과 서유럽의 이민자 시민통합정책 비교 연구
국제정치연구
2013 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
국민연금기금 사회투자 논쟁의 재조명
주은선
월간 복지동향
2016
.05
사회서비스 일자리 질 개선 방안 연구 : 시장경제조직과 사회적경제조직의 비교를 중심으로
강현주
한국사회복지행정학
2015
.05
노동시장양극화와 사회통합방안 : 사회통합적 법·제도와 노동시장정책을 중심으로
이호근
한국사회정책
2013
.06
A Comparative Analysis of ChildcareExpansion and Social Investmentin Sweden, France, Germany, the UK,Japan and South Korea
안미영
한국사회정책
2013
.06
사회서비스 부문에서의 대안적 거버넌스 모형 탐색 : 영국과 미국의 사회성과연계채권(SIB) 비교분석을 중심으로
박정환
한국사회복지행정학
2015
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-331-001497786