Rise of the Regulatory Welfare State? Social Regulation in Utilities in Israel

This article explores the relation between economic liberalization, regulation and welfare. It asks how the state regulates, delays or prevents service disconnection due to debt and arrears, and what this kind of policy implies regarding the use of regulation as a form of social policy. This is done through a comparative study of the electricity and water sectors in Israel after liberalization. It finds that after initial economic reform, both sectors saw a growth in regulation intended to compensate for the social effects of reform, in what may be termed the ‘regulatory welfare state’. However, this form of social protection has been residual and incoherent. The article argues that trying to separate economic reform from its social consequences is unrealistic and may lead to adverse social and economic results. Second, findings raise concerns regarding the potential of the regulatory welfare state to deliver effective and fair social policy.     

The Middle‐class in the German Welfare State: Beneficial Involvement at Stake?

The working‐class is typically regarded as the driving force of welfare state development. Yet, some argue that the middle‐classes' beneficial involvement in the welfare state is crucial for its financial sustainability and popular legitimacy. Against this backdrop, we investigate how recent welfare state reforms in Germany which affect the status of the middle‐class are viewed and discussed by this group. Germany is a particularly interesting case because its welfare state is seen to be centred on the desires of the middle‐class, especially through its focus on status maintenance and horizontal redistribution over the life‐course. However, the move from status maintenance to minimum income support in unemployment provision and the strengthening of private old age provision challenge this assumption. Thus, we ask how the German middle‐class views the emerging abandonment of the principle of status maintenance and the shift from collective to individual responsibility. Based on qualitative material from focus groups, we find that individual responsibility is generally supported, but that the state is still assigned responsibility for providing basic levels of social security. Furthermore, for those groups seen as less capable of acting individually responsible (e.g. the poor or long‐term unemployed) the ‘inducement’ of – or assistance for – individually responsible behaviour by the state is demanded. Overall, while the principle of ‘individual responsibility’ seems to find some resonance among the middle‐class members interviewed, they still try to balance individual and collective responsibility.     

Beyond Continuity? Understanding Change in the UK Welfare State since 2010

One approach to identifying policy change stresses policy instruments, settings and policy paradigms, while another also considers the process and culmination of various shifts and consequent outcomes. This article illustrates the debate through an examination of how far developments in social security policy between the 1997–2010 New Labour and 2010–15 Coalition Governments in the UK constituted real policy shifts. It shows that, despite continuities in instruments and approach, there have been substantial changes in the impact of welfare state policies related to short‐term benefits, employment and housing. The article identifies new policy directions leading to a different kind of welfare state, concerned less with living standards and equality and more with individual responsibility and paid work. It suggests that this has been achieved without the need for radical changes in instruments and their settings.     

The End of Legal Transplantation

本文从思想史的角度梳理了在中国法学界占主导地位的法律移植论,一种就是法律文化论,另一种就是法律现代化理论,作者认为这两种理论形成了"与世界接轨"的法律意识形态,从而对于法律移植的立法活动产生了巨大的影响。为此,本文以知识产权为例,考察了"与国际接轨"的法律移植所造成的不良后果。在此基础上,本文分析了法律移植理论的内在缺陷,提出超越法律移植理论,重新回到马克思主义的法律观上,强调国家利益是法律的最高政治原则。在这种理论基础上,法律移植变成了普通的立法活动,从而丧失了其独立的理论意义而告终结。     

The Great Recession and Welfare State Reform: Is Retrenchment Really the Only Game Left in Town?

By 2010, when the Greek sovereign debt crisis changed into an existential crisis of the euro, all developed democracies entered a phase in which they had to consolidate their budgets, typically implying a politics of austerity. The scholarly literature, as well as the popular press, suggests that – consequently – welfare retrenchment and cost containment became the only games left in town. In this article, we study the welfare state reform measures taken between 2010 and 2012 in four countries characteristic of mature welfare state regimes (liberal, UK; conservative, Germany; social democratic, Denmark; and hybrid, the Netherlands) to examine empirically whether austerity has indeed become the only item left on the policy menu. Our analysis reveals that retrenchment features prominently on the agenda everywhere, but nowhere by itself. While compensation for income loss is rare since 2010, this still happens. More unexpectedly, reforms in line with a social investment agenda (like expansion of child care or active labour market policies) are still being pursued in all our four cases.     

