European Social Policy - School of Social and Political Science

28 downloads 2435 Views 333KB Size Report
different European countries and of the role of social policy in the European Union .... All submitted work must provide a word count and the penalty for excessive ...
Welcome to

European Social Policy 2012-2013 SCPL08006 Tuesdays and Thursdays, 12.10-13.00

The course aims to provide an understanding of the way the welfare state has developed in different European countries and of the role of social policy in the European Union. It consists of three main parts: 1.

The emergence of welfare states in Europe, their varying patterns of development in the second half of the twentieth century and the economic and demographic challenges they face today.

2.

The diverse nature and effects of social policy arrangements in a range of European countries and the dynamics and impacts of current attempts to adapt these policies in the face of contemporary challenges.

3.

The significance of the “social dimension” for the European Union and the history of attempts to promote common EU social policies, an assessment of particular EU initiatives in the social sphere, and the future of social policy in an enlarged EU.

This course guide should be read in conjunction with the Social & Political Science 20122013 Years 1 & 2 Student Handbook, which outlines all the common information and procedures for students in first and second level courses in the School.

THIS HANDBOOK CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT – PLEASE ASK

1

European Social Policy Lecture Timetable

Lecturer (see page 8) Part I

European Welfare States: Development, Diversity and Challenges

Week 1 18. Sept 20. Sept

The origins and development of the welfare state in Europe Introducing European social policy The genesis and growth of European welfare states

DC DC

Week 2 25. Sept 27. Sept

Welfare state types and typologies The market and the welfare state: welfare regimes The family and the welfare state: male breadwinner typologies

DC EH

Week 3 02. Oct 04. Oct

Challenges to European welfare states Economic pressures: globalisation and the new economy Demographic pressures: fertility decline and population ageing

DC DC

Part II

Social Policies in Europe: Characteristics and Reform Dynamics

Week 4 09. Oct 11. Oct

The Bismarckian welfare states Germany France

EH DC

Week 5 16. Oct 18. Oct

The Nordic welfare states The ‘Nordic model’ The Danish welfare state

EH EH

Week 6 23. Oct 25. Oct

Additional European welfare models? The ‘Southern model’ The Central and Eastern European welfare states

DC EH

Week 7 30. Oct 01. Nov

The British and European welfare states in comparative perspective The British welfare state in European perspective European welfare states in international perspective

RB RB

Part III

The Social Policy of the European Union: Structures and Processes

Week 8 06. Nov 08. Nov

The social dimension of the EU The emergence of EU governance The emergence and development of the ‘social dimension’

RB RB

Week 9 13. Nov 15. Nov

Traditional Instruments of EU social policy The successes and limitations of EU social law The structural funds and EU regional policy

RB RB

Week 10 20. Nov 22. Nov

Beyond Hard Law: The ‘New Governance’ of EU Social Policy Social policy through the ‘Open Method of Coordination’ OMC Employment and the OMC Social Inclusion compared

RB RB

Week 11 27. Nov 29. Dec

The future of social policy in the European Union Social policy and the crises of the EU Recap and revision

DC DC

2

Teaching Arrangements Lectures are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 12.10. They start in the first week of the semester (Tuesday, 18th September) and are held twice weekly.

Lectures are held in the Appleton Tower, Lecture Theatre 3, Tuesdays and Thursdays 12.10 – 1.00pm Most lectures are designed to help you acquire a conceptual overview of the subject. This is especially important in a problem-centred subject like Social Policy, where relevant arguments and evidence may be scattered across a range of more or less up-to-date reading. To make the most of lectures, you should try to prepare for them in advance, and review your notes afterwards. Tutorials are an integral part of the course. They meet once a week, from the SECOND week of the semester. Your participation in tutorials is essential and is part of your assessment. You should explain any absences in an e-mail to your tutor. If you fail to attend on more than two consecutive occasions without reasonable explanation, your Director of Studies will be informed. Students who do not attend at least 7 tutorials without good reason will have their tutorial mark reduced by ten percentage points for each unapproved absence above the threshold, and will not have their overall marks raised if their performance is borderline. The tutorial programme includes issues related to the lectures, and provides an opportunity to clarify and amplify topics raised in the lectures and in your reading. The tutorials should also help you develop a range of relevant skills, such as being able to understand statistical tables, making presentations, writing essays, etc. The topic of each tutorial relates to lectures from the previous week. For tutorials you will receive questions you should focus on when doing your reading, and which will be discussed in the tutorial sessions; for some, you will also be asked to complete short exercises, such as interpreting a statistical table, preparing a short presentation or contributing to a debate. Tutorial participation will be assessed on the basis of the completion of assigned coursework, your active engagement during tutorial discussions, as well as the quality of your contributions.

Please sign up for a tutorial on the Learn system by the end of the first week of the semester (Friday, 21 September). Instructions for using Learn are set out on pages 11-12 of this handbook. Learn will not allow you to sign up for a tutorial that has reached the maximum number of students. It is therefore in your interest to sign up early for a tutorial, to ensure you have a choice among the times that suit you best.

Tutorials will take place in a range of locations near to George Square. Please see details on pages 39 and ff of this handbook.

3

Assessment The course is assessed through coursework (a 1500-1600 word essay; your active participation in tutorial exercises and discussions) and a degree examination. The weighting of course assessment is as follows: Assignment

Weight (%)

Tutorial participation

10%

Essay

30%

Degree Examination

60%

The Essay Essay Deadline

Tuesday, 30 October, 12.00 noon

Returned by

Tuesday, 20 November

It is your responsibility to manage your time and workload throughout the course so that your essay is submitted by no later than the deadline, even if you have similar deadlines for other courses. Every effort will be made to return work to you as soon as possible. You will be informed by your tutor if your assignment cannot be returned within the period indicated. The titles for the essay are drawn from weeks 1-5, and can be found at the end of this handbook (p. 38). The week or weeks of the course that the question relates to is indicated to allow you to identify appropriate literature. The literature listed in this handbook for the given week(s) will usually be enough to base a passable answer to the question on, but to produce a really good essay you should follow up other references listed in these pieces and search for relevant literature using library catalogues and on-line literature databases such as the web of knowledge (http://www.isiknowledge.com/) to develop your own bibliography. If you need help with your essay please go and discuss it with your tutor. Please take note of the guidance about essay writing in the Social & Political Science 2012-2013 Years 1 & 2 Student Handbook, as well as on how to avoid plagiarism. Social Policy is a subject that gives great weight to evidence as well as argument, and you are expected to include relevant evidence – including tables where appropriate – in your essays. You should make the most of any opportunities to develop skills in interpreting tables through the course. Links to on-line data resources are provided elsewhere in the handbook. Essays have a word limit (1600 words), and part of the discipline of writing an essay involves observing that limit. The limit applies to all text, excluding the bibliography or references at the end. All submitted work must provide a word count and the penalty for excessive word length in coursework is one mark deducted for each 20-word excess. There is no penalty if the length of your work falls below the word limit. One paper copy of the essay should be deposited in the essay box situated in the open area outside the Undergraduate Teaching Office, on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building; in addition, one electronic version of the essay should be submitted via Learn (for instructions see pages 11-12). Your tutor will return one copy (with comments). All marking is anonymous and you should enter your exam number (not your name) along with other details (title, word count, etc) on the essay assessment form when you hand in your essay. Make sure you attach the assessment form to your essay. For further information about the submission of coursework,

4

please also refer to the Social & Political Science 2012-2013 Years 1 & 2 Student Handbook. All coursework assessment is subject to confirmation by the Board of Examiners. For unexcused late submission of essays a penalty of five marks per working day (for up to five days) applies. The Exam The degree examination is a two-hour paper in week 13 or 14 of the first semester (10-21 December). Once it is scheduled by the University Registry (we expect by the end of October) the date of the examination will be posted on the Social Policy notice board, situated in the open area outside the Undergraduate Teaching Office, on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building. The degree examination will consist of three questions to be answered in two hours. The paper will be divided into two sections – one with four questions covering weeks 1-5 of the course and the other with eight questions covering weeks 6-10. You will have to answer one question from the first section (on which you will have already written the essay) and two from the second section (for which it is the only assessment). Past exam papers can be accessed at this website: http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/lib/resources/collections/exams.shtml. If you have not handed in your coursework you will be permitted to sit the exam, but will receive a zero for the course work component (40%) of your overall mark. The degree exam counts for 60% of the final mark, and it is necessary to pass the exam in order to pass the course overall (except for students assessed by the University as requiring ongoing special examination arrangements because of disability). If you fail at the first sitting you must re-sit the examination in August and the result of this exam will stand as your sole mark for the course. The re-sit examination will cover all the learning outcomes for the course; its structure will be notified by e-mail to those required to take it. The initial fail mark will be entered permanently on your record. The criteria for grading work are set out in the Social & Political Science 2012-2013 Years 1 & 2 Student Handbook; the marking criteria for essay and exam assessment are also set out below. Students entering their third or later year of study at Edinburgh should note that these are different from those that applied in previous years, with greater specificity in the criteria for grades of firstclass (70-79, 80-89 and 90-100) and fail (30-39, 20-29, 10-19 and 0-10) marks. A first-class merit is awarded when the total mark amounts to 70% or more, and a second-class merit when the mark is between 60% and 69%. It is open to Exam Boards to award extra marks to candidates whose marks bring them near these levels. Marking Criteria Essays A1 (90-100%) An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality. A2 (80-89%) An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content. A3 (70-79%) A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

5

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%) A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-. C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%) A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-. D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%) A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, overreliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-. E (30-39%) An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps. F (20-29%) An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources. G (10-19%) An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts. H (0-9%) An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing. Marking Criteria Exams In assessing coursework there will be greater emphasis on the breadth of material, more engagement with the literature and a more refined presentation. Exams require more concise and focused answers, with less emphasis on the literature incorporated, or on sophisticated expression and presentation. A1 (90-100%) An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows originality and independent thought, together with flair and an ability to present and analyse things from different perspectives. A2 (80-89%) A comprehensive answer that remains focused on the topic and provides an authoritative response to the question. It should be fully conversant with the main issues and literature and able to incorporate these into the analysis while showing awareness of their complexities and wider ramifications. It should display strong critical and analytical skills, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to challenge them. A high level of quality should be sustained throughout. 6

A3 (70-79%) A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the course material and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions. B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%) A very good answer, showing qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question should be addressed fully and directly within a coherent and well-structured discussion that demonstrates awareness of the main issues and reading. The answer should have a clear focus and engage with the topic in an analytical rather than descriptive way. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation of concepts or data. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+, a more limited one B-. C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%) A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and show awareness of the main issues and/or evidence of independent reading, which will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. There may be some errors of fact or interpretation, but the materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. It should attempt to engage critically with the question, though with some possible unevenness. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-. D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%) A passable but superficial answer which understands the question and displays some learning, though with omissions and inaccuracies and scant evidence of reading. There should be a discernible structure, although the answer may lack focus or coherence. There will be few signs of insight or critical awareness and the approach will be overwhelmingly descriptive rather than analytical. This could also be the mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the topic. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-. E (30-39%) An answer that attempts to address the question, but contains serious inaccuracies, omissions and/or misunderstandings. The structure will be weak, and the focus vague. There will be no or very little evidence of reading or critical awareness and a tendency to descriptive narrative, some of dubious relevance, rather than analysis. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps. Within this band, an answer conveying the sense that with fuller analysis it might have achieved a pass should be marked between 37% and 39%. More substantial fails should receive a mark of 3036%. F (20-29%) An answer showing no awareness of the relevant issues or reading and seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject. The structure will be incoherent and lacking in logical development, with no evidence of critical awareness or insight and major omissions and/or inaccuracies in the material presented. G (10-19%) An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with fundamental concepts or issues. H (0-9%) An answer with no academic merit, conveying little sense that the course has been followed or of the ability to develop a coherent argument.

