Home Social Sciences Chapter 7 Beyond Retrenchment: four problems in current welfare state research and one suggestion how to overcome them
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 7 Beyond Retrenchment: four problems in current welfare state research and one suggestion how to overcome them

  • Bruno Palier
View more publications by Policy Press
What future for social security?
This chapter is in the book What future for social security?

Abstract

‘Welfare states in transition’ (Esping-Andersen 1996a)’ ‘Recasting European welfare states’ (Ferrera and Rhodes 2000b)’ ‘Welfare state futures’ (Leibfried 2000), ‘Survival of the European Welfare State’ (Kuhnle 2000a) and ‘The new politics of the welfare state’ (Pierson 2001a) - all of these are among the most important recent publications on the welfare state. Collectively, they indicate that the focus of the academic agenda has moved beyond the crisis of the welfare state and ‘towards an analysis of actual social policy changes which have occurred during the last 20 or 25 years. Probably under Anglo-Saxon influence (Reagan and Thatcher pursued explicit anti-welfare agendas) first analyses of these changes have been phrased in terms of retrenchment (after the ‘golden age’ of growth). They sought to discover how deep and to what extent governments had reduced social expenditure since the late 1970s. After a couple of decades of debates on the crisis of the welfare state, and countless welfare reforms adopted throughout the industrialised world, many commentators agree on the fact that the welfare state is much more solid and robust than what had been assumed and argued in the 1970s. To date, most welfare state analyses have concluded that in the last 25 years there has either been stability, little retrenchment or ‘path dependent’ changes.

Even if expenditure on certain programmes has been partially cut back, recent reforms do not change the nature of post-war welfare states.

The idea of only limited changes is particularly linked to continental ‘conservative corporatist’ welfare states.

Abstract

‘Welfare states in transition’ (Esping-Andersen 1996a)’ ‘Recasting European welfare states’ (Ferrera and Rhodes 2000b)’ ‘Welfare state futures’ (Leibfried 2000), ‘Survival of the European Welfare State’ (Kuhnle 2000a) and ‘The new politics of the welfare state’ (Pierson 2001a) - all of these are among the most important recent publications on the welfare state. Collectively, they indicate that the focus of the academic agenda has moved beyond the crisis of the welfare state and ‘towards an analysis of actual social policy changes which have occurred during the last 20 or 25 years. Probably under Anglo-Saxon influence (Reagan and Thatcher pursued explicit anti-welfare agendas) first analyses of these changes have been phrased in terms of retrenchment (after the ‘golden age’ of growth). They sought to discover how deep and to what extent governments had reduced social expenditure since the late 1970s. After a couple of decades of debates on the crisis of the welfare state, and countless welfare reforms adopted throughout the industrialised world, many commentators agree on the fact that the welfare state is much more solid and robust than what had been assumed and argued in the 1970s. To date, most welfare state analyses have concluded that in the last 25 years there has either been stability, little retrenchment or ‘path dependent’ changes.

Even if expenditure on certain programmes has been partially cut back, recent reforms do not change the nature of post-war welfare states.

The idea of only limited changes is particularly linked to continental ‘conservative corporatist’ welfare states.

Downloaded on 10.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.56687/9781447367017-010/html
Scroll to top button