Abstract
More recently, two key developments have been observed in the comparative social policy literature: on the one hand, the implementation of a proactive “social investment strategy”, either alongside or in replacement of their established social security programs, and on the other hand, a concomitant shift towards the increased macroeconomic and political importance of private property assets – and homeownership in particular – in defining the economic well-being of individuals. At first glance, it seems that we are dealing with two conflicting policy paradigms here; after all, social investment relies on stable or even expansive welfare states, while the accumulation of private property wealth as a welfare resource seems to realign better with the notion of welfare state retrenchment. This contribution aims to illustrate that the fault lines between the two policy paradigms are, however, not that clear-cut. Based on comparative national-level statistics for all OECD member states in the 1995–2007 pre-crisis period and theoretical reasoning the paper argues that the two approaches may be understood as compatible welfare readjustment strategies, which have opened out into a more radical form of productive welfare capitalism, particularly in the liberal and social-democratic welfare states in North-Western Europe.
Highlights
Up until the mid-2000s, welfare state change has been primarily understood as a process of retrenchment, deregulation and withdrawal from the traditional social protection functions of the state (e.g. Gilbert 2002; Pierson 2001; for an overview see Starke 2006), targeting, inter alia, employment protection, social benefits and public pension systems (e.g. Hemerijck 2013)
Numerous social policy researchers have identified that the welfare state is shifting from its traditional function of income protection towards a more productive social investment state – a policy paradigm that primarily aims at employment maximization through the support individual skill formation and the reconciliation of work and family life
The analysis of aggregate data on public social expenditure from 1995 to 2007 in 26 OECD countries revealed that the reorientation of policy priorities towards capacitating social investment spending had been most pronounced in Northern Europe and the liberal welfare states; in contrast, the conservative, Mediterranean and New EU Member welfare states have retained or even expanded their predominantly protectivist social policy approaches
Summary
Up until the mid-2000s, welfare state change has been primarily understood as a process of retrenchment, deregulation and withdrawal from the traditional social protection functions of the state (e.g. Gilbert 2002; Pierson 2001; for an overview see Starke 2006), targeting, inter alia, employment protection, social benefits and public pension systems (e.g. Hemerijck 2013). Focusing on the issue of how financialized (property) asset markets have become implanted in the wider production of societal wealth and economic growth, we can see that the liberal English-speaking nations as well as the Northern European countries had become forerunners in the potential application of a ABW model before 2007 because they made it relatively easy for future owner to gain initial access to the sector and release housing equity (see column 5 in Table 2) later on.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
