Changing Principles in European Social Security
| Author | Jochen Clasen,Wim Van Oorschot |
| DOI | 10.1023/A:1020520321533 |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
European Journal
of
Social Security, Volume 4/2, 89-115, 2002.
©Kluwer Law International (KLI). Printed in the Netherlands.
JOCHEN CLASEN AND
WIM
VAN OORSCHOT*
Changing Principles in European Social
Security
Those are my principles.
If
you don't like them Jhave others.
(Groucho Marx, 1890-1977)
89
Abstract: The provision
of
social security benefits rests on normative principles
of
social justice. Most strongly manifest in earnings-related social insurance, the prin-
ciple
of
reciprocity has been increasingly questioned on grounds of equity, adequacy
and fiscal viability, in the wake
of
socio-economic changes (e.g. post-industralisa-
tion, globalisation) and political developments (e.g. Europeanisation). Universalist
programmes seem extraordinarily expensive under tight public budgets, and could be
criticised as inequitable at a time when middle classes increasingly rely on individual
and occupational forms of income security. The principle of need appears to have
become more prominent within modern European social security systems keen on
targeting resources.
Is there empirical evidence which would reflect these alleged trends? Con-
centrating on three principles inherent in social security transfers (need, universal-
ism and reciprocity) the major concerns
ofthis
article are conceptual and empirical.
First, it addresses the problem
of
operationalising social security principles and
delineating indicators
of
change over time. Second, it applies two
of
these indicators
in order to identify and compare the extent to which the three principles have gained
or lost prominence since the early 1980s, with empirical evidence taken from the
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany and Scandinavia.
The article argues first that, applying either indicator, there is no cross-nation-
al trend towards squeezing reciprocity-based social insurance, but that a conver-
gence between erstwhile strong (Bismarckian) and weak (Beveridgean) principled
programmes can be identified. Second, a clear trend towards needs-based social
security can be identified within the 'legal' but not within the 'volume' perspective,
at least in some programmes and some claimant groups. This is due to both policy
changes and favourable labour market conditions. Third, two countries indicate very
*
JOCHEN
CLASEN
is
Professor
of
Comparative
Social Research in the
Department
of
Applied
Social Science, University
of
Stirling, Stirling, Scotland. E-mail:
jochen.clascn@stir.ac.uk
WIM
VAN
OORSCHOT
is Professor
of
sociology in the
Department
of
Sociology,
Tilburg
University, Po
Box
90153,
5000
LE Tilburg, The
Netherlands.
E-mail: w.v.oorschot@kub.nl
EUROPEAN
JOURNAL
OF
SOCIAL
SECURITY
90
diverse trends. British social security is distinctive in terms of the erosion of
Beveridgean reciprocity, as well as the growing strength of the needs principle. In
the Netherlands, there have been considerable shifts in principles underlying certain
programmes, but no general trend in either direction can be observed. On the whole,
Dutch social security continues to exhibit a strong mix
of
principles.
1. INTRODUCTION
After expanding rapidly in the aftermath
of
World War II, the early 1980s saw many
social security systems in Europe entering a phase of rethinking, retrenchment and
reconstruction. Apart from the fiscal crisis which followed the oil price shock of the
early seventies, and subsequent economic recession, other factors contributed to
this, including an expanding new-right ideology (marketisation, privatisation) and
pressures on welfare states to adjust to a changing society (increased labour partic-
ipation of women, population ageing, growing plurality
of
households, work flexi-
bilisation, etc). Policy changes in national social security programmes have been
recorded in detail (e.g. MISSOC, various years). They have spawned comparative
analyses from a variety of perspectives (e.g. Kautto et al., 1999; 2001; Kuhnle,
2000). A major theoretical interest has been the identification of the relative strength
of causal factors impinging on reforms, such as socio-economic pressures or chal-
lenges to institutional capacities which facilitate or constrain policy adaptation and
thus lead to path-dependent change (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1996; Scharpf and
Schmidt, 2000). According to the 'new politics of the welfare state' (Pierson, 2001),
a new theoretical framework is required for an understanding of these changes in
welfare arrangements.
The preferred indicators of change have been spending on social protection, the
generosity of transfers and services (replacement rates and other indicators) and the
more general perspective of institutional change or stability. A few studies have
looked into the manifestation of and change in principles underlying social rights.
Clasen et al. (2001), for example, defined and examined shifts in the nature of the
relationship between work and unemployment compensation, i.e. how far social
rights are based on conditions pertaining to previous or future employment. In a
sophisticated attempt at classification, Bolderson and Mabbett (1995) analysed the
complexity of principles inherent within four social security schemes in seven coun-
tries by way of drawing analogies with allocative principles found in market
exchange, public policy and taxation.
Less ambitious in terms oftypologising, this article is concerned with the clas-
sic principles
of
redistributive justice underlying social rights, i.e. need, reciprocity
and universalism. There are a number
of
reasons why we should expect changes to
have occurred in the relative scope of the three principles. These are briefly dis-
cussed in section 3. However, rather than attempting to strengthen or weaken theo-
retical accounts of change, this article has other central concerns. The first one is
conceptual: to clarify what we mean by social security principles, examining the
ways in which their relative scope can be identified and delineating indicators of
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY
To continue reading
Request your trial