|
Article Excerpt
Our understanding of the relationship between globalization and contemporary social welfare systems is heavily influenced by three conventional approaches to studying welfare reform: the political economy, moral economy, and mixed economy approaches. In addition to analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each of these approaches, a central aim of this article is to introduce the social economy approach as an emergent alternative. Drawing from a growing body of work on institutional innovation within the European third sector, I argue that the social economy approach makes a valuable contribution to understanding the role of welfare networks in reconfiguring globalizations' impact on the character and quality of social provision so as to better reconcile social efficacy with social justice.
Keywords: Globalization, Welfare Reform, Welfare Networks, the Third Sector, Social Enterprises, Social Inclusion, Social Justice
**********
Increasing market integration, changing demographics, and shrinking public budgets have fueled a pervasive redefinition of the state's role in providing for the social welfare of citizens. In addition to challenging public administration's dominance over the production and distribution of social services, policy makers and politicians from across the political spectrum have called into question the once pervasive belief that the state is exclusively entitled to guarantee the collective well being of its citizenry. Together, these developments have produced a climate favorable to the expanding role of the third sector, not only in the delivery of social services, but in the formulation and stipulation of social welfare policy as well. (1)
Despite third sector organizations' increasing centrality in the development of contemporary social welfare systems, the two dominant approaches to studying welfare reform have downplayed, if not ignored, their importance as an interface between globalization and social wellbeing. Locked into a dichotomous state-society framework, the political economy and moral economy approaches have had a polarizing effect on the way we understand globalization and its consequences for welfare. Whereas the former adopts the 'welfare state' as its central analytic unit and focuses on the degree to which globalization is undermining states' capacity to protect their citizens social rights, the latter concentrates on the societal dynamics of the 'welfare society', underscoring the key role of societal actors in responding to societal need and the extent to which the state has become the chief impediment to achieving social justice. As a result of this dualism, the salience of the third sector for transforming the structural and cultural foundation of social welfare systems, and thus its capacity to mediate the effects of globalization, has not been fully appreciated.
The so-called mixed economy approach emerged more recently to underscore the inherent pluralism of social welfare systems and the role of the third sector as a vital intermediary between state, society and economy (Anheier and Seibel, 1990; Gidron, Kramer, Salamon, 1992; Salamon & Anheier, 1996; Salamon, 2002). Stemming primarily from professionals and practioners involved in the implementation and delivery of social and human services, this approach illuminates the black box that separates policy formation from societal outcomes by underscoring the productivist underpinnings of the social welfare systems. Although it has made significant advances in connecting the micro-level institutional dynamics involved in service provision to broader economic and socio-political processes underlying contemporary welfare reform, in focusing somewhat narrowly on the organization and management of welfare production, it fails to explore the broader structural implications of welfare reform and does not take sufficient account of the social consequences that emerging welfare mixes have on both users and citizens more broadly defined.
Given the shortcomings of these conventional approaches to welfare reform, there is a particular need to identify and develop new approaches to understanding the capacity of contemporary social welfare systems to meet the formidable challenges posed by globalization. A central aim of this paper is to introduce such an approach. Based on a detailed analysis of the strengths and weakness of the three conventional approaches mentioned above, I establish the foundation for what I identify as a social economy approach to welfare. Drawing from a growing body of work on institutional innovation within the European third sector, I argue that this emergent alternative makes a valuable contribution to understanding the role of welfare networks in reconfiguring globalizations' impact on the character and quality of social provision so as to better reconcile social efficacy with social justice.
Conventional Approaches to Analyzing the Development of Contemporary Social Welfare Systems
Each of the three conventional approaches to studying the development of contemporary social welfare systems--the political economy approach, the moral economy approach and the mixed economic approach--is based on a distinctive analytical model, each with its own conceptual frameworks, theoretical preferences, and normative commitments (See Table I below). While each approach has contributed significantly to our understanding of how and why social welfare systems develop, disciplinary boundaries and distinctive research agendas have tended to thwart cross fertilization among them. Thus, looking more closely at how they compare to one another is important not only for identifying the social economy perspective as an emergent alternative, but also for generating a more integrated, informed understanding of the impact of globalization on social development in the twenty-first century.
The Political Economy Approach
Emerging during a period of profound faith in the state as the key to prosperity and progress, the political economy approach reflects the social ideals of the post-war era: universalism, equality, and the power of the state to provide an unprecedented quality of life for its citizens. The welfare state, its key unit of analysis, is conceptualized as a form of embedded liberalism--a reformist compromise capable of compensating for, if not correcting, the most deleterious affects of the capitalist economy.
Although initially focused on the political engineering of social protection vis-a-vis social rights and regulations, with the end of the so-called Golden Age of the welfare state, the political economy approach has focused on questions and issues pertaining to welfare retrenchment and the respective role of politics and economics in driving welfare reform. Although long a concern within liberal welfare states like the United States, more recent debates about an emerging global "third way" (Giddens, 2001) and the transformation of "vice into virtue" among conservative, christian democratic welfare states (Levy, 1999; Hemerijck and Visser, 2001) have drawn attention to the ways in which welfare states are 'recalibrating' (Ferrera and Hemerijck, 2003; Handler, 2003; Gilbert, 2002) and the relevant degree of freedom they have in dealing effectively with the cultural and economic challenges of globalization.
Within the political economy framework, the key point of contention focuses on the extent to which there has been greater convergence or persistent divergence among historically distinctive models of welfare state development. The convergence thesis holds that welfare states, particularly those characterized by comprehensive, national social programs and public services, face growing external constraints to their ability to maintain generous, publicly financed social protections. According to this thesis, shifting patterns in international trade and finance increase competitive pressures within the global economy, thus restricting government's maneuverability in crafting policy to meet domestic social and economic objectives (Castells, 1996; Kurzer, 1993; Gilbert, 2002). As traditional macro-economic policy tools become harder to manage and labor and total production costs rise due to the diversification of demand and the increasing use of technology, governments must rely heavily on non-payroll taxes to finance welfare expenditures. Yet high rates of inflation combined with shrinking tax bases make substantial tax increases both economically and politically unpopular. Combined with significant pressures to reduce budget deficits, this situation places critical limits to the expansion of social spending and thus the ability and willingness of governments to provide wide-ranging, long term public benefits (Atkinson, 1992; Rhodes, 1995). In addition to scaling back cash-based subsidies and increasing eligibility requirements, devolving competencies to lower levels...
|
