Reframing social policy: from Conservatism to Liberal Communitarianism.
| Verfasser | Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin |
| Posten | Essay |
-
Introduction
"Ideas are the very stuff of politics. People fight about ideas, fight for them, and fight against them. Political conflict is never simply over material conditions and choices, but over what is legitimate. The passion in politics comes from conflicting senses of fairness, justice, rightness, and goodness. ... Political fights are conducted with money, with rules, with votes, and with favors, to be sure, but they are conducted above all with words and ideas" (Stone 2002: 34).
Despite the central importance of ideas in democratic politics, and the significant role of ideas and political discourse in classical sociological writings, they have played only a minor role within the discipline of political science in general, and especially in (comparative) welfare state research until the 1990s (for overviews see Campbell 2002 and Beland 2005). In regards to welfare state reform analyses institutionalist and structural approaches dominate the literature. According to institutionalist approaches significant social policy reforms in Germany are said to be highly unlikely due to various veto players, the large welfare state clientele, and the specific party competition between two welfare state parties (cf. Pierson 2001). Structural analyses measure the extent of reforms in relation to the effective solution of identified 'problems' and often conclude that reforms have not gone far enough or were ill-designed (cf. Streeck/Trampusch 2005). Despite their merits, these approaches are insufficient to answer the question, why change occurs in the first place and what meaning it has.
In this paper I will not theorize about the opportunities or obstacles and the adequacy or inadequacy of reforms, but demonstrate in how far the normative and ideational foundations of social policy in Germany have changed significantly since the 'golden' era of welfare state capitalism. For this purpose I will first outline the relevance of social constructivism to social policy analysis; second, I will characterize the ideal normative foundation of the conservative welfare state in the 'golden' post-World War II era, before scrutinizing the new ideational framework increasingly guiding the reforms since the 1980s. This section mainly builds on a content analysis of party programs and parliamentary debates. Finally, I argue that the ideational basis for the German welfare state is no longer Conservatism, but Liberal Communitarianism.
-
Social Constructivism and Social Policy Analysis
According to the public policy literature ideas are primarily of relevance in the process of agenda setting. They are said to determine the problem definition and policy options (Kingdon 1995). Problems are not a natural given or "mirrors of objective conditions", as many welfare state analysts (implicitly) argue, but are "projections of collective sentiments" (Hilgartner/Bosk 1988: 53; cf. Blumer 1971); or in the words of Majone (1989: 23 f.), "[o]bjective conditions are seldom so compelling and so unambiguous that they set the policy agenda or dictate the appropriate conceptualization." Therefore, although 'objective' challenges may contribute to the instability of an institutional equilibrium, they are not directly causal for policy change. This approach to policy analysis is rooted in the sociology of knowledge, initially developed by Karl Mannheim (1964), whereby 'reality' is socially constructed. The philosopher Ian Hacking (1999) demonstrated that the perception of what constitutes 'reality' depends on conceptualizations of 'facts' and of the processes used to measure them. If we talk about 'facts' or 'problems' challenging the welfare state and if we want to know whether they have any influence on the development of future policies, we must first determine whether these 'facts' or 'problems' are 'real' in the political world. Hence, this approach further builds on the so-called Thomas Theorem: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (Thomas 1951: 51). In other words, independently of 'objective' challenges, if political actors do not perceive these challenges as 'real', they do not have 'real' consequences for policymaking.
Political scientists Goldstein and Keohane (1993: 8-11) analytically differentiate between 'world views', 'principled beliefs', and 'causal beliefs.' They suggest that world views "are embedded in the symbolism of a culture"; examples include the spectrum of religions, but also modern scientific rationality. Principled beliefs consist of "normative ideas that specify criteria for distinguishing right from wrong and just from unjust", while causal beliefs are "beliefs about cause-effect relationships which derive authority from the shared consensus of recognized elites ... Such causal beliefs provide guides for individuals on how to achieve their objectives." Blyth (2001) developed the categories of 'ideas as blueprints' and 'ideas as weapons', which allow agents to challenge existing institutions by defining not only the causes of a perceived problem, but also the solutions for dealing with them. Finally, 'ideas as cognitive locks' set the boundaries for policy-making.