7

Further information Assistance is available from your tutor, the Senior Tutor (Richard Brodie), or the Course Convener (Daniel Clegg), who will be pleased to help you with any problems specific to the course. You can e-mail your tutor, the Senior Tutor, or the Course Convener (contact details below, and see also the Social Policy notice board in the open area outside the Undergraduate Teaching Office on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building). Your Director of Studies can assist you with more general academic and personal problems, or refer you on to appropriate sources of assistance. During the second week of the course, and at your first tutorial, you will elect a tutorial representative. The Course Convener and the Senior Tutor hold two meetings during the course with tutorial representatives. Please give your representative the information she or he needs to represent you! The Course Convener, Senior Tutor and all teaching staff will welcome all of your suggestions, as well as any constructive criticism. If you have any problems with the course then you can also raise them with your tutor, your lecturer, Senior Tutor or the Course Convener. Any problems or complaints that you may have which cannot be resolved in this way can be taken up initially with the Subject Area Head Jeff Collin (Room 2.10, Chrystal Macmillan Building, [email protected]). If you are still dissatisfied, your Director of Studies can advise you on how to make a more formal complaint. You can obtain further information in the Social & Political Science 2012-2013 Years 1 & 2 Student Handbook, the Undergraduate Teaching Office notice boards, and the Social Policy web site at http://www.socialpolicy.ed.ac.uk/. The Course Secretary, Ewen Miller, is in the Undergraduate Teaching Office on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building (and see below); he will be pleased to assist you if you need information not included in this handbook - but you are asked to observe office hours! Staff Course Convener & Lecturer Dr Daniel Clegg (DC) Lecturers Dr Elke Heins (EH) Dr Ingela Naumann (IN) Senior Tutor & Lecturer Mr Richard Brodie (RB) Tutors Ms Alzbeta Bartova Ms Lynne Robertson Course Secretary Mr Ewen Miller

E-mail address

Phone

Room

[email protected]

650 3998

3.23 CMB

[email protected] [email protected]

650 4049 651 3869

3.01 CMB 3.25 CMB

[email protected]

Contact by e-mail

[email protected] [email protected]

Contact by e-mail Contact by e-mail

[email protected]

650 3925

UTO, CMB

Disabled students The School welcomes students with disabilities (including those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia) and is working to make all its courses accessible. If you have special needs which may require adjustments to be made to ensure access to such settings as lectures, tutorials or exams, you should discuss these with your Director of Studies who will advise on the appropriate procedures. You can also contact the Disability Office, Third Floor, Main Library (telephone 650 6828) and an Advisor will be happy to meet with you. The Advisor can discuss possible adjustments and specific examination arrangements with you, assist you with an application for Disabled Students' Allowance, give you information about available technology and personal assistance such as note takers, proof readers or dyslexia tutors, and prepare a Learning Profile for your School which outlines recommended adjustments. You will be expected to provide the Disability Office with

8

evidence of disability - either a letter from your GP or specialist, or evidence of specific learning difficulty. For dyslexia or dyspraxia this evidence must be a recent Chartered Educational Psychologist's assessment. If you do not have this, the Disability Office can put you in touch with an independent Educational Psychologist.

Resources Please note that you will not be expected to read all the items on the weekly reading lists provided below, but that at the same time the lists do not exhaust the good material available in books and journals: use the library catalogues and search engines creatively, especially when doing essays: this is a skill we expect you to learn and demonstrate! Those readings which are thought to be particularly relevant are noted with an asterisk (*). It is recommended that you buy one or more of the following books: - Mel Cousins (2005): European Welfare States. Comparative Perspectives, London: Sage. A good and easy-to-read introduction to welfare state theories and the comparison of social policies in European countries. - Gøsta Esping-Andersen (2000): Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. This is an up-dated version of Esping-Andersen’s famous study on the three welfare state regimes, examining the challenges of changing family and employment structures for today’s welfare states. This can also be read on-line. - Colin Hay and Daniel Wincott (2012) The Political Economy of European Welfare Capitalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave. A fine study of the recent development of social policy across the whole of Europe which engages critically with arguments about the domestic and international drivers of social policy change. - Linda Hantrais (2007) (third edition): Social Policy in the European Union, London: Palgrave. The best basic introduction to social policy at EU level. - Mark Kleinman (2002): A European Welfare State? European Union Social Policy in Context, London: Palgrave. This is an alternative that deals both with variations between European welfare states as well as with the social dimension of the EU. All these titles can be obtained at Blackwell’s Bookshop on South Bridge. The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (eds. Castles et al, 2010, Oxford University Press) and Welfare States: Construction, Deconstruction, Reconstruction (eds. Leibfried and Mau, 2008, Edward Elgar, 3 volumes) will be useful reference sources, and are in the HUB Loan section of the Main Library. An article published a couple of years ago by Maurizio Ferrera (2008) ‘The European Welfare State: Golden Achievements, Silver Prospects’, West European Politics, Volume 31(1-2), pp. 82107 usefully synthesises a number of the themes treated in the course as a whole. Use the Library, as most of the references used in the course are to be found in the Reading Rooms of the University Main Library. Readings for the course can be found the HUB (Reserve and Short Loan) and general collections. EU documents and books relevant to this course are kept in the Europa Library and its European Documentation Centre. This is part of the Law Library in Old College (at the western end – turn left on entering and follow the signs). Some important European journals (such as Journal of Common Market Studies and Journal of European Public Policy) are kept in the Law Library rather than in the Main Library. It is entered at the north east corner of the inner quadrangle of Old College (turn right after entering the quad from South Bridge - there is a sign), through a rather heavy door on the left and up three floors. Do not be afraid to venture into this pleasant library. Use the catalogue: if you have difficulty in finding books, please let your tutor know. Some recent texts may have been ordered but not yet placed on the shelves. Some readings on the reading list

9

are available for brief borrowing from the off-print cabinets in the Reserve section of the Main University Library Reading Room. Once we know the numbers on the course we shall be selling a tutorial reading pack comprising the items you are expected to read for each tutorial. These items are marked [TRP] in the reading lists. Use the e-journals facility, which now allow you to read and print off the full text of articles from most journals (e.g. the Journal of European Social Policy) from your computer. The best way to do this is via the University’s MyEd portal (register for this and get your password via www.ease.ed.ac.uk). Log in via https://www.myed.ed.ac.uk; click on ‘Library’ and then on ‘launch Library Resources’ in the ‘Library Resources' channel. This will bring up a ‘Library Online’ information page from which you can navigate for either the e-journals or other databases (some of these may require you to click on ‘Athens Login’, ‘Login via Athens’ or similar). We have tried to include electronically available journal material in the reading lists for each week, because much of the most interesting and up-to-date research is published in journals, but also so that access to material should not be a problem. Please use these resources! Official publications such as UK Government White Papers, official reports and the like are to be found on the second floor of the Library. Extensive European Union information is available on the EU website at: www.europa.eu.int. Social policy and related subjects are continually subject to public debate so please consult newspapers and weeklies; the British newspaper with the best European coverage is the Financial Times. Some newspapers and weeklies can be obtained at special rates. You may also find it rewarding to look at some of the journals which deal with social policy and European issues – especially Journal of European Social Policy, and also (in the Main Library) Journal of Social Policy (which has an excellent online Digest section with details of recent policy changes), Social Policy and Administration, West European Politics and Policy and Politics. Latest copies can be found in the Periodicals Room in the Main Library, where it is always worth browsing. Bound volumes for past years are currently in the basement. An excellent portal to a range of different types of data regarding work and welfare issues in Europe has been developed as part of an EU-funded research project in which the University of Edinburgh is a key partner. You will find descriptions of and links to many kinds of comparative data, most of it freely available. Do make use of this useful resource. http://www.edacwowe.eu

10

Student Guide to Using Learn for Tutorial Sign-Up The following is a guide to using Learn to sign up for your tutorial. If you have any problems using the Learn sign-up, please contact Ewen Miller by email, or in the Undergraduate Teaching Office, on the ground floor of the Chrystal Macmillan Building. Step 1: Accessing Learn course pages Access to Learn is through the MyEd Portal, using your University log-in and password. Once you are logged into MyEd, you should see a tab called ‘Courses’ which will list the active Learn pages for your courses. Step 2: Welcome to Learn Once you have clicked on the relevant course from the list – European Social Policy – you will see the Home Page for the course. This page will have links for the different tools available, including one called Tutorial Sign-Up. Please click on this link. Step 3: Signing up for your tutorial Clicking on the Tutorial Sign-Up link will take you to the actual tutorial sign-up page. This page is self-explanatory – just follow the instructions (outlined below): 1. Scroll down to see the full list of tutorial groups available. Select the one you want by clicking on the Sign Up button next to it. 2. You should now see a new screen saying Confirm Sign Up in: Group ... – followed by the number of the group you selected. Click OK. If you change your mind after having chosen a tutorial, you will not be able to make the change yourself, so please contact Ewen Miller by email as soon as possible. Once a tutorial is full, it will disappear from the list. It is therefore important to sign up as soon as possible. Tutorials have restricted numbers. The tutorial sign-up will only be available until the end of Week 1 of the semester (Friday, 24 September). If you have not yet signed up for a tutorial by this time, please contact the Course Secretary as soon as possible.

Submitting your essay •

1 PAPER COPY & 1 ELECTRONIC COPY of your essay should be submitted on or before the deadline – 12.00 noon, Tuesday, 30 October, 2012.



DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR NAME in the essay – this ensures anonymous marking.



DO INCLUDE YOUR EXAMINATION NUMBER – put it in the header so it appears on every page.

11



YOUR EXAMINATION NUMBER IS DIFFERENT TO YOUR MATRICULATION NUMBER! Your EXAM NUMBER is on your student card below your MATRIC NUMBER.



SAVE YOUR ESSAY WITH A FILE NAME THAT INCLUDES YOUR EXAM NUMBER – “ESP 10-11 essay 1234567”, for example.



Remember to put the COURSE NAME, ESSAY QUESTION & WORD COUNT on front page.



FILES MUST BE IN: Word (.doc/.docx) WordPerfect (.wpd/.wps) PostScript (.eps) HTML (.htm) rich text (.rtf) text (.txt) or PDF format Microsoft Publisher, Open Office and Microsoft Works files will not be accepted. See essay submission guides in Learn if you’re unsure how to save in a different format.



DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY SEPARATELY FROM THE ESSAY. Our internal checks make sure the bibliography will not count as plagiarised material.



The PAPER COPY is submitted to the SOCIAL POLICY ESSAY DROPBOX in the foyer of the Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15A George Square.



Fill out the ESSAY COVER SHEET provided there (and on Learn) and staple it to your essay before dropping it in the box.



The ELECTRONIC COPY should be submitted to the COURSE SITE IN Learn – and see the home page for a folder of essay submission guides. At the course Home Page, click on the Assignments tab situated on the Course Tools bar at the left hand side of the page. Click on the relevant essay title in the middle of the screen. Click on Add Attachment and locate your essay on your computer and attach it. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE YOUR ESSAY INTO THE WINDOW PROVIDED. Click on Submit to finish.

• THE DEADLINE FOR ESSAY SUBMISSION IS 12 NOON ON THE SUBMISSION DATE – any essays lodged after 12 noon are considered a day late even if lodged on the correct date.

12

The Course week by week

Part I: European Welfare States: Development, Diversity and Challenges Week 1

The origins and development of the welfare states in Europe

1.1. Introducing European Social Policy

18.09.12

The aims of this session will be to preview the objectives of the course, but also to define some terms that will recur frequently. Clasen (2007) is a good introduction to the two broad topics of this course: comparison of European welfare states and the social dimension of the EU. Parry (1995) is a neat introduction to the welfare state as an object of study, while Walker and Wong (2004) and Bonoli (2007) introduce some complications. Marshall (1963) and Titmuss (1974) provide some ‘classical’ accounts that define and explain welfare states in relation to the development of modern citizenship. Briggs (1961) is another early definition of the welfare state, and also introduces some of the explanatory factors explored in the next session. *Baldock, John (2007): Social Policy, Social Welfare, and the Welfare State, in: John Baldock, Nick Manning, Sarah Vickerstaff (eds): Social Policy, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, pp 5-30. Bonoli, G. (2007) ‘Too narrow and too wide at once: the ‘welfare state’ as dependent variable in policy analysis’, in Clasen, J. and Siegel, N. (eds.) Investigating Welfare State Change, Chetenham: Edward Elgar, 24-42 *Clasen, J (2007): “Comparative social policy and the European Union” in John Baldock et al (eds.), Social Policy, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 601-626. Marshall, T.H. (1963) ‘Sociology at the crossroads’, Citizenship and Social Class, London: Heinemann, chapter 4 *Parry, R (1995): “Redefining the welfare state”, in E Page & J Hayward (Eds): Governing the New Europe, Cambridge: Polity. Titmuss, R. (1974) Social Policy: An Introduction, London: Allen and Unwin Walker, A. and Wong, C. (2004) ‘The ethnocentric construction of the welfare state’, in Kennet, P. (ed.) A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

1.2. The genesis and growth of European welfare states

20.09.12

This session explores the various explanations for the growth of welfare states in Europe. Kuhnle and Sander (2010), Cousins (2005), Pierson (2006) and van Kersbergen (1995) all offer accessible overviews. Flora and Heidenheimer (1981) is a good illustration of the functionalist explanation for welfare state development and Korpi (1980) of more conflict-based approaches. A little difficult, Estevez-Abe et al. (2001) is the clearest argument for linking welfare state development to employers preferences in different ‘varieties of capitalism’, an approach in turn critiqued by Korpi (2006). Huber et al. (1993) and Skocpol and Amenta (1986) emphasise the role of political institutions in shaping social policy development and the role of welfare state institutions in shaping politics. Flora (1986) is a classic text which has masses of historical detail on the historical development of different European welfare states. Amenta, E. (2003), ‘What We Know about the Development of Social Policy. Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective’ in Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (ed.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Baldwin, P. (1989) ‘The Scandinavian origins of the social interpretation of the welfare state’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Volume 31(1), pp. 3-24 *Cousins, M (2005): European Welfare States. Comparative Perspectives. London: SAGE, ch 2. *Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity, ch 1

13

Esping-Andersen, G. (1989) ‘The three political economies of the welfare state’, Canadian Review of Sociology, 26(1), 10-36 [TRP] Estevez-Abe, M., Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘Social protection and the formation of skills: a reinterpretation of the welfare state’, in Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145183 Flora, P (1986): Introduction to P Flora (ed.): Growth to Limits: the West European Welfare States, vol II., Berlin: de Gruyter. Flora, P and Alber, J. ‘Modernization, Democratization, and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe’ in Flora, P. & Heidenheimer, AJ (Eds) (1981): The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Huber, E, Ragin, C and Stephens, JD (1993): “Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state”, American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3): 711-749. Korpi, W. (2006) ‘Power resources and employer centred approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: Protagonists, consenters and antagonists’, World Politics, 58(2), 167-206 Korpi, W (1980): “Social policy and distributional conflict in the capitalist democracies: a preliminary comparative framework”, West European Politics, 3. *Kuhnle, S. and Sander, A. (2010) ‘The emergence of the western welfare state’, in Castles, F. et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Pierson, Chris (2006) Beyond the Welfare State: The New Political Economy of Welfare, Cambridge: Polity, especially chapters 1 and 4 Skocpol, Theda and Amenta, Edwin (1986) ‘States and social policies’, Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 12, pp. 131-157 *Van Kersbergen, K (1995): Social Capitalism: a Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State, London: Routledge, ch 2.

