Your position in society matters for how happy you are

This article shows that people's perception of their position in society is strongly correlated with their level of happiness, and thus that differences in happiness levels among countries in different welfare state clusters are influenced by people's perceptions of their relative position in society (subjective position). The study drew on data from the European Social Survey. Two important findings emerged from the analysis. First, an individual's subjective position in society is a more important predictor of happiness than objective measures such as income, education and labour market position. Second, the link between individuals’ perceived position in society and their level of happiness is moderated by the welfare state. In the Nordic countries, people's perceptions of their position in society have less influence on happiness whereas in Eastern European countries we found a strong connection between subjective position and happiness.     

Handlungserklärung und die zwei Rationalitäten?

The question is being scrutinized how to integrate into a general theory of action the two types of rational action distinguished by Max Weber based on value rationality and instrumental rationality. Three proposals recently made by Raymond Boudon, Siegwart Lindenberg and Hartmut Esser are considered. These authors agree in conceiving rationality as based on reasons. But, unlike Boudon, Lindenberg and Esser hold that rationality should be essentially considered as consequential and that it is possible to reconstruct value-rational action in this framework, although Weber’s formulation of this type of action clearly excludes a reference to consequences. According to Lindenberg and Esser, this reconstruction of value-rational action can be accomplished by the theory of subjective expected utility supplemented by a concept of framing. In their opinion this kind of model also offers the opportunity to construct a conception superior to a mere typology of action orientations, because it enables us to specify under what conditions which type of action prevails. The article provides evidence that the proposals made by both authors still fall short of offering an adequate model for understanding the difference between both types of action. Lindenberg’s proposal does not sufficiently allow for explaining the difference between traditional and value-rational action and the claim for justification associated with value-rational action. Esser’s conception meets these two criteria but it remains unsettled whether his model already specifies sufficient conditions for value-rational action. The article concludes in considering the general question whether it is conceivable to derive both types of action from a common notion of rationality.     

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.     

How to Measure Social Progress?

A good society is the goal for social policy. Recent years have seen a growing awareness that gross domestic product (GDP) alone does not measure this. Happiness and well‐being have increasingly been seen as elements that should influence welfare policies. This review article provides an overview of many of the ways to measure well‐being and happiness. It attempts to cover three distinct, but interrelated subjects. First, why and what can be used to complement GDP as measures for societal development. Second, is there a relation between well‐being, happiness and central social policy areas? Third, whether knowledge on what makes people happy could inform policymakers in their decisions. The article discusses the many new attempts to measure societal development, and the fact that there are so many that decision makers and citizens are drowning by numbers and thereby not able to grasp whether or not there is social progress. Lastly, by using the classical depiction of welfare states, the article analyses whether the indexes are in line herewith, and that, therefore, they might be used as an instrument for steering societies in the direction of a good society.     

Does Poverty Among Immigrants Adapt to Country of Residence? Turks in Germany and Denmark

We use data on Turkish immigrants in two European welfare states, Denmark and Germany, and data on Turks at home. Unlike in most studies of immigrant poverty, we thus control for the differences in immigrant composition. Denmark and Germany have different welfare state types, labour market structure and institutions. We find that in both countries Turkish immigrants have much higher poverty rates than natives. We perform Fairlie decompositions to find that in Denmark, compared to Germany, a larger part of the native‐immigrant poverty difference is explained by market valuation of characteristics and by unobservables. Finally, we decompose poverty by subgroups and find that certain immigrant subgroups (such as families with children and the elderly) are especially vulnerable in both countries and that not much has changed in the two countries between 2008 and 2013 in terms of the vulnerability of these sub‐groups to poverty risk.