In France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, the decades from the late 1980s to the present have witnessed significant change in health policy. Although this has included the spread of internal competition and growing autonomy for certain nonstate and parastate actors, it does not follow that the mechanism at work is a "neoliberal convergence." Rather, the translation into diverse national settings of quasi-market mechanisms is accompanied by a reassertion of regulatory authority and strengthening of statist, as opposed to corporatist, management of national insurance systems. Thus the use of quasi-market tools brings state-strengthening reform. The proximate and necessary cause of this dual transformation is found in the work of small, closely integrated groups of policy professionals, whom we label "programmatic actors." While their identity differs across cases, these actors are strikingly similar in functional role and motivation. Motivated by a desire to wield authority through the promotion of programmatic ideas, rather than by material or careerist interests, these elite groups act both as importers and translators of ideas and as architects of policy. The resulting elite-driven model of policy change integrates ideational and institutionalist elements to explain programmatically coherent change despite institutional resistance and partisan instability.

Literature on welfare attitudes has reached a stylized scheme in which egalitarian values and self-interest concerns are the two main determinants of welfare attitudes. We aim to bring forward existing research by identifying additional values that people draw on to elaborate opinions on welfare issues. Using data from the European Social Survey 2008 and 26 countries, we find that values such as multiculturalism or authoritarianism, among others, lie at the roots of welfare attitudes. However, egalitarianism is the only value with a significant effect in all countries. Differences between welfare regimes in the values associated with welfare opinions exist but are unconnected with aggregate support for the welfare state, suggesting that this institution can achieve a high level of legitimacy on different moral grounds.

No abstract

This article presents an open discussion of the processes of urban secession and gentrification in contemporary European cities, arguing that intergroup social dynamics in urban spaces are generally more complex than either extreme mutual avoidance or the colonization of neighbourhoods by the wealthiest groups. We analyse the residential strategies of urban upper-middle class managers in various European metropolitan areas through in-depth semi-structured interviews to argue that these groups develop complex strategies of proximity and distance in relation to other social groups. The development of these 'partial exit' strategies takes place through specific combinations of practices that allow groups to select the dimensions they are willing to share with other social groups, and those in which they prefer a more segregated social environment for themselves and their families. The responses of our interviewees were consistently more nuanced and complex than suggested by a simplistic theory about their drive to withdraw from society, forcing us to develop more sophisticated conceptual frameworks to account for the growing prevalence of multi-layered identities and spheres of reference and solidarity, specific combinations of elective segregation and local involvement, and more active patterns of mobility combined with local embeddedness.