There is no tutorial in the first week of the course. Please sign up for a tutorial group

Week 2

Welfare state types and typologies

2.1. The market and the welfare state: welfare regimes

25.09.12

This session deals with typologies or models of welfare states, and particularly with those that examine the relationship between the welfare state and the market. Cousins (2005) and Kleinemann (2002) both offer a simple way in to the issue of modelling, and Abrahamson (1999) an extended discussion of the ‘welfare modelling business’. Wilensky (1965) and Titmuss (1974) developed early typologies, but Esping-Andersen (1990) is the really fundamental text here. His ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’ are complemented by Bonoli (1997) and by Ferrera (1996), who both identify a Southern European variant. Arts and Gelissen (2002 and 2010) provide a sympathetic critical discussion of Esping-Andersen’s worlds, in the light of more recent research. In two somewhat technical articles in the same journal, Bambra (2006) and Scruggs and Allan (2006) offer essential corrections and updatings of Esping-Andersen’s ‘worlds’. Iversen and Stephens (2008) synthesise the regime approach with the varieties of capitalism literature to highlight further differences between conservative and social democratic welfare states. Jensen (2008) urges caution, however, in pushing generalising too much about welfare state variation from a typology based on analysis of cash benefits only, while Kasza (2002) offers a more generally critical take. *Abrahamson. P. (1999) ‘The welfare modelling business’ Social Policy and Administration Vol. 33 (4): 394-415. Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2010) ‘Models of the welfare state’ in Castles, F. et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Arts, W & Gelissen, J (2002): “Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report”, Journal of European Social Policy, 12 (2): 137-58.

14

Bonoli, G. (1997) ‘Classifying Welfare States: A Two-dimension Approach’ Journal of Social Policy, 26(3), 351-372 Bambra, C (2006): ‘Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16 (1): 73-80. Castles, F. G., & Mitchell, D. (1993): ‘Worlds of welfare and families of nations’, in F. G. Castles (Ed.), Families of nations: Patterns of public policy in western democracies (pp. 93-128). Aldershot: Dartmouth. *Cousins, M. (2005): European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives, London: Sage, ch 6. *Esping-Andersen, G (1990): The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity, ch 1 and 2. Esping-Andersen, G (1999): Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, esp ch 5. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0198742002/toc.html Ferrera, M (1996): “The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (1): 17-37. Iversen, T. and Stephens, J. (2008) ‘Partisan politics, the welfare state and three worlds of human capital formation’, Comparative Political Studies, 41 (4-5), 600-637 Jensen, C. (2008) ‘Worlds of welfare services and transfers’ Journal of European Social Policy, 18 (2) 151-162 Kasza, G. (2002) ‘The illusion of welfare regimes’, Journal of Social Policy, 31(2), 271-87 Kemeny, J. (1995) ‘Theories of power in the ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’’, Journal of European Social Policy, 5(2), 87-96 *Kleinman, M (2002): A European Welfare State? London: Palgrave, ch 2. Powell, M. and Barrientos, A. (2004) ‘Welfare regimes and the welfare mix’, European Journal of Political Research, 43(1), 83-105 Scruggs, L and Allan, J (2006): ‘Welfare state decommodification in 18 OECD Countries: a replication and revision’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1): 55-72. Schroeder, M. (2008) ‘Integrating welfare and production typologies: how refinements of the varieties of capitalism approach call for a combination of welfare typologies’, Journal of Social Policy, 38(1): 19-43 Titmuss, R. (1974) Social Policy: An Introduction, London: Allen and Unwin Veit Wilson, J (2000): 'States of welfare: A conceptual challenge', Social Policy and Administration, 34 (1): 1-25 Wilensky, H. (1965) Industrial Society and Social Welfare, New York: Russel Sage

2.2. The family and the welfare state: male breadwinner typologies

27.09.11

This session deals with the varying place of women and assumptions about the family in the social policy arrangements of different welfare state. Cousins (2005), Daly (1994) O’Conor (1996) and Sainsbury (1999) all provide overviews of feminist/gender-based critiques of mainstream welfare state theory and conventional typologies. The literature contains a number of typologies responding to this, from the male breadwinner model (Lewis 1992, 2001) to some alternative formulations (Sainsbury 1996; Pfau-Effinger 2003), including Esping-Andersen’s revised version of his own ‘three worlds’ typology, which pays greater attention to issues of family and household (Esping-Andersen 1999). Crompton (2003); Lewis (2001) and Lewis and Giullari (2005) discuss recent developments around the decline of the male breadwinner model. Millar (2003) and Orloff (1993) are useful on issues of autonomy, obligation and citizenship. Naumann (2005) and Jason (2006) provide some explanations for the gendered development of social policies in different countries. Daly (2011) offers a critical take on the concept of the ‘adult worker model’. *Cousins, M. (2005) European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives, London: Sage, ch 4. Crompton, R. (2003) ‘The Decline of the Male Breadwinner: Explanations and Interpretations’, in R Crompton (ed), Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-25. *Daly, M. (2011) What Adult Worker Model? A Critical Look at Recent Social Policy Reform in Europe from a Gender and Family Perspective, Social Politics, 18(1), 1-23

15

*Daly, M. (1994) ‘Comparing Welfare States: Towards a Gender Friendly Approach’, in D Sainsbury (ed) Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage, ch 7. Daly, M. and Lewis, J. (2000) ‘The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states’, British Journal of Sociology, 51(2): 281-298. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999): Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch 4. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009) The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women’s New Roles, Cambridge: Polity Press. Eydal, G.B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011) ‘Gender equality revisited – changes in Nordic childcare policies in the 2000s, Social Policy & Administration 45(2), 161-179. Jordan, J. (2006): “Mothers, Wives, and Workers. Explaining Gendered Dimensions of the Welfare State”, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (9), 1109-1132 (a comparison of Sweden, Germany, and France). Lewis, J. (1992) “Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes”, Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3):159-173. *Lewis, J. (2001) “The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care’, Social Politics, 8 (2): 152-169. [TRP] Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005) ‘The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capability approach’, Economy and Society, 34 (1): 76-104. Lister, R. (2000) ‘Gender and Social Policy’ and Lewis, J. ‘Gender and Welfare Regimes’, in Lewis et al (eds) Rethinking Social Policy London: Sage, ch 1 and 2. *Millar, J. (2003) ‘Obligations and autonomy in Social Welfare’, in R Crompton (ed) Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch 2. Naumann, I.K. (2005) ‘Childcare and feminism in West Germany and Sweden in the 1960s and 1970s’, European Journal of Social Policy, 15(1) 47-63. O’Connor, J.S. (1996) ‘From Women in the Welfare State to Gendering Welfare State Regimes’, special issue of Current Sociology 44(2). Orloff, A.S. (1993) ‘Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States’, American Sociological Review, 58(3):303-328. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2003) ‘The Modernisation of Family and Motherhood in Western Europe’, in R Crompton (ed) Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch 4. *Sainsbury, D. (1999) Gender Equality and Welfare States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch 8. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0198294166/toc.html

Tutorial Topic: What factors have driven and shaped the development of welfare states in Europe? Exercise: How to write an academic paper Reading: Esping-Andersen, TRP reading 1

Week 3 3.1

Challenges to European welfare states

Economic pressures: globalisation and the new economy

02.10.12

For the debate about the impact of globalization and welfare states, Cousins (2005) provides yet another useful overview. Rhodes (1996) and Scharpf (2000) both contend that globalization menaces welfare states, while Rieger and Leibfried (1998) offers a more sceptical viewpoint, further explored by Walter (2010) and Kwoon and Pontusson (2010). Recent empirical tests of these various arguments are offered by Busemeyer (2009), Koster (2009) and Adelantado and Calderon (2006). Pierson (2001) suggests that the shift from manufacturing to services is a more significant threat to welfare states than globalisation. Iversen and Wren (1998) agree, and suggest

16

that different welfare states will respond differently to these challenges. Bonoli (2005) is the clearest exploration of the new social risks and needs that arise in post-industrial welfare states. Adelantado, J. and Calderon, E. (2006) ‘Globalization and the welfare state: the same strategies for similar problems?’ Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4): 374-86 Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (2006) The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States, London: Routledge *Bonoli, G. (2005) ‘The politics of the new social policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states’, Policy and Politics, 33(3), 431-449 Busemeyer, M. (2009) ‘From myth to reality: globalisation and public expenditure in OECD countries revisited’, European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 455-82 Cousins, M (2005): European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives, London: Sage, ch 3. Iversen, T. and Wren, A. (1998) ‘Equality, employment and budgetary restraint: the trilemma of the service economy’, World Politics, Volume 50(4), pp. 507-46 *Koster, F. (2009) ‘The welfare state and globalisation: down and out or too tough to die?’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(2) 153-62 Kwoon, H. and Pontusson, J. (2010) ‘Globalization, labour power and partisan politics revisited’, Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), pp. 251-281 *Pierson, P (2001): ‘Post-Industrial Pressures on the Mature Welfare States”, in Pierson, P (ed): The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford University Press, 80-104. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0198297564/toc.html Rhodes, M (1996): ‘Globalization and West European Welfare States: A Critical Review of Recent Debates’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6(4): 305-27. *Rieger, E. and Leibfried, S. (1998) ‘Welfare state limits to globalization’, Politics and Society 26(3), 363-390. *Scharpf, F W (2000): ‘The viability of advanced welfare states in the international economy; Vulnerabilities and options, European Review, 8(3): 399-425 Scharpf, F. (2000) ‘Economic changes, vulnerabilities and institutional capabilities’, in Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds.) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Volume 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 21-125 Schuknecht, L and Tanzi, V. (2005): Reforming Public Expenditure in Industrialised Countries: Are There Trade-offs?, European Bank, Working Paper no.435, 1-44 [downloadable at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=647947] Swank, D. (2003) ‘Withering welfare? Globalisation, political economic institutions and contemporary welfare states’, in Weiss, L. (ed.) States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 58-83 Walter, S. (2010) ‘Globalization and the welfare state: Testing the microfoundations of the compensation hypothesis’, International Studies Quarterly, 54(2), 403-426

3.2

Demographic pressures: fertility decline and population ageing

04.10.12

This session deals with two, related, demographic challenges to welfare states; population ageing and declining fertility. Castles (2004) has useful chapters on both issues. Timonen (2008) is an excellent overview of the various implications of ageing societies. The World Bank (1994) piece is a famous crisis warning, drawing conclusions about the need to privatise pension provision. Myles (2002) and Lindh et al (2005) show that other policy options exist. A recent special issue of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2010) has a number of articles on the implications of ageing for social policy. Increasing the birth rate is one way of at least limiting population ageing, and Hantrais (1999), OECD (2001), Esping-Andersen (2009) and Bonoli (2008) discuss how far social policy could here be part of the solution. Goerres and Tepe (2010) look at the politics of all this. Bjoerklund, A (2006): “Does family policy affect fertility? Lessons from Sweden”, Journal of Population Economics, 19 (1): 3-24. Busemeyer, M. et al (2009) ‘Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 19(3): 195-213 17

*Castles, F (2003): “The world turned upside down: below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries”, Journal of European Social Policy, 13 (3): 209-227. *Castles, F (2004): The Future of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 6 and 7. Coleman, D (2001): ‘Population Ageing: an unavoidable future’, OXPOP Working Paper no 7. [http://www.apsoc.ox.ac.uk/Oxpop/wp05.pdf]. Commission of the European Communities (2009) Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU: the 2009 ageing report, Communication COM(2009)180 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0180:FIN:EN:PDF

