New directions in the study of welfare state change: ideas and incremental change

1. New directions in the study of welfare state change: ideas and incremental change Jørgen Goul Andersen IV. International Conference on Welfare State Change: Policy feedback, the role of ideas, and incrementalism, St.Restrup, 30.Jan – 1.Feb. 2008

2. Until 1990 (Korpi+) Esping-Andersen’s 1990 Three Worlds • Additional independent variable: political power – power resources – supplemented functionalism (socioeconomic development/problem pressure) as driver of change • New dependent variable: Institutional differences replaced quantitative indices (+ “regime” =political economy) • Change of perspective. Until Esping-Andersen 1990 – and including that study: Most studies looked back on the past – after 1990 most studies became concerned with the future

3. 1990’s: Stability, Path Dependence & Retrenchment (1) • Looking forward: Not so much interesting to see • Dominant view: Welfare regimes don’t change. Frozen landscapes. • Explain stasis: Veto points + path dependence • Path dependence implicitly interpreted as negative feedback • Pierson 1994: - Change = retrenchment - Change = small, exceptional. blame avoidance

4. 1990’s (2) More pressure • Pierson: Irresistible pressures – immovable objects • Pierson 2001: Some restructuring / recalibration acknowledged • Dependent variable problem: Aggregate spending, institutions or microsimulation of compensation rates

5. 1990’s (3) More adequate understanding of path dependence • Pierson 2000: Path dependence as positive feedback mechanisms: Dynamic, not static • Yet abother explanatory variables: Institutional dynamics (built-in mechanisms of change) • Otherwise sources of change must be exogenous in this perspective • Drivers/Challenges: • Ageing / demography • Globalization • Immigration • Value change generating new voter preferences for individualisation or say in government • Corresponds with punctuated equilibrium model of change

6. 2000’s: Focus on change • Probably due to more welfare reform ”out there” • But also due to theoretical advances: (1) Discovery of the transformative capacity of incremental change conversion, layering, drift as the most described mechanisms (conversion + drift = more soft institutionalism: institutions matter – but not always that much…) • (2) Discovery of the role of ideas as source of change - abrupt or incremental - Ideas also include diffusion/transfer of change – policy makers look at their neighbours. Exploited/Intensified by OMC in the EU.

7.  This series of conferences • Independent variables: Was it really politics and power in the past and austerity/exogenous problem pressure now & in the future? • Dependent variable/conceptalization of change (when is change?! Sometimes we don’t discover, most often we disagree). • Feedback mechanisms (learning: from outcome to input). • Incremental change + ideas (incl. diffusion/transfer). Perhaps the inclusion of ideas is the most significant extension as it brings social constructivism into policy analysis and welfare state theory.

8. 4 independent variables • Problem pressure/ neofunctionalism • Interests and political power resources • Institutions incl. institutional dynamics • Ideational sources of change

9. Dependent variable problem From simple expenditure measures to: • Direction of change: Beyond retrenchment restructuring – but towards what? Recommodification, residualism, marketization, activation of social protection? • Level of change (not always corresponding) Discourse Institutions Policy Outcome (functional equivalence: different institutions may produce similar outcome; challenge to delineate the welfare state in a ”governance”/”multipillar” world) • Process of change (abrupt / incremental) • Degree of change (transformative/non-transformative)

10. Ideas and ”disturbance” of theoretical models of explanations

11. Ideas matter. But how, when and why? Abundance of theories and analyses that are not mutually related - multiple varieties of discourse analysis - framing theories (pol. communication) - theories of ideology as cognitive structures - ”classical” theories of ideology - theories of policy learning/social learning - policy transfer/ policy diffusion - agenda setting theories - social problem theories

12. What do we mean by ideas? • Values or cognitive aspects? • Ideologies or theoretical paradigms surrounding policies? • Does it include ”culture”? • Elite discourse (”coordination discourse”) • Mind sets/problem perceptions of political decision makers • Mass discourse (”communicative discourse”) • Mass perceptions

13. Paradigms • Not just question of goals, let alone values • Conceptual universe • Problem definitions • Causal theory • Range of possible solutions • Framework for interpreting evidence E.g. the idea of structural unemployment and the interpretation of unemployment as being mainly structural

14. Where do ideas come from? • Supply perspective: From expert knowledge to policy elites to political decision makers • Demand perspective/availability/window of opportunity: -Decison makers puzzle, look for ideas that give meaning to experience in a world of uncertainty -Decision markers lookfor ideas that lend legitimacy to interests • Once in operation, ideas get a life of their own (sometimes incorporated in economic models)

15. Ideas as institutions • Discoursive instiutionalism treats ideas as equivalent to institutions: • Lock in effects / switching costs / hegemonic ideas • Exclude alternatives / constrain the possibility of policies • Structure problem perceptions and preference formation of decision makers • Allocate power resources among decision makers

16. Ideational Dynamics? • Feedback processes/learning • Policy transfer / diffusion - from one country to another - from one policy area to another e.g. New Public Management • Socialisation effects (positive feedback)

17. Methodological problems:Ideas vs. alternative explanations • How isolate problem definitions from problem pressure? - e.g. ideas about ageing problems: is it ageing or is it the discourse about ageing that is important? Must be able to argue that other problem definitions could be equally plausible • How isolate ideas from interests? Decision makers choose the problem definitions that fit with their interests. Must be able to demonstrate that ideas make them compromise with their interests

18. The Welfare State • Can it be maintained (econ.sustainability) • Will it be maintained (pol.drivers of change) • Should it be maintained (normative question) • These questions are often conflated