What Do Parties Want? An Analysis of Programmatic Social Policy AIMS in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands
| Author | Martin Roggenkamp,Martin Seeleib-Kaiser,Silke van Dyk |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/138826270500700202 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
WHAT DO PARTIES WANT?
AN ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMMATIC SOCIAL
POLICY AIMS IN AUSTRIA, GERMANY
AND THE NETHERLANDS
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser,
Silke van Dyk and Martin Roggenkamp*
Abstract
Comparative welfare state research has argued for some time that whether Social
Democrats or Christian Democrats are in government makes a difference with regard
to specific welfare state design. The theory is based on the fact that, historically, the
social policy aims of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats have differed. Can
these policy differences still be assumed after almost three decades, which have been
characterised by a discourse about ‘necessary’ welfare state retrenchment, adaptation,
and modification? Based on an in-depth analysis of the social policy aims of the Social
Democrats and Christian Democrats in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands since
1975, we argue that, the differences between the two welfare state parties in formerly
conservative welfare states have largely faded away.
European Journal of Social Security, Volume 7 (2005), No. 2 115
* Martin Seeleib-Kaiser is a Lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Oxford. Address: Barnett
House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2ER, England, e-mail: Martin.Seeleib@socres.ox.ac.uk;
Silke van Dyk is a Researcher in the Centre for Social Policy Research (ZES), Universita
¨t Bremen.
Address: Barkhof, Parkallee 39, 28209 Bremen, e-mail: sdyk@gwdg.de; Martin Roggenkamp is a
Research Fellow in the Centre for Social Policy Research (ZES), Universita
¨t Bremen. Address:
Barkhof, Parkallee 39, 28209 Bremen, e-mail: m.roggenkamp@zes.uni-bremen.de. Earlier versions of
this paper were presented at the ESPANET Conference, Oxford, September 9-11, 2004, the Midwest
Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 7-10, 2005, and at a seminar at the
Department of Applied Economics, University of Oviedo (Spain), April 19, 2005. The authors would
like to thank the participants at each of these events for their insightful and helpful comments; Julia
Spreen for her superb research and Rod Dacombe for his excellent editorial assistance. Finally, they
gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the
British Academy.
116 Intersentia
1. INTRODUCTION
Studies analysing the driving forces of welfare state development have made a great
contribution during the past two decades in helping us understand and explain the
historical development as well as the varieties of welfare state regimes.
1
Many of these
welfare state analyses point to the crucial continuing role played by political parties,
which are said to promote distinct interests based on historically rooted assumptions
about class and milieaux relations. At the same time, however, sociological studies
point to increasing individualisation (Beck 1992) and the declining role of civic or
communitarian organisations (Putnam 2000), while economic observers point to the
‘necessary’ adaptation of welfare states as a result of the rapid process of globalisation
(for a critical perspective see Jessop 2002). In these times of rapid societal and
economic change, can we still assume that party interests stay more or less constant
over time?
Four decades ago, Otto Kirchheimer (1965) diagnosed a development towards
catch-all parties in western democracies based on the declining significance of class
and the increasing importance of political advertising in winning elections. Alth ough
his research pre-dates most of the comparative welfare state analyses, which
demonstrated empirically the great importance political parties have played in the
specific design of welfare states,
2
this does not mean that the concept of policy
convergence is irrelevant. As Manfred Schmidt (1985) argued some time ago ,
Christian Democracy – albeit keeping many of its distinct features – witnessed a
process of social-democratisation during the golden post WWII era.
3
In a very
simplified fashion these findings parallel President Richard Nixon’s famously uttered
words of 1972, ‘we’re all Keynesians now’, thereby signalling the ‘leftward’ drift of the
conservatives and the declining significance of party politics with regard to economic
policies.
Since the mid-1970s, to many observers, this development has been put into
reverse. It has become part of conventional wisdom to assert that ‘neo-liberali sm’ has
not only increasingly dominated welfare state policies pursued by Liberal and
Conservative parties, but has also infected Social Democratic parties. Moreover the
processes of globalisation would leave Social Democrats no space for alternative policy
approaches.
4
In contrast some political scientists and sociologists (e.g. Garrett 1998,
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, Silke van Dyk and Martin Roggenkamp
1
For an overview see Amenta (2003).
2
For the classical argument see Hibbs (1977). The various different approaches with regard to the
influence of Social Democracy on the welfare state are discussed by Shalev (1983); for a more recent
study see Garrett (1998). For an analysis of the relationship between Christian Democracy and the
welfare state, see Kersbergen (1995).
3
Cf. also the work of Thomas (1979).
4
For a critical review of the recent literature on Social Democracy, see van Kersbergen (2003).
To continue reading
Request your trial