De Santis, G (2001): ‘Population Ageing in Industrialized Countries’, International Union for the Scientific Study of Population [http://www.iussp.org/Publications_on_site/PRP/prp19.pdf]. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009) The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Womens’ New Roles, Cambridge: Polity *Frericks, P., Harvey, D. and Maier, R. (2010) The ‘paradox of the shrinking middle’: The central dilemma of European social policy, Critical Social Policy, 39(3), 315-336 [TRP] Goerres, A. and Tepe, M. (2010) ‘Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: A comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries’, of European Journal Political Research, 49(6), 818-851 Hantrais, L (1999): “Socio-Deomgraphic Change, Policy Impacts and Outcomes in Social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 9 (4): 291-309. Lindh, T., Malmberg, B. and Palme, J. (2005) ‘Generations at war or sustainable social policy in ageing societies?’ Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(4) 470-89 *Myles, J (2002): “A New Social Contract for the Elderly”, in Esping-Andersen et al, Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 130-172. *Bonoli, G. (2008) ‘The impact of social policy on fertitlity: evidence from Switzerland’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1) 64-77 OECD (2001): ‘Balancing Work and Family Life: Helping Parents into Paid Employment’, OECD Employment Outlook, Paris, 129-166. Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2010) Special issue on ‘The Economics of Ageing’, vol. 26(4). *Saraceno, C (1996): “Family Change, Family Policies and the Restructuring of Welfare”, in OECD: Family, Market and Community. Equity and Efficiency in Social Policy, Social Policy Studies, No. 21, 81-100. Schulz, J (2002): ‘The evolving concept of ‘retirement’: looking forward to the year 2050’. International Social Security Review 55 (1): 85-105. *Timonen, V. (2008) Ageing Societies: A Comparative Introduction, Maidenhead: Open University Press World Bank (1994): Averting the Old Age Crisis, New York: Oxford University Press. Tutorial Topic: What kinds of social policies characterise a ‘male breadwinner model’? What problems result out of the fact that social reality has increasingly moved away from this ideal model? Reading: Lewis (2001), TRP reading 2

Part II: Social Policies in Europe: Characteristics and Reform Dynamics Week 4

The Bismarckian welfare states

4.1. Germany

09.10.12

Clasen (2005), available online, is a good place to start. There is a general argument in ch 3 and you can dip into the German sections on pensions, unemployment and family policy. Clasen and Freeman’s edited text (1994) has useful historical background, Busch (2006) and Manow and Seils (2000) offer overviews of the perceived adjustment problems of the German welfare state. Hinrichs (2010), Vail (2003), Streeck and Hassel (2003), Streeck (2009) Grabow (2005) and Meyer (2005)

18

address recent reforms in different policy fields, while Leitner and Lessenich (2003) make a theoretical argument regarding the development of the insurance principle. A readable recent book providing good background information on the German welfare state, but with a strong, perhaps overdrawn central thesis (marketisation of state services alongside socialisation of family responsibilities) is Bleses and Seeleib-Kaiser (2004). Seeleib-Kaiser (2003) is basic and straightforward. On recent reforms in labour market and unemployment policy, where changes have been considerable in the last decade, see Clasen and Goerne (2011), Kemmerling and Bruttel (2006) and Fleckenstein (2008 and 2012). *Bleses, P and Seeleib-Kaiser, M (2004): The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Busch, A (2006): ‘Globalisation and the national varieties of capitalism: the contested viability of the German model’, German Politics, 14 (2): 125-139. *Clasen, J (2005): Reforming European Welfare States: Germany and the United Kingdom Compared, Oxford: Oxford University Press, esp. Ch. 3. www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0199270716/toc.html Clasen, J. (ed.) (2011) Converging Worlds of Welfare: British and German social policy in the 21st Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clasen, J. and Goerne, A. (2012) ‘Exit Bismarck, enter dualism? Assessing contemporary German labour market policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 40(4): 795-810. Dingeldey, I. (2011), ‘Germany: moving towards integration whilst maintaining segmentation‘, pp. 55-74 in J. Clasen and D. Clegg (eds.) Regulating the risk of unemployment, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fleckenstein, T. (2008) ‘Restructuring welfare for the unemployed: The Hartz legislation in Germany’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18(2): 177-88. Fleckenstein, T. (2012) The politics of labour market reforms and social citizenship in Germany, West Euroepan Politics, 35(4): 847-868. Hassel, A. (2010), ‘Twenty years after German unification. The restructuring of the German welfare and employment regime’, German Politics & Society 28(2): 102-115. Hassenteufel, P. and Palier, B. (2007) Towards Neo-Bismarckian Health Care States? Comparing Health Insurance Reforms in Bismarckian Welfare Systems. Social Policy & Administration, 41(6): 574-596. Hemeriicjk, A. and Eichhorst, W. (2009) Whatever happened to the Bismarckian welfare state? From labor-shedding to employment-friendly reforms, IZA Discussion Paper no. 4085, http://ftp.iza.org/dp4085.pdf Hinrichs, K. (2010) ‘A social insurance state withers away: welfare state reforms in Germany’, in Palier, B. (ed.) (2010) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Kemmerling, A and Bruttel, O (2006): ‘New politics in German labour market policy? The implications of the recent Hartz reforms for the German welfare state’, West European Politics, 29 (1): 90-112. Leisering, L. (2009): ‘Germany: A centrist welfare state at the crossroads’, in Alcock, P. and Craig, G. (eds.) International Social Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Leitner, S and Lessenich, S (2003): ‘Assessing welfare state change: the German social insurance state between reciprocity and solidarity’, Journal of Public Policy, 23(3): 325-347. *Manow, P. and Seils, E. (2000) ‘Adjusting Badly: The German welfare state, structural change and the open economy’, in Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds.) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, (volume 2: Diverse responses to common challenges), Oxford: Oxford University Press *Seeleib-Kaiser, M (2003): ‘The Welfare State: Incremental Transformation’ in S Padgett et al. (eds): Developments in German Politics 3, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Stiller, S. (2010) Ideational leadership in German welfare state reform: How politicians and policy ideas transform resilient institutions, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Streeck, W. (2010), ‘The fiscal crisis continues: From liberalization to consolidation’. Comparative European Politics 8(4): 505-514. Streeck, W and Trampusch, C (2005): ‘Economic reform and the political economy of the German welfare state’, German Politics, 14 (2): 174-195.

19

Vail, M (2003): ‘Rethinking corporatism and consensus: the dilemmas of German social protection reform’, West European Politics, 26 (4): 41-66. von Wahl, A (2006): ‘Gender equality in Germany: comparing policy change across domains’, West European Politics, 29(3): 461-488. Weishaupt, T. (2010) ‘Germany after a decade of social democrats in government: The end of the Continental model?’, German Politics, 19(2): 105-122.

4.2. France

11.10.12

Palier (2010 a, b and c) are useful overviews of reform problems and reform trends across all ‘Bismarckian’ welfare states (also relevant for session 4.2), while Hemerijck and Eicchorst (2009) are good on the link between welfare and employment questions in these systems. Palier (2010d) offers an excellent summary of recent developments in the French welfare state. Smith (2004) offers a critical account on the current state of the French welfare model, focussing on its inability to reform, while Barbier (2007) and Vail (2009) give more nuanced assessments. Hassenteufel (2001) and Hassenteufel and Palier (2007) discuss recent reforms in health care; Mandin and Palier (2005) and Sterdyniak (2005) are useful for changes to the pension system; Clegg (2007) and Clasen and Clegg (2003) discuss changes in French labour market policies in comparative perspective, while Clegg (2011) takes a closer and less comparative look at recent developments. Morel (2007) and Klammer and Letablier (2007) do the same with respect to family and care policies, where France has always diverged most from other ‘Bismarckian’ welfare states. *Barbier, J-C (2007): The French Social Protection System in the Throes of Reform (1975-2007). University of Paris I – CES Working Paper 2007.48 ftp://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/CES2007/R07048.pdf Clegg, D. (2011) France: Integration versus Dualization, in Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (2011) Regulating the Risk of Unemployment, Oxford: Oxford University Press Clegg, D. (2007), ‘Continental drift: On unemployment policy change in Bismarckian welfare states’, Social Policy & Administration, 41:6, 597-617 (a comparison of France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands) Clasen, J and Clegg, D (2003): ‘Unemployment Protection and Labour Market Reform in France and Great Britain in the 1990s: Solidarity versus Activation?’ Journal of Social Policy 32, 361381. This article is also relevant for week 7 Hassenteufel, P. (2001) ‘Liberalisation through the state; why is the French health care system becoming so British?’, Public Policy and Administration, 16(4), 84-95 Hassenteufel, P. and Palier, B. (2007) ‘Towards Neo-Bismarckian health care states: comparing health reforms in Bismarckian welfare systems’, Social Policy & Administration, 41:6, 574-96 *Hemeriicjk, A. and Eichhorst, W. (2009) Whatever happened to the Bismarckian welfare state? From labor-shedding to employment-friendly reforms, IZA Discussion Paper no. 4085, http://ftp.iza.org/dp4085.pdf Jordan, J. (2006): “Mothers, Wives, and Workers. Explaining Gendered Dimensions of the Welfare State”, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (9): 1109-1132. (a comparison of Sweden, Germany, and France) This article is also relevant for week 5 Klammer, U. and Letablier, M.-T. (2007) ‘Family policies in Gemany and France: the role of enterprises and social partners’, Social Policy & Administration, 41:6, 672-692 Levy, J. (2000) ‘France: Directing adjustment?’ in Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds.) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, (volume 2: Diverse responses to common challenges), Oxford: Oxford University Press Mandin, C and Palier, B (2005): "The Politics of Pension Reform in France: The end of exceptionalism?" in G Bonoli and T Shenkawa (eds.): Ageing and Pension Reform Around the World. Evidence from eleven countries, Northampton: Edward Elgar. Morel, N. (2007) ‘From Subsidiarity to 'Free Choice': Child- and Elder-care Policy Reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands’ Social Policy & Administration, 41:6, 618-637 Palier, B. (2010a) ‘Ordering change: Understanding the Bismarckian welfare reform trajectory’, in Palier, B. (ed.) (2010) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Palier, B. (2010b) ‘The long conservative corporatist road to welfare reforms’, in Palier, B. (ed.) (2010) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 20

Palier, B. (2010c) ‘Continental Western Europe’, in Castles, F. et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press Palier, B. (2010d) ‘The dualizations of the French welfare system’, in Palier, B. (ed.) (2010) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press *Palier, B. (2000) ‘’Defrosting’ the French welfare state’, West European Politics, 23(2), 113-136 *Palier, B and Martin, C (2007) "From ‘a Frozen Landscape’ to Structural Reforms: The Sequential Transformation of Bismarckian Welfare Systems", Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 535-554. [TRP] Palier, B and Thelen, K (2010) ‘Institutionalizing Dualism: Complementarities and Change in France and Germany’, Politics & Society 38(1): 119-148. Revillard, A. (2006): "Work/Family Policy in France. From State Familialism to State Feminism?" International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 20, 133-150. Smith, T B (2004): France in Crisis: Welfare, Inequality and Globalization since 1980, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sterdyniak, H (2005): "Reforming the French Pension System: Social Choices and Policy Challenges", The Tocqueville Review, 26, 67-95. Vail, M. (2009) ‘Rethinking social protection in the 5th Republic: ‘Buttressed liberalisation’ in an age of austerity’, in Brouard, S. et al. (eds.) The French republic at Fifty: Beyond Stereotypes, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 191-208

Tutorial Topic: Is population ageing the main cause of the threats to the sustainability of social policies in Europe? Exercise: Understanding tables of population development, see page 37 Reading: Frericks et al (2010), TRP reading 3

Week 5

The Nordic welfare states

5.1. The Nordic Model

16.10.12

The first lecture of this week focuses on general features of the Nordic social model. Bergh (2004) conceptualises and analyses one central feature of the Nordic Welfare States, namely universality. Kvist and Greve (2011) and the other articles in a Social Policy & Administration special issue (vol. 45, no. 2) devoted to the Nordic welfare states all discuss developments in the recent period. Blomqvist (2004), Blom (2001) and Klitgaard (2007) highlight the important privatisation theme starting to transform the Nordic model since the 1990s. Leira (2002) examines family policies across the Nordic welfare states, Earles (2011) - more up-to-date - does this for Sweden and Rauch (2007) points to relevant differences between the Nordic countries in the field of social services. Elvander (2002), as well as Johansson and Hvinden (2007) discuss the characteristics of Nordic activation policies. Kangas, Lundberg and Plough (2006) provide a good comparison of pension reform in Nordic countries, Hytti’s Swedish-Finnish comparison (2006) is a model of how to write an interesting academic paper. Hiilamo (2004) discusses family policies in Sweden and Finland, Timonen (2001, 2003) is also relevant on the Finland-Sweden comparison. Marklund and Nordlund (1999) as well as Palme et al (2002) are good comparative summaries of developments in the Nordic countries in the 1990s. The International [formerly Scandinavian] Journal of Social Welfare (Main Library) is a good source for further information. Bergh, A. (2004): 'The Universal Welfare State: Theory and the case of Sweden', Political Studies, 42 (4): 745-766. Blom, B. (2001): “The personal social services in a Swedish quasi-market context”, Policy and Politics, 29, 29-42. Blomqvist. P. (2004): ‘The choice revolution: privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s’, Social Policy and Administration, 38 (2): 139-155; this special ‘Nordic regional issue’ also contains other articles of interest 21

