Stretching the Limits of Solidarity

Abstract

Germany had already made major reforms to social policy before the Great Recession. It had moved away from the traditional corporatist breadwinner welfare state model towards greater individual responsibility (private pensions and workfarist reforms, with sharp benefit cuts), and much more extensive support for childcare. Social investment and training measures have been much strengthened. These measures, carried out within a general framework of austerity and retrenchment, had increased employment, although the expansion in work since the early 2000s was mainly in low-skilled precarious jobs. The country weathered the recession successfully. New pressures are from the deepening divisions between those advantaged by the new regime (highly skilled middle-class people in secure jobs) and outsiders in an increasingly dualized labour market. Very high levels of immigration have led to further tensions. Germany has successfully transformed its welfare state, but faces further challenges from the social and political consequences of those reforms.

The social legitimacy of the universal basic income from a social justice perspective: a comparative analysis of Germany and Slovenia

“…Despite some in-depth reforms in the last decades, the German welfare system is still rooted in a Bismarckian tradition of social insurance. This statuspreserving system is still prevalent in the pension system and also in the unemployment protection scheme, albeit the Hartz-reforms in 2004 added a tax-financed, flat-rate unemployment protection layer and a generally stronger emphasis on self-responsibility was introduced (for an overview: Heuer & Mau, 2017). Research showed thatwhile increased individual responsibility was largely acceptedthe shift from status preservation towards tax-financed basic protection was received sceptically among the German population (eg Nüchter et al, 2010;Sachweh et al, 2009).…”

The state of the German social insurance state: Reform and resilience

“…Self‐administration has been weakened, and the coverage of social insurance increased, especially because of labour market developments. And, finally, in the 1990s, a whole new branch of social insurance was introduced, even though with “limited” powers (Heuer & Mau, , p. 42).…”

“…The increasing significance of family policies and social services, the associated move from the single‐wage‐earner norm to a dual‐breadwinner model, a growing role of basic income systems, and cuts in social insurance schemes are among the tendencies most often mentioned in research (cf. Blum & Kuhlmann, ; Heuer & Mau, ; Hinrichs, ; Leisering, ; Nullmeier, ; Seeleib‐Kaiser, ). Because of these developments, some researchers even question the classification of the German welfare state as “Bismarckian” or “conservative” and see the coming of a new hybrid, combining (fewer) conservative features with aspects of Scandinavian and liberal welfare states (Seeleib‐Kaiser, , p. 235; Leisering, , p. 242; Hinrichs, , p. 71; Blank, , pp.…”

Moral economies of the welfare state: A qualitative comparative study

“…The German welfare state, in contrast, did not experience such a harsh attack on its core institutions (for an overview see Heuer and Mau 2017). Although changes such as benefit reductions and increased co-payments were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s, the basic architecture of a corporatist status-maintenance-oriented welfare-state model remained intact.…”