These various conceptualizations of the role of ideas are deeply intertwined and largely constitute the concept of 'interpretative patterns' to be used in this essay. Interpretative patterns "combine various themes, set preferences among them, link the positions (pro or con) with the various themes, and set the various themes in relation to abstract values, which at the same time connect the themes on a generalized level" (Gerhards 1995: 224; transl. msk). Interpretative patterns emerge out of, or are the result of, power struggles within the political discourse. In this respect, party competition constitutes an important factor in Germany (Seeleib-Kaiser 2001; Bleses/Seeleib-Kaiser 2004). To summarize, the role of ideas reaches well beyond the agenda-setting phase in the policy cycle, as they are embedded in the institutional policy design as well as giving meaning to specific policies and their alternatives; (cf. Beland 2005; Bleses/Seeleib-Kaiser 2004; Nullmeier/Rub 1993).
-
Normative Foundations of the Conservative German Welfare State
The German post-WW II welfare state can be characterized as a conservative welfare state, as it was built on principles of social integration and stability, not on redistribution between classes, or the alleviation of poverty. This approach was largely rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church with the principle of subsidiary at its core. Based on this philosophy, the smallest viable entities of society are responsible for their members. Closely connected with this principle was the principle of maintaining status differences. Accordingly, it seems legitimate to differentiate, for example, between white-collar and blue-collar workers and to emphasize the strong role of families or other communal groups. The role of the state is to protect these entities, and if necessary, to provide the support for them to carry out their responsibilities (cf. Nell-Breuning 1957; Spicker 1991; Waschkuhn 1995). This role stands in stark contrast to the role played by the state in both 'liberal' as well as 'social-democratic' welfare regimes. In social-democratic welfare regimes, it is the state's responsibility to provide universal social benefits as well as to deliver social services to its citizens. In liberal welfare regimes, state intervention is residual and primarily focused on providing means-tested benefits to the 'deserving poor' (Esping-Andersen 1990; 1999).
A wage earner-centred social policy, applying de facto largely only to male breadwinners, coupled with a sphere of unpaid welfare work, provided mainly by women, characterized the design of the post-World War II German welfare state. Such a wage earner-centred social policy is rooted in the general acceptance of specific normative preconditions. First, the worker must be accepted as an insurable individual; in other words, he is no longer seen as part of an anonymous proletariat. Secondly, the risks to be insured must, in principle, not be perceived as being attributed to any fault of the individual, despite the fact that the risks affect workers individually. Following on from these two preconditions is the conditio sine qua non, whereby an individual cannot freely choose between income from work and social income. Moreover, persons of working age must effectively demonstrate that they are willing to work in order to receive social benefits. The level of social income to which the individual is entitled is based on his prior wage earnings, thereby extending wage differentials into the realm of social insurance benefits (Vobruba 1990). Thus, the foremost aims of the German social insurance schemes were inter-temporal redistribution within the life course (not inter-personal redistribution), and the entitlement of derived benefits to family members. The leitmotiv of post-war social policy expansion was to secure the 'achieved living standard' (Lebensstandardsicherung) of the male breadwinner and his family during old age, disability, sickness, and unemployment. A precondition for this system to work was full employment on the basis of standard employment relationships (Muckenberger 1985).
The pension reform of 1957 is a prime example for this normative logic. The central aim of the 1957 pension law was--in the words of Josef Schuttler, the CDU politician and responsible committee correspondent to the German Parliament--"to achieve a clear distinction between insurance and social assistance. . . . [The old-age insurance] was to be transformed from a minimal allowance of the past into a benefit for the future which could maintain the living standard" (Stenogr. Prot. 2/184: 10181; transl. msk). The pension reform raised the old-age benefits and indexed them to future increases in gross wages. After further benefit increases...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO ANCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