Earles, K. (2011) ‘Swedish family policy – continuity and change in the Nordic welfare state model’, Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 180-193. Elvander, N. (2002), ‘The labour market regimes in the Nordic countries: A comparative analysis’, Scandinavian Political Studies 25 (2): 117-137. Eydal, G.B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011) ‘Gender equality revisited – changes in Nordic childcare policies in the 2000s, Social Policy & Administration 45(2), 161-179. Hiilamo, H. (2004): “Changing family policy in Sweden and Finland during the 1990s”, Social Policy & Administration, 38 (1): 21-40. *Hytti, H. (2006): ‘Why are Swedes sick but Finns unemployed?’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 15 (2), 131-141. Jochem, S. (2011) ‘Nordic employment policies – change and continuity before and during the financial crisis’, Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 131-145. *Johansson, H. and Hvinden, B. (2007) ‘Re-activating the Nordic welfare states: do we find a distinct universalistic model?’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(7-8), 334346 Klitgaard, M.B. (2007) ‘Why are they doing it? Social democracy and market-oriented welfare state reforms’, West European Politics, 30 (1): 172-194. *Kvist, J. and Greve, B. (2011) ‘Has the Nordic Welfare Model Been Transformed?’, Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 146-160. [TRP] Leira, A. (2002): Working parents and the welfare state: family change and policy reform in Scandinavia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palme, J. et al (2002): ‘Welfare trends in Sweden: balancing the books for the 1990s’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12 (4): 329-346. *Rauch, D. (2007), ‘Is there really a Scandinavian social service model? A comparison of childcare and elderly care in six European countries’, Acta Sociologica 50 (3): 249-269. Timonen, V. (2001): “Earning welfare citizenship: welfare state reform in Finland and Sweden”, in P. Taylor-Gooby (ed.): Welfare States under Pressure, London: Sage. Timonen, V (2003) Restructuring the welfare state: globalization and social policy reform in Finland and Sweden, Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

5.2.The Danish Welfare State

18.10.12

Some observers have argued that in recent years Denmark has become a more ‘prototypically Nordic’ welfare state than Sweden or any other Nordic country. Rauch (2007 and 2008) shows this with regard to childcare and care for older people. Greve (2004) argues that, despite some reforms and restructuring, core elements of the Danish welfare state (pensions, unemployment and early retirement schemes) continue to be based on universal principles and contribute to high employment and low inequality. More recently, Kvist and Greve (2011) and Jørgensen and Schulze (2011) cast some doubts as to what extent these assumptions still remain valid in the future. Andersen and Pedersen (2006) address one of the challenges of the Danish welfare state. Madsen (2007) provides a good summary of Danish labour market ‘flexicurity’. The other articles examine characteristics and trends in specific social policy areas. Andersen, T.M. and Pedersen, L.H. (2006), ‘Financial restraints in a mature welfare state - The case of Denmark’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22 (3): 313-329. Anderson, K.M. (2004), ‘Pension politics in three small states: Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands’, Canadian Journal of Sociology – Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 29 (2): 289312. Clasen, J. and Viebrock, E. (2008) Voluntary unemployment insurance and trade union membership: investigating the connections in Denmark and Sweden, Journal of Social Policy, 37, 3, 433-452. Dingeldey, I. (2007) ‘Between workfare and enablement – The different paths to transformation of the welfare state: A comparative analysis of activating labour market policies’, European Journal of Political Research 46 (6): 823-851. Green-Pedersen, C. and Lindbom, A. (2006), ‘Politics within paths: trajectories of Danish and Swedish earnings-related pensions’, Journal of European Social Policy 16 (3): 245-258.

22

*Greve, B. (2004), ‘Denmark: Universal or not so universal welfare state’, Social Policy & Administration 38(2): 156-169 Halvorsen, R. and Jensen, P.H. (2004), ‘Activation in Scandinavian welfare policy –Denmark and Norway in a comparative perspective’, European Societies 6 (4): 461-483. Holm, S. (1995), ‘Socialized medicine”, resource allocation and two-tiered health care - The Danish experience, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (6): 631-637. Jørgensen, H. (2002) Consensus, cooperation and conflict. The policy making process in Denmark, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jørgensen, H. and Schulze, M. (2011) ’Leaving the Nordic path? The changing role of Danish trade unions in the welfare reform process, Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 206-219. *Kvist, J. and Greve, B. (2011) ‘Has the Nordic Welfare Model Been Transformed?’, Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 146-160. [TRP] Madsen, P.K. (2007) ‘Distribution of Responsibility for Social Security and Labour Market Policy. Country Report: Denmark’, Amsterdam Institute for Advances Labour Studies working paper, vol. 07/51. Available at: http://www.uva-aias.net/uploaded_files/publications/WP51.pdf. (mainly pp. 9-25 on flexicurity). *Rauch, D. (2007) ‘Is there really a Scandinavian social service model? A comparison of childcare and elderly care in six European countries’, Acta Sociologica 50 (3): 249-269. *Rauch, D. (2008) ‘Diverging old-age care developments in Sweden and Denmark, 1980-2000’, Social Policy & Administration, 42, 3, 267-287. Rostgaard, T. (2006) ‘Constructing the care consumer: Free choice of home care for the elderly in Denmark’, European Societies 8 (3): 443-463. Vrangbaek, K. and Christiansen, T. (2005) ‘Health policy in Denmark: Leaving the decentralized welfare path?’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 30 (1-2): 29-52. Tutorial Topic: Why are Bismarckian welfare states difficult to reform? Reading: Palier and Martin (2007), TRP reading 4

Week 6 Additional European welfare models? 6.1 The ‘Southern Model’

23.10.12

Ferrera (various years) is indispensable reading on the southern model of welfare in general, and on the Italian welfare state more specifically. Martin (1997), Leibfred (1993) and Gal (2010) also discuss the possibility of an additional welfare regime, an argument contested by Esping-Andersen (1999). Trifiletti (1999) develops both data and theory on the “Southern Model”, while Moreno (2006) discusses recent policy changes. Ascoli (1987) (probably the best place to start) and Sykes (1996) describe the development of the post-war Italian welfare state. Ferrera (2000), Ferrera/Gualmini (2000), Guillen (2002 and 2010), Guillen/Alvarez (2002), and Jessoula and Alti (2010) examine various characteristics of different Southern welfare states. Bettio et al. (2006), Fargion (2010) and Scrinzi (2008) point to specific developments in Southern welfare states in relation to the family and care, while Natali (2004) provides a state of the art analysis of recent Italian pension reforms. Graziano (2009) and Maino and Neri (2011) discuss most recent developments in the Italian welfare state. Ascoli, U (1987): “The Italian welfare state: between incrementalism and rationalism”, in R R Friedmann & N B Moshe Sherer (eds): Modern Welfare States: a Comparative View of Trends and Prospects, Brighton: Wheatsheaf. Bettio, F et al. (2006) “Change in care regimes and female migration: the “care drain” in the Mediterranean”, Journal of European Social Policy, 16 (3): 271-285. Esping-Andersen, G., (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford University Press Inc: New York, chapters 4 and 5.

23

Fargion, V (2010): ‘Children, Gender and Families in the Italian Welfare State’, in: Children, Gender and Families in Mediterranean Welfare States, Children’s well-being: Indicators and Research, Vol 2, Part 3, 105-128. (can be downloaded online). *Ferrera, M. (2010) The southern European countries, in Castles, F. et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Ferrera, M (1996): “The ‘southern model’ of welfare in social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (1): 17-37. *Ferrera, M (2000): “Reconstructing the welfare state in Southern Europe”, in S Kuhnle (ed): Survival of the European Welfare State. London: Routledge. [TRP] Ferrera, M & Gualmini, E (2000): “Reforms guided by consensus: the welfare state in the Italian tradition”, West European Politics, 23, 187-208. *Gal, J. (2010) ‘Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 29(4), 283-300 [TRP] Graziano, P. (2009): ‘Choosing Welfare or Loosing Social Citizenship? Citizen’s Free Choice in Recent Italian Welfare State Reforms’, Social Policy & Administration, 43(6): 601-616. Guillen, A M. (2010) ‘Defrosting the Spanish welfare state: The weight of conservative components’, in Palier, B. (ed.) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Guillén, A M (2002): “The politics of universalisation: establishing national health services in southern Europe”, West European Politics, 25, 49-68. *Guillén, A M & Alvarez, S (2001): “Globalisation and the southern welfare states”, in R Sykes et al. (eds): Globalization and European Welfare States: Challenges and Change, London: Palgrave. Jessoula, M. and Alti, T. (2010) Italy: An uncompleted departure from Bismarck, in Palier, B. (ed.) A Long Goodbye to Bismarck?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Leibfreid, S., (1993), ‘Towards a European Welfare State?’ in Jones, C. (ed.) New Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe, Routledge: London, pp.133-156 *Martin, C (1997): “Social Welfare and the Family in Southern Europe”, in M Rhodes (ed.): Southern European Welfare States: Between Crisis and Reform, London: Frank Cass, 23-41. Maino, F. and Neri, S. (2011) ‘Explaining welfare reforms in Italy between economy and politics’, Social Policy and Administration, 45(4), 445-464) *Moreno, L. (2006) The model of social protection in Southern Europe: Enduring characteristics?, in Revue Francaise des Affaires Sociales (English edition) 2006/5, pp. 73-95 http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-des-affaires-sociales-2006-5-page-73.htm (networked computers only) *Natali, D (2004): “Europeanization, policy arenas, and creative opportunism: the politics of welfare state reforms in Italy”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (6): 1077-1095. Scrinzi, F (2008): ‘Migrations and the restructuring of Welfare State in Italy. Change and Continuity in the Italian domestic work sector’, in H. Lutz (ed), Migration and Domestic Work: A European Perspective on a Global Theme, Ashgate: Aldershot, 29-42. Sykes, R (1996): “Is there an Italian welfare state?”, in M May et al (eds): Social Policy Review, 8. London: Social Policy Association. Trifiletti, R (1999): “Welfare regimes and the worsening position of women”, Journal of European Social Policy, 9 (1): 49-64. *Van Kersbergen, K (1995): Social Capitalism: a Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State, London: Routledge, ch 3 & 4.

6.2 The Central and Eastern European Welfare States

25.10.12

The countries of central and Eastern Europe bear the legacies of their decades of state socialism after the Second World War until 1989/90, and of the policies put in place to prepare for entry into the EU. Most of these countries have been strongly influenced by neo-liberal ideas on welfare state reform promoted by international organisations, also known as the ‘Washington consensus’, while attempting to preserve some of the universalist features of their old systems. Inglot (2008) offers a long historical perspective, while Manning (2004) and Cook (2010) are more contemporary overviews. Deacon (2000) and Ferge (2001) review the dynamics of liberalisation, while Kovacs (2002), Vobruba (2003) and Lendvai (2008) are the best guides to the dynamics of enlargement.

24

Vanhuysse (2006) develops an original argument about the way social policy has been used by elites in the particular context of post-communist transition. A special issue of the journal Social Policy & Administration (vol. 43, no. 2) from 2009 includes a range of relatively up-to-date articles on social policy developments in different CEE countries. *Aspalter, C. et al (2009)’ Analysing the welfare state in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia: An ideal-typical perspective’, Social Policy & Administration, 43(2), 170-185. Bruszt, L. (2002) ‘Making markets and eastern enlargement: diverging convergence’, West European Politics, 25 (4), 121-140. *Cook, L. (2010) ‘Eastern Europe and Russia’, in Castles, F. et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press Davidova, N. and Manning, N. (2009) ‘Russia: State Socialism to Marketized Welfare’, in P. Alcock and G. Craig (eds): International Social Policy (2nd edition), Palgrave: Macmillan. Deacon, B. (2000) ‘Eastern European welfare states: the impact of the politics of globalization’, Journal of European Social Policy, 10 (2): 146-161. Ferge, Z. (2001) “Welfare and ‘ill-fare’ systems in Central-Eastern Europe” in R. Sykes et al. (eds), Globalization and European Welfare States, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Ferge, Z. and Juhász, G. (2004) Accession and social policy: the case of Hungary. In: Journal of European Social Policy, 14 (3): 233-251. *Guillen, A. and Palier, B. (2004) ‘Does Europe matter? Accession to EU and social policy developments in recent and new member states’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14(3), 203209 (see also other articles in this special issue on EU Enlargement, Europeanization and Social Policy). *Hacker, B. (2009) ‘Hybridization instead of clustering: Transformation processes of welfare policies in Central and Eastern Europe’, Social Policy & Administration, 43(2), 152-169. Heinen, J. and Wator, M. (2006) ‘Child care in Poland before, during, and after the transition: Still a women's business’, Social Politics, 13(2), 189-216. Inglot, T. (2008) Welfare States in East Central Europe, 1914-2004, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kocourkova, J. (2002) ‘Leave arrangements and childcare services in Central Europe: policies and practices before and after the transition’, Community, Work & Family, 5(3), 301-318. Kovacs, J.M. (2002) ‘Approaching the EU and reaching the US? Rival Narratives on Transforming Welfare Regimes in East-Central Europe’ West European Politics, 25(4), 175-204 (see also other articles in this special edition on The Enlarged European Union). Lendvai, N. (2008) ‘EU Integration and the transformation of post-communist welfare: traversing a ‘quantum leap’’, Social Policy & Administration, 42(5) 504-23. *Manning, N. (2004) ‘Diversity and change in pre-accession Central and Eastern Europe since 1989’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14 (3), 211-232. Pascall, G. and Manning, N. (2000) ‘Gender and social policy: comparing welfare states in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union’, Journal of European Social Policy, 10(3), 240-266. Plomien, A. (2009) ‘Welfare state, gender, and reconciliation of work and family in Poland: Policy developments and practice in a new EU member’, Social Policy & Administration, 43(2), 136151. Sirovatka, T. and Mares, P. (2006) ‘Poverty, social exclusion and social policy in the Czech Republic’, Social Policy & Administration, 40 (3), 250-266.