Leaving the Nordic Path? The Changing Role of Danish Trade Unions in the Welfare Reform Process

For a long period, Denmark has been labeled a ‘model country’ with a comprehensive welfare state and a successful model of corporatist policy‐making. Danish unions are considered amongst the strongest in the world, and they have for a long time been a distinct part of the political system, and as social partners, they were strongly integrated into decision‐making processes. The analysis of the Danish welfare and labour market policy during the last two decades documents a profound change in the arrangement and in the status of the social partners (especially unions) in the Danish political system. The results show that two important pillars of the Danish model – the social partner basis and the collective trust in partnership – are eroding. Unions are no longer part of the law‐making process and, since 2007, they are formally excluded from the organization of the decision‐making process. Recent developments point at weaker unions that operate more as lobbyists instead of being strong corporatist institutions or part of the decision‐making process. The results of the study are thought‐provoking and the basis for a revised thinking of the Danish and the Nordic model.     

Do Public Officials Trust Citizens? A Welfare State Perspective

In this exploratory study, we investigate whether public sector officials and non‐public sector officials differ in the trust they have in members of society and whether this difference is associated with the welfare regime in which they work. Using survey data from the sixth round of the European Social Survey, we compare public sector officials' trust to that of non‐public sector officials in 13 countries with four different forms of welfare regimes. Our results demonstrate that public officials have a higher level of trust than non‐public officials do. Furthermore, trust among both public and non‐public sector officials is much higher in social‐democratic regimes, followed by corporatist countries, liberal regimes, Israel (as a unique case) and, lastly, southern European regimes. As expected, public officials' degree of trust reflects the general trends of their societies. Interestingly, in social‐democratic regimes, differences between trust among public and non‐public officials are the highest compared to the other regimes. In addition, an individual‐level analysis in five countries illustrative of each welfare regime indicates that while income, belonging to a minority group, and age are significant factors in explaining public officials' trust, socio‐demographic variables contribute little to the differences between public and non‐public officials. Given the critical role of trust in the functioning of the welfare state, our results imply that further awareness and mechanisms for increasing the degree of trust of citizens among public officials are warranted.     

Choosing Welfare or Losing Social Citizenship? Citizens' Free Choice in Recent Italian Welfare State Reforms

In the past fifteen years, the Italian welfare state has gone through various important reforms. Almost all social policy fields have been significantly challenged by the presence of both national and European constraints, and in different policy fields some fundamental principles of the welfare state have been questioned and changed. The purpose of this article is to present an analysis of the most recent arguments used for welfare state reforms in Italy, focusing in particular on one key question: have the reforms been formulated and implemented in order to increase the freedom of choice of Italian citizens with respect to social protection? After a brief introduction and conceptual clarification, each section of the article will focus on one social policy field (employment, pensions, health care) and discuss the origins and consequences of the reforms with respect to the freedom of choice of citizens. The main argument is that very limited attention has been paid in the national political discourse and reform design to the freedom of choice for citizens in welfare state policies, since other goals (such as cost containment) were much more crucial. The article will end with an overall assessment of the evolution of freedom of choice in the Italian welfare state setting.     

Is Sweden Being Torn Apart? Privatization and Old and New Patterns of Welfare State Support

This article examines the potential impact of institutional change on popular welfare support. The encompassing welfare state of Sweden provides an interesting case where the privatization of social service delivery has been widespread over the last decades. We use survey data from five rounds of the Swedish Welfare State Survey (1992, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2010) in order to study how public preferences for the financing and organization of welfare services have changed over time. Based on a theory describing an ideal‐typical pattern of public support for an encompassing welfare model, we derive three types of public preferences: support for a pure state model, a pure market model and a mixed model (welfare services are funded by taxes but provided by private firms). We begin by tracking the development of these ideal‐typical attitude patterns between 1992 and 2010. We then investigate how preference patterns vary across municipalities displaying different degrees of privatization of social service delivery. Our results show that welfare support among Swedes over the last decades is better characterized as dynamic rather than stable. Swedes seem to take an overall more ideologically based position on the role of the welfare state over time. The share of respondents expressing such ideologically based preferences has increased from 54 per cent in 1992 to 78 per cent in 2010. This change is principally manifested in increased support for the state and mixed models. This trend seems to be parallel to the increasing share of private welfare service providers over the last decade. We also find a link between the municipal degree of privatization and support for our three ideal‐typical welfare models. Public support for a mixed welfare model and, to some extent, a market model, is comparatively stronger in municipalities where welfare services to a large extent are carried out by private actors. Conversely, data shows that public support for the traditional Swedish state model is more widespread in municipalities having a low degree of welfare services privatization. Lastly, we discuss some theoretical implications of our findings.     

