Hidden change: disaggregation of welfare state regimes for greater insight into welfare state change

Abstract

In this article, we propose a method for the disaggregation of welfare state regimes that enhances our insight into innovative welfare state change; that is, change beyond the borders of regime logic. Welfare states, we argue, are composed of different approaches to various social risks, and the approach to each social risk is often ‘hybrid’: it consists of various types of arrangements. It is no coincidence that risk approaches, and consequently welfare states, are often hybrid entities. We argue that a singular approach to a social risk creates a social residue that may evoke social pressure which can in turn be diminished by hybridizing the arrangement; that is, changing allocation rules to include new social groups or to cover previously uncovered needs. In itself, however, a hybrid arrangement is unstable. This is why hybridization may be followed by either a return to a singular risk approach so that social pressure re-emerges, or by the establishment of a new, additional arrangement so that a hybrid risk approach emerges. This is innovative change. We do not argue that innovative change inevitably occurs. Change requires that groups facing residues are able to employ sufficient power resources. However, some level of autonomous institutional welfare state change is to be expected as an outcome of the continuous creation of residues.

An Audit of the Welfare Modelling Business

“…1999; Davis 2001) are also mentioned as possible starting points, a strong contender is Titmuss (1974; cf. Bannick and Hoogenboom 2007). He identifies three ideal types.…”

Politics of Risk-taking : Welfare State Reform in Advanced Democracies

“…Cox 1998b;Lødemel & Trickey 2001;Gilbert 2002;Bannink & Hoogenboom 2007; but see Béland & Hansen 2000). Bannink & Hoogenboom (2007), for example, argue that institutionalist and neoinstitutionalist approaches, which pose that welfare states are doomed to path dependency, fail to account for innovative change, that is 'change which affects the institutional factors that have contributed to structure debates, political preferences and policy choices in the past' (Bonoli & Palier 1998: 321 referenced in Bannink & Hoogenboom 2007: 19). Hence, and notwithstanding scholars fitting this mainstream tradition who acknowledge that welfare state programmes have changed in important respects such as being more severely subjected to the whims of the labour market (e.g.…”

“…This also means that researchers arguing against the path dependency and regime specificity of welfare state change regularly take these hypotheses as their starting point (e.g. Cox 1998b;Lødemel & Trickey 2001;Gilbert 2002;Bannink & Hoogenboom 2007; but see Béland & Hansen 2000). Bannink & Hoogenboom (2007), for example, argue that institutionalist and neoinstitutionalist approaches, which pose that welfare states are doomed to path dependency, fail to account for innovative change, that is 'change which affects the institutional factors that have contributed to structure debates, political preferences and policy choices in the past' (Bonoli & Palier 1998: 321 referenced in Bannink & Hoogenboom 2007: 19).…”

The Direction and Scope of Social Policy Change: Regime-specific or Radical Shift towards Workfare?

“…The term ''mainstream'' does not entail any qualitative judgement, but is used because the hypotheses of regime-specific change and the absence of radical change often provide the yardstick against which scholars assess their findings. Specifically, researchers arguing against the path dependency and regime specificity of social policy change regularly take these hypotheses as their starting point (for example Cox 1998a, Lødemel and Trickey 2001, Gilbert 2002, Bannink and Hoogenboom 2007, but see Be´land and Hansen 2000). Hence, and notwithstanding scholars fitting this ''mainstream'' tradition who acknowledge that social policy has changed in important respects such as being more severely subjected to the whims of the labour market (for example Stephens 1996, Swank 2001, the absence of radical change and the path dependent trajectory of change constitute key hypotheses of ''mainstream'' social policy analysis.…”