Tutorial Topic: What are the key characteristics of the Nordic welfare model and to what extent does Denmark still conform to this model? Exercise: Making qualitative comparisons of policy Reading: Kvist and Greve (2011), TRP reading 5

Week 7 The British and European welfare states in comparative perspective 25

7.1. The British welfare state in European perspective

30.10.12

Beveridge (1942) is the founding statement of the British welfare state, and the general sections make for a surprisingly easy and informative read. Baldwin (1992) and Perrin (1992) discuss the Beveridge reforms in comparative perspective. Cochrane and Clark (1993) and Glennester (2000) offer helpful short introductions to the British welfare state, and Lowe (2005) is the best comprehensive history. Both Clasen (2003) and Rhodes (2000a and 2000b) provide excellent overviews of reforms since the beginning of the 1990s, while Taylor-Gooby and Larsen (2004) explicitly discuss the British welfare state as a ‘liberal’ model. Clasen (2005) and Clasen et al (2006) gives detailed information on British pensions, family policies and unemployment benefits, in comparison with Germany. Walker and Foster (2006) is a good additional reference for pension reforms, while Land and Lewis (1998) is still useful for care policies, though Wincott (2006) updates their assessment considerably. Klein (2001) is the single best book on the NHS. Powell (2008) is a good assessment of New Labour’s record of welfare reform since 1997. Greve (2009) and Wilson (2009) look at the choice agenda, prevalent in today’s British welfare state. Baldwin, P. (1992) ‘Beveridge in the longue durée’, International Social Security Review, Volume 45(1-2), 53-72 Beveridge, W (1942): Social Insurance and Allied Services: A Report by Sir William Beveridge, Cmnd. 6404, London: HMSO. Cochrane, A and Clarke, J (eds.) (1993): Comparing Welfare States: Britain in International Context, London: Sage/Open University, 20-29, 141-159, 166-168, 173-187 and 198-200. *Clasen, J. (2003) ‘Towards a new welfare state or reverting to type? Trends in British social policy since the early 1980s’, European Legacy, volume 8(5), pp. 573-586 *Clasen, J (2005): Reforming European Welfare States: Germany and the United Kingdom Compared, Oxford: Oxford University Press, esp ch 3. www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0199270716/toc.html Clasen, J and Clegg, D (2003): "Unemployment Protection and Labour Market Reform in France and Great Britain in the 1990s: Solidarity versus Activation?" Journal of Social Policy 32, 361381. This article is also relevant for week 4 Clasen, J, Davidson, J, Ganssmann, H and Mauer A (2006): “Non-employment and the welfare state: the United Kingdom and Germany compared”, Journal of European Social Policy, May 2006; vol. 16: pp. 134-154. DWP (2011) The Work Programme. Available at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/the-workprogramme.pdf Evers, A, Lewis, J and Riedel, B (2005): "Developing child-care provision in England and Germany: problems of governance", Journal of European Social Policy 15, 195–209. *Glennerster, H (2000): British Social Policy since 1945, Oxford: Blackwell, chapter 2, ‘Beveridge: Founding Father?’, 18-39. Greve, B. (2009), Can Choice in Welfare States Be Equitable?. Social Policy & Administration, 43: 543–556. Harris, B (2004): The Origins of the British Welfare State. Society, State and Social Welfare in England and Wales, 1800-1945. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Klein, R. (2001) The New Politics of the National Health Service, Harlow: Prentice Hall Land, H. and Lewis, J. (1998) ‘Gender, care and the changing role of the state in the UK’, in Lewis, J. (ed.) Gender, Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate Perrin, G. (1992) ‘The Beveridge Plan: the main principles’, International Social Security Review, Volume 45(1-2), pp. 39-52 Powell, M. (2008) (ed.) Modernising the Welfare State: The Blair Legacy, Bristol: The Policy Press *Rhodes, M. (2000a) ‘Desperately seeking a solution: social democracy, Thatcherism and the ‘third way’ in British welfare’, West European Politics, Volume 23(2), pp. 161-186 Rhodes, M. (2000b) ‘Restructuring the British welfare state: Between domestic constraints and global imperatives’ in Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds.) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, (volume 2: Diverse responses to common challenges), Oxford: Oxford University Press *Taylor-Gooby, P & Larsen, T P (2004): "The UK – A Test Case for the Liberal Welfare State?" In P Taylor-Gooby (ed.): New Risks, New Welfare, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55-83.

26

Walker, A & Foster, L (2006): "Caught between virtue and ideological necessity. A century of pension policies in the UK", Review of Political Economy 18, 427-448 Wilson, D. (2009), Exit, Voice and Quality in the English Education Sector.Social Policy & Administration, 43: 571–584 Wincott, D. (2006) ‘Paradoxes of New labour social policy: towards universal child care in Europe’s ‘most liberal’ welfare regime’, Social Politics, 13(2): 286-312

7.2. European welfare states in international perspective

01.11.12

This session considers whether, despite all the differences between the welfare states found in Europe, it still makes sense to speak of a social model that is common to European countries when compared to other developed countries, especially the USA. Russell (2006), Alesina (2004) and Alesina and Glaeser (2006) argue that it does, and provide some suggestions as to why welfare states may have developed in Western Europe and not North America. Alber and Gilbert (2010), Baldwin (2009) and Alber (2010) gives a rather more nuanced assessment, as does Castles (2004). Castles additionally addresses the question of whether Europe’s welfare states are becoming more or less similar over time, also addressed by Tomka (2003), Starke et al (2008), Schmitt (2011) and Montanari et al (2008). Van Oorschott (2006) assesses similarities and differences between Europeans in their attitudes to welfare issues. Pontusson (2005) is more focussed on outcomes, but his comparison of ‘social Europe’ and ‘liberal America’ has some useful data. Adnett, N. & Hardy, S (2005): The European Social Model. Modernisation or Evolution? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Alesina, A. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. (2006) ‘Why are welfare states in the US and Europe so different? What do we learn?’ Horizons Stratégiques no 2006/2, http://www.cairn.info/revue-horizonsstrategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm Alber, J., and Gilbert, N. (eds.) United in Diversity: Comparing Social Models in Europe and America, New York: Oxford University Press Alber, Jens (2006) ‘The European Social Model and the United States’. European Union Politics, 7 (3): 393-419. *Alber, Jens (2010) ‘What the European and American welfare states have in common and where they differ: facts and fiction in comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States’, Journal of European Social Policy, May 2010; vol. 20: pp. 102-125 [TRP] Baldwin, P. (2009) The Narcissism of Minor Differences: How America and Europe Are Alike, New York: Oxford University Press Biffl, G (2004): ‘Diversity of welfare systems in the EU: a challenge to policy co-ordination’, European Journal of Social Security, 6 (1): 33-59. Castles, F. G. (2001) ‘The European Social Model: Progress Since the Early 1980s’. European Journal of Social Security, 4 (1): 7-21. *Castles, F (2004): The Future of the Welfare State, Oxford University Press, ch 4 Chapon, S. and Euzeby, C. (2002) ‘Towards convergence of European social models?’, International Social Security Review 55(2): 37-56 Crouch, C. (1999) Social Change in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapters 13 and 14 Grahl, J and Teague, P (1997): ‘Is the European Social Model Fragmenting?’, New Political Economy, 2 (3): 405-426. Montanari, I., Nelson, K. and Palme, J. (2008) Toward a European social model? Trends in social insurance 1980-2000, European Societies, 10(5): 787-810 Outhwaite, W. (2008) European Society, Cambridge: Polity, chapter 3 Pontusson, J (2005): Inequality and Prosperity. Social Europe versus Liberal America, New York: Cornell University Press. Russell, J. (2006) Double standard: Social policy in Europe and the United States, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield 27

*Schmitt, C. and Starke, P (2011) ‘Explaining convergence of OECD welfare states: a conditional approach’ Journal of European Social Policy, May 2011; vol. 21: pp. 120-135. Tomka, B. (2003) ‘Western European welfare state in the 20th century: convergences and divergences in a long-run perspective’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 12, 249-260 Van Oorschoot, W. (2006) ‘Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23-42

Tutorial Topic: What are the characteristics of Southern European welfare states, and to what extent do these set them apart from other welfare states? Reading: Gal (2010), TRP reading 6

Part III: Social Policy in the European Union: Structures and Processes Week 8

The Social Dimension of the EU

8.1. The emergence of EU governance

06.11.12

This session provides an introduction to the European Union and gives a general overview of the development of its activities. It introduces the aims, history and institutions of the EU and will analyse why key events such as the introduction of the Single Market have had such a profound impact on all our lives. Bomberg and Stubb (2003), Cini (2010) Nugent (2010) and Wallace et al (2010) are extremely clear and accessible introductory text books on EU policy-making. For more theoretical treatments of European integration dynamics and the balancing of economic and social goals, see Scharpf (1999) and Ferrera (2005). On the controversy between supranationalist and inter-governmentalist accounts of integration, Moravcsik (1998) and Pierson (1996) are key texts, while you will find discussions of these competing theoretical accounts of the development of the EU in a number of the textbooks listed. McAllister (2010) is easy to read and gives a very detailed analysis of the history and development of the EU. In addition to the main library, the Europa library (at the back of the Law Library in Old College) will be helpful in searching for literature. The Europa library contains copies of important EU documentation from the European Commission as well as EU-relevant books and journals. The Journal of Common Market Studies and the Journal of European Public Policy both carry many useful articles on European integrational To familiarise yourself with the EU there is no better place to start than the EU website. This contains all the information you need to explain how the EU works. *The EU Home Page - http://europa.eu Council of the European Union - http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm Employment and Social Policy - http://europa.eu/pol/socio/index_en.htm European Commission homepage - http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm On the EU in general: *Bomberg, Elizabeth and Alexander Stubb, eds. (2003/2008), The European Union: How Does It Work?, 1st/2nd edition, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. *Cini, Michelle, ed. (2010), European Union Politics, 3rd edition, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, third edition. Devuyst, Youri (2005), The European Union Transformed: Community Method and Institutional Evolution from the Schuman Plan to the Constitution for Europe, Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang. Dinan, Desmond (2010) Ever Closer Union?, 4th edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Ferrera, M. (2005) Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press

28

Fontane, P/European Commission, Directorate General for Press and Communication (2006): Europe in 12 lessons. – can be downloaded from the EC webpage. Ginsberg, Roy (2007) Demystifying the European Union, Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Jorgensen, M., Pollack, A. and Rosamand, B. (eds.) (2006) The Handbook of EU Politics, London: Sage McAllister, Richard (2010) European Union: An Historical and Political Survey, London: Taylor and Francis / Routledge, 2nd edition. McCormick, J (2008) Understanding the European Union, 4th edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power and from Messina to Maastricht, London: UCL Press *Nugent, Neill (2006/2010) The Government and Politics of the European Union, 6/7th edition, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave. Pierson, P. (1996) ‘The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123-163 Richardson, J. (ed.) (2006) The European Union: Power and Policy Making, Abingdon: Routledge Scharpf, F. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press, especially chapter 2 Schmidt, V. (2006) Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Wallace, H et al. (eds.) (2010): Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. See chapters 1-3 for general issues of EU policy-making, and chapters 9 and 10 for social policy.