The Role of Government in Social Welfare in China

文章认为,20多年来,"高福利的负面效应"和"市场机制的高效率"是对中国影响最大的西方经验。在这种思想影响下,中国政府从社会福利责任中的退出是导致经济与社会发展失调的重要因素。例如,我们在市场化条件根本不存在的情况下,实行"社会服务市场化",其结果是强势集团的霸权化;在未能保证社会成员基本社会服务权利前提下的"服务收费",使得对于绝大多数人来说,缴费是获得任何服务的前提条件。这种做法使贫苦人群更难抵御风险,是对"社会公平"这一社会发展的核心价值观的颠覆。 文章提出重建政府在社会福利中积极角色的命题。作者认为,政府在社会福利中应当发挥主导作用,应当加强自己的社会政策能力建设。由于中国缺乏工业文明的积累,以及计划经济重输入、输出而轻过程、细节和人的动机的二重原因,中国政府的社会政策能力较弱。这种情况需要改变。     

End of double taxation: Is the policy better when announced?

This paper examines the effectiveness of the “end of double taxation” (on dividends) policy in stabilizing an economy. Both announced and unannounced policies are considered. A reduction in double taxation stimulates investment and improves welfare, but its impact on output is moderate and it has a negative effect on work hours. A temporary cut creates an investment boom but also generates an investment slump when the tax cut expires. Announcements of future tax cuts are found to have important effect on output dynamics. Agents respond to the tax policy even before it is implemented. If the tax cut is announced to be temporary, its impact on output is greatly reduced. Our study suggests that a temporary dividend tax cut is most effective in stabilizing a recession stricken economy when the policy change comes as “news” to the economy.     

The Capacity of a State to Institu-tionalize Social Movements De-pends on the Relations betweenthe State and Society

Studies on social movement and theoryof revolution are of utmost importance topresent-day China. Generally speaking, in faceof a movement challenging the local or cen-tral government, countries of different typeshave different capacities to bear the bruntand take measures to deal with the situation.In the same country, the reaction from theparticipants in the movement to the measuresthe state takes to deal with the movementalso varies with their organizational ability andtheir understanding of…     

The Second Phase of US Welfare Reform, 2000–2006: Blaming the Poor Again?

This article examines the evolution of the programme Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) since 1996. In 1996, the transformation of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) marked a watershed in American social policy. AFDC was the main US public assistance programme for single parents. By the mid-1990s, it was also the most unpopular social programme in the United States, which explained why Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it' during his presidential campaign in 1996. TANF ended automatic individual entitlement to public assistance, established a five-year time limit for receiving cash assistance, and promoted a punitive approach towards welfare recipients, who were in theory increasingly required to work in exchange for benefits. This approach is known as the Work First Approach. Cash assistance was temporary, and granted as a favour to low-income mothers, who were required to comply with various behavioural requirements. TANF was hailed as a tremendous success on both sides of the political spectrum. This bipartisan consensus explains why the new Republican administration (G. W. Bush became President in January 2001) wanted to build upon the existing programme.     

Has the Nordic Welfare Model Been Transformed?

The Nordic welfare model is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Using Denmark we show how a universal welfare state model is gradually being transformed into an emergent multi‐tiered welfare state. Whereas the Danish pension system's having become multi‐tiered in the 1990s, with private schemes – collective and individual – supplementing public schemes is well documented, scant attention has focused on more recent developments in other areas of the welfare state. This article shows how the multi‐tiered welfare state spread in the 2000s to policies for families, the unemployed and the sick. Although Denmark still offers universal coverage in core welfare state areas, the increased use of occupational and fiscal welfare as well as changes in public schemes has gradually transformed the nation into a multi‐tiered welfare state that is more dualistic and individualistic, with participation in the labour market becoming still more important for entitlement to benefits. These profound changes have taken place in such a way that although core characteristics are still in place, new structures and understandings of the welfare state are also developing. Thus classical typologies need revision, so that they include more focus on this combination of universality and institutional attachment to the labour market. Moreover, measures of what welfare comprises should include not only public but also private elements.     

Does Seniority Matter? The Conditional Influence of State Methods of Judicial Retention*

Objective. Capitalizing on attention directed to judicial agreement and the associated consequences of judicial elections, this article conducts an examination of the effects of seniority and state methods of judicial retention on decisions by state supreme court justices to dissent. Methods. Using data drawn from the State Supreme Court Data Archive, this research analyzes decisions by individual justices to dissent in 33,582 tort cases from 1995 to 1998. GEE logistic analysis with cases as the clustering unit is the estimation procedure. Results. While the seniority of justices is positively connected to dissent, the findings illustrate that seniority's effect is nuanced and conditioned by a state's method of judicial retention. The impact of a justice's seniority relative to his or her colleagues is most powerful in appointive courts where justices serve without fear of electoral retaliation. Alternatively, within elective courts, justices respond to elections by pursuing a consensual approach regardless of their seniority. Conclusion. The dissent characteristics of justices in state supreme courts are intricately tied to the length of careers and the methods by which states keep justices in office.