Benefit dependency: The pros and cons of using “caseload” data for national and international comparisons

Policy‐makers in advanced welfare states have increasingly expressed concerns over large numbers of working‐age people claiming social security support. Accordingly, policies aimed at reducing the level of “benefit dependency” have gained prominence. However, such policies rest on shaky empirical evidence. Systematic collections of national “caseload” data are rare, social security programmes overlap and administrative categories vary over time. The internationally inconsistent treatment of national transfer programmes provides a further challenge for cross‐national comparisons. This article first identifies and discusses several of these problems, and ways in which they may be addressed. It then employs administrative claimant data from six European countries as a way of illustrating trends over time and across countries. The underlying aim is to explore the scientific potential of benefit recipient numbers as an indicator for welfare state change over time and across countries.     

Protective legislation: The “third pillar” of the welfare state

Welfare states are built upon three central social policy pillars: (1) income programs, including an assortment of income maintenance and security benefits; (2) social services, comprising a diverse constellation of provisions, which furnish care such as health care and education, and “in kind” benefits; and (3) protective legislation, encompassing a dense web of proactive and preventative laws, rights, and entitlements, such as health and safety legislation, minimum wage laws, child protection acts, rent controls, and laws governing evictions and foreclosures. Despite its centrality to the welfare state and to our well‐being, this third pillar has received considerably less attention in comparative social policy research. The dominant welfare state typologies have focused almost exclusively upon income measures and, more recently, on social services, to construct their welfare state categories or “worlds” of welfare while largely neglecting this crucial third pillar. A greater focus on protective welfare legislation can help sharpen the distinctions among welfare states within and across the welfare worlds, which is particularly valuable in light of the ongoing erosion of the other two pillars over the past few decades.     

“Strivers”, “doers”, and “seekers”: Social workers and their commitment to the job

Amid considerable interest in the experiences of early career professionals in social work in England and internationally, and the relationship between these and retention and progression, this article reports on the findings of one element of a larger evaluation. It reports the findings and analysis of interviews with 42 relative newcomers to social work, some 3 years following qualification, focusing on their current career orientations, and how these appear to affect their future intentions. We identified three distinct groups, designated as “strivers,” “doers,” and “seekers.” Each of these groups demonstrated a different kind and level of commitment to their social work role and identity: Strivers were oriented towards career progression and taking on senior roles; doers were committed practitioners who saw themselves as continuing in front line service delivery for the foreseeable future; and seekers, although still committed to social work in principle, tended to be more unsure about their future place in the profession. This typology appears to be reasonably robust on the basis of our investigation and has implications for career planning and supervision of social work professionals, especially at the early stages of their careers.     

Pension reform in the Baltic States: Convergence with “Europe” or with “the world”?

Abstract The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – join the European Union in 2004. This paper examines pension reform in the three countries over the past decade in the light of the “European social model” and the “World Bank model”. Part one seeks to define these two models. It shows how the former emphasizes income adequacy and solidarity while the latter stresses fiscal sustainability, savings and economic growth. Part two looks at reforms made and proposed. Initial reforms involved raising the retirement age and relating benefits more closely to earnings and service. This resulted in the establishment of pension systems similar to those in many European countries. Subsequent reforms involved attempts to shift from a publicly financed, purely “pay‐as‐you‐go” system to one based upon “funding” and private, individual accounts. Such systems have been promoted by the World Bank. The appropriateness of this approach – its high transition costs, potentially high administration costs, and longer‐term implications for the relative income status of retired people – is questioned. Part three draws conclusions. In the short and medium term, policymaker should safeguard income adequacy rather than seek the doubtful advantages of funding – in other words, look more to “Europe” than to “the world”.     

The Roots of “Radical Interactionism”

A plea has been made for replacing the perspective of “symbolic interactionism” with a new interactionist's perspective—“radical interactionism.” Unlike in symbolic interactionism, where Mead's and Blumer's ideas play the most prominent roles, in radical interactionism's, Park's ideas play a more prominent role than either Mead's or Blumer's ideas. On the one hand, according to Mead, the general principle behind the organization of human group life was once dominance, but it is now “sociality.” On the other hand, according to Park, this general principle is now and has always been dominance. Blumer takes a position much closer to Mead's than Park's arguing that the general principle underlying the organization of human group life is sociality. Under certain special conditions, however, it can become dominance. Although like radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is rooted in pragmatism, unlike in radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is still plagued with strains of utopian thought, among which the notion of sociality is the most virulent. Sociality may be the principle on which human group life is organized in heaven, but, down here on earth, it remains organized on the basis of domination. Thus, radical interactionism provides a much‐needed antidote to the idealistic overtones still found in symbolic interactionism.     

Conceptualizing and Theorizing About the Idea of a “Post‐Racial” Era

I critically examine the eliminativist theories of race or racism, and the behavioral theory of racism, which provide the theoretical foundation, respectively, for the nominalist and substantive conceptualizations of the idea of a post‐racial era. The eliminativist theories seek to eliminate the concepts of “race” or “racism” from our discourse. Such elimination indicates a nominalist sense of the idea of a post‐racial era. The behavioral theory of racism argues that racism must be manifested in obviously harmful actions. And because such harmful actions are not prevalent today, this implies that we are in a post‐racial era in a substantive sense. I conceptualize some subtle forms of racism that are prevalent today, which cannot be captured by the behavioral theory, but can best be captured by doxastic theories of racism. I conceptualize a substantive idea of a post‐racial era, and then argue based on such conceptualization, that we are not in a post‐racial era because subtle forms of racism are still prevalent today.     

The Myth of “Security Moms” and “NASCAR Dads”: Parenthood,Political Stereotypes,and the 2004 Election*

Objective. The objective of this article is to explore the impact of being a parent on political views and to test the accuracy of the “Security Mom” and “NASCAR Dad” labels that were pervasively applied in the context of the 2004 presidential election. Methods. The methods we employed consist of using data primarily from the 2004 National Election Study to determine whether parents differ from nonparents in terms of their political attitudes on a wide range of issues. We argue that parenthood affects women and men differently, so we analyze the sexes separately. Results. Mothers have important political distinctions from women without children, mostly in the case of social welfare issues. They do not, however, appear to be “Security Moms” in the post‐9/11 world. As for fathers, for the most part it makes little sense to talk about dads as a distinct voting bloc, as in very few cases do their political attitudes differ from men without children. Conclusions. The media's use of the labels “NASCAR Dad” and Security Mom” promoted an inaccurate understanding of the political preferences of parents. Beyond debunking these media myths, our results provide one of the first comprehensive looks at the impact of parenthood on political attitudes, an overlooked area in the adult socialization literature.     

The “Exceptional”United States: First New Nation or Last Welfare State?

The author discusses the American welfare state in the context of Lash and Urry's thesis on ‘disorganized capitalism’. Attention is directed to the claim that the US welfare state has been the laggard of organized capitalism but is becoming the pathbreaker in defining patterns of public welfare provision under an increasingly disorganized capitalism. In this context the US may be “showing the way” to the welfare states of Western Europe. A number of claims about the “exceptional” nature of US development are reviewed and a number of reservations are entered against the “disorganization” thesis as applied to the welfare state. It is suggested that attention should be focussed upon contemporary patterns of welfare state re-organization rather than dis-organization.