8.2. The emergence and development of the Social Dimension

08.11.12

This lecture examines the emergence and development of the EU’s Social Dimension from the Treaty of Rome (1957) until the Lisbon 2020 Agenda. It analyses why the social agenda has always been the ‘hand-maiden’ to the economic agenda. The general EU textbooks will help you to understand the events and milestones in the history of social policy but it is Leibfried and Pierson (1995), Geyer (2000) and Hantrais (2007) that specialise in social policy and therefore are the most helpful. Watson (2008), though written from a legal perspective, has a useful and clear chapter on the historical development of the social dimension. Bailey (2008) gives an excellent theoretical overview of the state of ‘Social Europe’ and summarises in a methodical way why it has failed to develop. Daly’s (2006) article raises some interesting points about the weak nature of the Social Policy process. Natali (2010) summarises the specific issues for the Lisbon Agenda in the face of the Europe-wide economic crises. You should examine the Lisbon 2020 process by looking at the documents issued by the European Council and European Commission. See the relevant chapters in the general textbooks in Week 8.1. *Bailey, D (2008) ‘Explaining the underdevelopment of `Social Europe': a critical realization’, Journal of European Social Policy 2008 18: 232-245. Begg, I. and Berghman, J. (2002). Introduction: EU social (exclusion) policy revisited?" Journal of European Social Policy 12(3):179-194. Chari, R. and Kritzinger, S. (2006). Understanding E.U. Policy Making. London, UK: Pluto Press. *Daly, M. (2006) ‘EU Social Policy after Lisbon’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 461–81. *European Council (2010) European Council Conclusions 28-29 October, 2010, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/117496.pdf *European Commission (2010) Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication, COM (2010), 2020. Brussels. Ferrera, M. (2005) Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Geyer, R. (2000): Exploring European Social Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press, *Hantrais, L. (2007): Social Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan, Kleinman, M (2002): A European Welfare State/ European Union Social Policy in Context, London: Palgrave 29

*Leibfried, S. (2010): “Social Policy” in H Wallace & W Wallace & M.A. Pollack (eds.) Policy-Making in the European Union, Fifth Edition, 243-278. [TRP] Leibfried, S & Pierson, P (Eds.) (1995): European Social Policy: Between fragmentation and Integration, Washington: Brookings Institution *Natali, D. (2010) The Lisbon Strategy, EU 2020 and the crisis in between. Brussels: European Social Observatory, No. 4, available at http://www.ose.be/files/publication/2010/Natali_2010_Lisbon%20StrategyEU2020&Crisis.pdf Watson, P. (2008) EU Social and Employment Law: Policy and Practice in an Enlarged Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press Tutorial Topic: What, if anything, (still) distinguishes the European welfare states from the American social model? Reading: Alber (2010), TRP reading 7

Week 9

Traditional instruments of EU social policy

9.1 The successes and limitations of EU social law

13.11.12

This session explores the progress made in, and limitations upon, the development of a social dimension of European integration through conventional and binding instruments of EU law and social dialogue. The textbooks referenced above will all be useful, but Hantrais (2007) or Geyer (2000) are especially so, as is Falkner (1998) on social dialogue at EU level. Majone (1996) is a standard text for analysing EU social policy as a regulatory body, whilst Shaw (2000) contains an excellent collection of essays on EU social law. Watson (2008) is more technical, but extremely comprehensive. Leibfried (2005) explains the dynamics of EU competence extension in the social policy field. Falkner (2005) and Scott and Trubeck (2002) provide evidence of the difficulty of enforcing compliance even where EU competence exists. Further references offer critical discussions of successes and failures in areas where EU social law is significant – gender equality, equal pay and the coordination of social security for workers crossing national borders in the EU. Neergard (2010) and Schiek (2012) look specifically at the importance of the law and the courts for the development of EU social policy. The European Journal of Social Security is useful for further reference on EU social law. See the relevant chapters in the textbooks noted in Week 8.1 Falkner, G., (1998). EU Social Policy in the 1990s: Towards a Corporatist Policy Community, London: Routledge. Falkner, G., (2005). Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferrera, M. (2005) Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press *Hantrais, L (2007): Social Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan *Geyer, R (2000): Exploring European Social Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press, chs.3, 4 & 6. Kleinman, M (2001): A European Welfare State, London: Palgrave, ch 5-8 Leibfried,S & Pierson, P (eds), (1995.) European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution *Leibfried, S (2010): “Social Policy” in H Wallace & W Wallace & M.A. Pollack (eds.) Policy-Making in the European Union, Fifth Edition, 243-278. [TRP] *Majone, G., (1996). Regulating Europe, London: Routledge. Majone, G., 2005. Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth, Oxford: Oxford University Press Neergaard, U, Nielsen, R, & Roseberry, L (2010), The Role Of Courts In Developing A European Social Model : Theoretical And Methodological Perspectives, Ulla Neergard, Ruth Nielsen And Lynn Roseberry (Eds.), Copenhagen : DJØF Publishing

30

Schiek, D 2012, Economic And Social Integration:The Challenge For EU Constitutional Law, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Scott, J. and Trubeck, D. (2002) ‘Mind the gap: Law and new approaches to governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal 8(1) 1-18 Sengers, K and Donders, P. (2003), ‘Current practice in posting according to Regulation 1408/71’, European Journal of Social Security, 5 (2): 97-107. Shaw, J (2000). Social Law and Policy in an Evolving European Union, Oxford: Hart Threlfall, M (2003), ‘European Social Integration: harmonization, convergence and single issue areas’, Journal of European Social Policy, 13 (2): 121-139. van der Mei (2003), ‘’Freedom of movement for the unemployed and co-ordination of unemployment benefit schemes’, European Journal of Social Security 5 (3): 214-229. Watson, P. (2008) EU Social and Employment Law: Policy and Practice in an Enlarged Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press

9.2. The structural funds and EU regional policy

15.11.12

This lecture focuses on an important instrument of redistribution between rich and poor citizens in the EU – European regional policy, which seeks to deal with imbalances in the prosperity of different regions in the EU and the effects that these imbalances might have in the context of the operation of the single market. For a good introduction to the basics of Regional Policy, and the operation of the Cohesion and Structural Funds, look at one of the core European Union text books such as Allen (2010), Cini (2010), or Wallace et al. (2010). Hantrais and Geyer also give straightforward accounts of the Structural Funds, whilst Kleinman takes a more general view. For a more critical and useful analysis of the effectiveness of this type of policy see Bailey and De Propris (2001), Beugelsdijk et al. (2005) and Harrop (1996). Vaidere et al (2011), Dellmuth (2011) and Farole (2011) give an up to date assessment of the policy. Allen, D. (2010). The Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Extending the Bargain to Meet New Challenges. In Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Mark A. Pollack Helen Wallace and Alasdair R. Young. 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press chapter 10, pp. 229-252. *Bailey, D. and De Propris, L. (2001). The 1988 reform of the European Structural Funds: entitlement or empowerment?" Journal of European Public Policy 9(3):408-428. [TRP] Bache, Ian (2008). Europeanization and Multilevel Governance: Cohesion Policy in the European Union and Britain. Governance in Europe. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Bachtler, J. and Mendez, C. (2007) ‘Who governs EU cohesion policy: Deconstructing the reforms of the structural funds’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3): 535-64 *Beugelsdijk, M & Eijffinger, S (2005): “Effectiveness of structural policy in the European Union: an empirical analysis for the EU15 in 1995-2001”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 37-51 Bouvet, F. and Dall’Erba, S. (2010) ‘European regional structural funds: How large is the influence of politics on the allocation process?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), pp. 501-528 Cini, M (ed.) (2010): European Union Politics, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. See Chapter 18. Crescenzi, R. (2009) ‘Undermining the principle of concentration: European Union regional policy and the socio-economic disadvantage of European regions’, Regional Studies, 43(1), 111-133 Dellmuth, L 2011, ‘The cash divide: the allocation of European Union regional grants', Journal Of European Public Policy, 18, 7, pp. 1016-1033 *De Rynck, S. and McAleavy, P. (2001) ‘The cohesion deficit in structural fund policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4): 541-57 Farole, T., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, Geography, Institutions. Journal Of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 1089-1111. *Geyer, R (2000): Exploring European Social Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press, chs 3, 4 & 6. *Harrop, J (1996): Structural Funding and Employment in the European Union, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, chs 5-7. Hooghe, L. (1996) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press

31

Keating, M. (1995). The European Union and the Regions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keating, M & Hooghe, L (2001): 'Bypassing the nation-state? Regions and the EU policy process' in Richardson et al (eds): European Union, Power and Policy-making, London: Routledge Chapter 12. Kleinman, M (2001): A European Welfare State, London: Palgrave, chs 5-8. Leonardi, R. (2006) ‘Cohesion in the European Union’, Regional Studies, 40(2), pp. 155-166 Vaidere, Inese.,(2011) The Impact Of Regional And Cohesion Policy On The Economic Development Of The EU. European Integration Studies 5: 165-171 *Wallace, H et al. (2005): Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. See also the European Commission’s web-site at: http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm

An evaluation of the costs and benefits of European Structural Funds for the UK may be found at www.dti.gov.uk/europe/structural.html (Click under ‘Annex H’.) Tutorial Topic: How do you explain the expansion of EU social policy despite the strong reservations of many national governments? Reading: Leibfried (2010), TRP reading 8

Week 10

Beyond Hard Law: The ‘New Governance’ of EU social policy

10.1 Social policy through the ‘open method of coordination’

20.11.12

This lecture examines the newest generation of EU policy instruments in the social domain, the non-binding norm-setting procedures known as the ‘open methods of coordination’ (OMC). Pochet (2005) and De La Porte et al (2001) describe the evolution of the OMC in the context of the longerterm development of ‘social Europe’, while Goetschy (1999) provides a detailed history of the European Employment Strategy, the first and most high-profile of the OMCs. Kvist and Saari (2007) and Zeitlin and Pochet (2005) investigate the claim that the OMC represents the future of EU social policy empirically, as do Lopez-Santana (2006) and Raveaud (2007) for the European Employment Strategy. Caroleo (2010) and Van Rie (2012) offer an assessment through the lens of the labour market, while de la Porte (2011) examines the EES through principal-agent theory. This lecture and reading list should be used alongside Week 8.2. Borras, S and Greve, B (2004): The Open Method of Co-ordination in the European Union, special issue of Journal of European Public Policy 11 (2). Borras, S., Radaelli, C. M. (2010) Recalibrating the Open Method of Coordination: Towards Diverse and More Effective Usages, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Report No. 7, available at http://www.sieps.se/sv/publikationer/recalibrating-the-open-method-ofcoordination-towards-diverse-and-more-effective-usages-20107 pp6-10. *Bruno, I et al. (2006): “Europeanization through its instrumentation: benchmarking, mainstreaming and the open method of co-ordination …toolbox or Pandora’s box?” Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (4): 519-536. Caroleo, F. E., & Pastore, F. (2010) (eds). The labour market impact of the EU enlargement [electronic resource] : a new regional geography of Europe? Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag Casey, B. (2005) ‘Peer review of labour market programmes in the European Union: what can countries really learn from one another?’, Journal of European Public Policy 12(1): 24-43 *Chalmers, D & Lodge, M (2003): The Open Method of Coordination and the European Welfare State. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation London, LSE at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CARR/pdf/DPs/Disspaper11.pdf De La Porte, C. et al. (2001) ‘Social benchmarking, policy-making and new governance in the EU’, Journal of European Social Policy, 11(4), 291-301

32

De La Porte, C. (2002) ‘Is the Open Method of Coordination appropriate for organizing activities at European level in sensitive policy areas?’, European Law Journal, 8(1): 38-51. De la Porte, C (2011), 'Principal-agent theory and the Open Method of Co-ordination: the case of the European Employment Strategy', Journal Of European Public Policy, 18, 4, pp. 485-503 *Goetschy, J. (1999). "The European Employment Strategy: Genesis and Development." European journal of Industrial Relations 5(2): 117-137. Jacobsson, K. (2004) ‘Soft regulation and the subtle transformation of states: the case of EU employment policy’, Journal of European Social Policy 14(4): 355-70 Kröger, S. (ed.) ‘What we have learnt: advances, pitfalls and remaining questions in OMC research’, European integration online papers (EIoP), 13 (Special Issue 1) http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-007a.htm. López-Santana, M. (2006) ‘The Domestic Implications of European Soft Law: Framing and Transmitting Change in Employment Policy.’ Journal of European Public Policy 13(4): 481-99 [TRP] Mailand, Mikkel (2008) The uneven impact of the European Employment Strategy on member states' employment policies: a comparative analysis: Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 18: pp. 353-365 Mosher, J S and Trubek, D M (2003): ‘Alternative approaches to governance in the EU: EU social policy and the European employment strategy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(1): 6388. Raveaud, G. (2007) ‘The European Employment Strategy: Towards More and Better Jobs?’ Journal of Common Market Studies 45:2: 411-34. Stiller, S, & van Gerven (2012), 'The European Employment Strategy and National Core Executives: Impacts on activation reforms in the Netherlands and Germany', Journal Of European Social Policy, 22, 2, pp. 118-132 Van Rie, T, & Marx, I (2012), 'The European Union at Work? The European Employment Strategy from Crisis to Crisis', Journal Of Common Market Studies, 50, 2, pp. 335-356 Velluti, S (2010), New Governance And The European Employment Strategy, London: Routledge *Zeitlin, J. and Pochet, P. (eds.) The Open Method of Coordination in Action, Brussels: Peter Lang Zeitlin, J (2005): Introduction and Conclusion: The Open Method of Coordination in Action: Theoretical Promise, Empirical Realities, Reform Strategy, in J Zeitlin, P Pochet, and L Maggnusson (eds.): The Open Method of Coordination in action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies. Brussels, P.I.E.-Peter Lang. To see the OMC ‘in action’ for yourself, visit the EU website where the monitoring documents of the European Employment Strategy are housed. See: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=101&langId=en

10.2 OMC Employment and the OMC Social Inclusion Compared

22.11.12

This lecture will look at the European Employment Strategy and the OMC Social Inclusion in far more detail. It will compare the two processes and examine the future of the process given the difficult economic times for many European Union States. Heidenrich et al (2008) is a good place to start as it looks at the domestic impact of the process. This can be read in conjunction with LopezSantana(2006). Zeitlin’s book (2005) is an excellent but positive summary about the process and includes a good comparison of the different policies that use OMC. De la Porte looks specifically at whether OMC is a suitable governance mechanism for difficult and controversial social policies. Zgajewski (2005) et al summarises why the Lisbon Agenda is failing. Borras et al (2010) is a long and detailed report but the final sections are worth reading for a look at how OMC can be improved in the future. MacPhail (2010) compares both policies in the UK. Armstrong (2010) looks at the social inclusion process. This excellent book examines the possibilities and limits to the Europeanization of domestic social policy. Ter haar (2010) looks at the future of the European Social Model. You should familiarise yourself with the Social Inclusion OMC reports and documents found at the European Commission website. *Armstrong, KA ( 2010), Governing Social Inclusion : Europeanization Through Policy Coordination, Oxford : Oxford University Press

33

*Borras, S., Radaelli, C. M. (2010) Recalibrating the Open Method of Coordination: Towards Diverse and More Effective Usages, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Report No. 7, available at http://www.sieps.se/sv/publikationer/recalibrating-the-open-method-ofcoordination-towards-diverse-and-more-effective-usages-20107 pp48-68. Büchs, Milena. 2008. " The Open Method of Coordination as a 'Two-Level Game'." Policy & Politics, 36:2 (January): 21-37. Büchs, Milena.2007. New Governance in European Social Policy: The Open Method of Coordination. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Daly, Mary. 2008. "Whither EU Social Policy? An Account and Assessment of Developments in the Lisbon Social Inclusion Process". Journal of Social Policy, 37: 1: 1-19. *European Commission (Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=750&langId=en Ferrera, M., Sacchi, S. and Matsaganis, M. (2002)’Open coordination against poverty: The new EU social inclusion process’ in Journal of European Social Policy, 12(3): 227-239. Friedrich, Dawid. 2006. "Policy Process, Governance and Democracy in the EU: The Case of the Open Method of Co-ordination on Social Inclusion." Policy & Politics. *Heidenreich, Martin, and Bischoff, Gabriele. 2008. "The Open Method of Co-ordination: A Way to the Europeanization of Social and Employment Policies?" Journal of Common Market Studies 46:3: 497-532. Kvist, J. and Saari, J. (eds.) (2007) The Europeanisation of Social Protection, Bristol: Policy Press Lodge, Martin. 2007. "Comparing Non-Hierarchical Governance in Action: the Open Method of Coordination in Pensions and Information Society". Journal of Common Market Studies 45:2: 34365. *López-Santana, M. (2006) ‘The Domestic Implications of European Soft Law: Framing and Transmitting Change in Employment Policy.’ Journal of European Public Policy 13(4): 481-99 [TRP] *MacPhail, E (2010) ‘Examining the impact of the Open Method of Coordination on sub-state employment and social inclusion policies: evidence from the UK’. Journal of European Social Policy 20, no. 4 364-378 Mailand, Mikkel (2008) The uneven impact of the European Employment Strategy on member states' employment policies: a comparative analysis: Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 18: pp. 353-365 *ter Haar, B, & Copeland, P (2010), 'What are the Future Prospects for the European Social Model? An Analysis of EU Equal Opportunities and Employment Policy', European Law Journal, 16, 3, pp. 273-291 Zeitlin, J. and Pochet, P. (eds.) The Open Method of Coordination in Action, Brussels: Peter Lang *Zeitlin, J (2005): Introduction and Conclusion: The Open Method of Coordination in Action: Theoretical Promise, Empirical Realities, Reform Strategy, in J Zeitlin, P Pochet, and L Maggnusson (eds.): The Open Method of Coordination in action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies. Brussels, P.I.E.-Peter Lang. Zgajewski, T. and K. Hajjar (2005). The Lisbon Strategy: Which Failure? Whose Failure? and why? Brussels, Royal Institute for International Relations, available at http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep6.U701.pdf Tutorial Topic: How successful are the structural funds in achieving their broad aim of economic convergence? Reading: Bailey and De Propris (2002), TRP reading 9

Week 11 The future of social policy in the European Union 10.1. Social policy and the crises of the EU

27.11.12

This session assesses the implications for EU social policy of a number of related recent developments, all of which could be considered to have provoked crises of sorts; the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the stalled attempts at fundamental Constitutional reform and the 34

growing dissatisfaction with the current direction of European integration among domestic electorates, and finally the current economic, fiscal and monetary problems of developed economies in the wake of the credit crunch of 2008. Kay and Ackrill (2007) provide a pessimistic assessment on the possibilities for financing social policy development in an enlarged EU, while Gerhards (2008) and Pijpers (2006) provide further evidence of the limitations on solidarity. Vobruba (2003) argues that enlargement of the EU is likely to create different classes of EU citizens, and Jileva (2002) provides some evidence he may be right. Writing in the wake of the French and Dutch ‘nos’, Whitman (2005) examines the role played by social policy concerns in the popular rejection of a new EU Constitution. Cassen (2005) is a good example of a growing criticism of the EU as a menace to the welfare state. Begg and Nectoux (1995) highlight a fundamental tension that has only been exacerbated by enlargement: between the need for social policy action on the European level in a context of market integration, and the difficulty of making it happen politically. Weiler (2002) and Buchs (2008) highlight the closely related issue of the democratic legitimacy of expanding EU competence in the social domain. Vis et al (2011) and Chung and Thewissen (2011) offer rather different perspectives on the social policy impacts of the financial crisis, while Vandenbroucke et al (2011) have a more forward looking perspective on the actual and desirable EU response to the crisis in the social domain. Streeck (2012), Sharpf (2010) and Ferrera (2009) offer rather different prognoses on the prospects for ‘social Europe’. Begg, I. and Nectoux, F. (1995) ‘Social protection and economic union’, Journal of European Social Policy, 5(4), 285-302 Buchs, M. (2008) ‘How legitimate is the open method of coordination?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 46(4): 765-86 Cassen, B (2005): “Attack against the Treaty”, New Left Review, 33, May-June 2005. Chung, H. and Thewissen, S. (2011) Falling back on old habits? A Comparison of the social and unemployment crisis reactive policy strategies in Germany, the UK and Sweden, Social Policy & Administration, 45(4), pp. 354-370 De Boisgrollier, N (2005): “The European Disunion”, Survival, 47 (3): 55-62. European Commission (2004) Free movement for persons – a practical guide for an enlarged European Union’, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/press_corner/publications/55260_practica_guide_i ncluding_comments_en.pdf *Fererra, M. (2009a) ‘National welfare states and European integration: in search of a virtuous nesting’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2): 219-33 *Gerhards, J. (2008) ‘Free to move? The acceptance of the free movement of labour and nondiscrimination among citizens of Europe’, European Societies, 10(1), 121-140 Golynker, O. (2005) ‘Jobseekers’ rights in the European Union: Challenges of Changing the Paradigm of Social Solidarity’, European Law Review, 30(1), 111-122 Hatzopoulos, V. (2007) ‘Why the open method of coordination is bad for you’, European Law Journal, 13(3): 309-42 Hailbronner, K. (2005) ‘Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits’, Common Market Law Review, 42 (5), 1245-1267 *Hansen, P. (2000) ‘European citizenship, or where neo-liberalism meets ethno-culturalism’, European Societies, 2(2) 139-165 Jileva, E. (2002) ‘Visa and free movement of labour: the uneven imposition of the EU acquis on the accession states’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 683-700 Joerges, C (2004): “What is Left of the European Economic Constitution?”, EUI Working Paper LAW, No. 2004/13. *Kay, A. and Ackrill, R. (2007) ‘Financing social and cohesion policy in an enlarged EU: plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17(4): 361-74 Kvist, J (2004): “Does EU enlargement start a race to the bottom?”, Journal of European Social Policy, 14 (3): 301-318. Lendvai, N (2004): “The weakest link? EU accession and enlargement: dialoguing EU and postcommunist social policy”, Journal of European Social Policy, 14 (3): 319-333. *Offe, C (2003): ‘The European Model of “Social” Capitalism: Can it Survive European Integration?’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(4): 437-469.

35

Pijpers, R (2006): “Help! The poles are coming” Narrating a contemporary moral panic” in Geografiska Annaler Series B – Human Geography 88B (1): 91-103. *Scharpf, F. (2010) The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a ‘social market economy’, Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), 211-250 Streeck, W. (2012) ‘Markets and Peoples: Democratic Capitalism and European Integration’, New Left Review, 73, 63-71 Sykes, R. (2005) ‘Crisis? What crisis? EU enlargement and the political economy of European Union social policy’, Critical Social Policy, 4(2), 207-215 *Vandenbroucke, F., Hemerijck, A. and Palier, B. (2011) The EU Needs a Social Investment Pact, OSE Opinion Paper no. 5/11 http://www.friendsofeurope.org/Portals/13/Images/Trustees/Opinion_Paper_5_Vandenbroucke%20 -Hemerijk-Palier.pdf Vuaghan-Whitehead, D. (2003) EU Enlargement versus Social Europe: The Uncertain Future of the European Social Model, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar *Vis, B., van Kersbergen, K. and Hylands, T. (2011) ‘To what extent did the financial crisis intensify the pressure to reform the welfare state?’, Social Policy & Administration, 45(4), 338-353 *Vobruba, G (2003): “The enlargement crisis of the European Union: limits of the dialectics of integration and expansion”, Journal of European Social Policy, 13 (1): 35-48 and responses by M. Bach and M. Rhodes. Weiler, J. (2002) ‘A constitution for Europe: some hard choices’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4): 563-80 Wincott, D. (2006) European political development, regulatory governance and the European social model: The Chellenge of Substantive Legitimacy, European Law Journal, 12(6): 743763 *Whitman, R (2005): “No and after: options for Europe”, International Affairs, 81 (4): 673-687. See also the contributions in the special issue of Political Science & Politics, 39(2): on the Dutch and French “no” to the European Constitution.

11.2. Recap and Revision

29.11.12

(no reading) Tutorial Topic: How strong is the evidence that the EU’s soft governance instruments have an impact on national-level social policy development? Exercise: Selecting cases to test general propositions through comparisons Reading: Lopez-Santana (2006), TRP reading 10

36

EXERCISE Proportion of Population 65 and Over (EU)

Belgium Germany Netherlands Austria

1994 15.6 15.2 13.1 15

1997 16.3 15.7 13.4 15.3

2000 16.8 16.2 13.6 15.4

2004 17.1 18 13.8 15.5

2008 17.1 20.1 14.7 17.1

Denmark Finland Sweden

15.4 13.9 17.6

15 14.5 17.4

14.8 14.8 17.3

14.9 15.6 17.2

15.6 16.5 17.5

Greece Spain Italy Portugal

14.7 14.8 16.1 14.5

15.6 15.8 17.2 15.3

16.5 16.7 18.1 16

17.8 16.9 19.2 16.8

18.6 16.6 20 17.4

Ireland United Kingdom

11.4 15.8

11.4 15.9

11.2 15.8

11.1 16

10.9 16.1

Czech Republic Estonia Latvia Lithuania Hungary Poland Slovenia Slovakia

13 12.9 13.2 11.9 13.9 10.7 11.7 10.7

13.5 14.1 14.1 12.8 14.5 11.5 12.9 11.1

13.8 15 14.8 13.7 15 12.1 13.9 11.4

13.9 16.2 16.2 15 15.5 13 15 11.5

14.6 17.2 17.2 15.8 16.2 13.5 16.3 12

Source: Eurostat (Excludes France as data not available) The tables above provides data on the proportion of the population who are 65 and over in 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2004. They are split into 5 sections: Continental Western European (excluding France), Scandinavian, Mediterranean, English-Speaking and East European. 1. Calculate the total mean for all the countries. What is the general trend over time? 2. Now calculate the total mean for each group of nations. To what extent is this general trend exhibited in all four groups? Identify the group of countries with lowest proportion and the highest proportion of population aged over 65. Suggest reasons why this maybe so. 3. Now look at the individual countries. Identify the deviant cases, i.e. the countries at the extremes or the ones who do not follow the trend. Suggest reasons why. 4. What challenges could this table represent for European Welfare States?

37

ESSAY TITLES 1. Which factors are most important in understanding the diverse development of welfare sytems in 20th century Europe? (use reading from weeks 1 and 2) 2. What does a gender perspective add to our understanding of welfare state variation and change? (use reading from week 2) 3. Critically assess the causes and consequences of, and possible policy responses to, population ageing in European welfare states. (use reading from week 3) 4. Have recent policy developments in France and/or Germany challenged or upheld the key principles of the ‘Bismarckian’ welfare model? (use reading from week 4) 5. Have recent reforms undermined the distinctiveness of the ‘Nordic model’ of welfare? Illustrate your answer with reference to at least two Nordic countries. (use reading from week 5)

38

16.10 – 17.00

15.10 – 16.00

14.10 – 15.00

13.10 – 14.00

12.10 – 13.00

11.10 – 12.00

10.00 – 10.50

9.00 – 9.50

Monday

Wednesday

39

Group 2 Room 3.18 David Hume Tower Group 3 Seminar Room 2.06 Appleton Tower Mid-Afternoon Break

Group 4 Room 9.14 David Hume Tower Mid-Morning Break Group 5 Room 9.14 David Hume Tower Lecture: Group 6 Lecture Theatre 3 Room 13.07 Appleton Tower David Hume Tower Group 1 Group 7 Room TBA Room TBA

Tuesday

Lecture and Tutorial Times and Locations

Group 9 Room B.5 14 Buccleuch Place Lecture: Lecture Theatre 3 Appleton Tower Group 10 Room 364 Old College Group 11 Room 9.14 David Hume Tower Group 12 Room SR3 Minto House

Group 8 Room 9.14 David Hume Tower

Thursday

Friday