Redistribution Paradoxes: the Politics of Welfare

Transcription

1 RedistributionParadoxes:thePoliticsofWelfare WorkshopOrganizers MónicaBritoVieira,InstitutodeCiênciasSociais,UniversityofLisbon PedroRamosPinto,SchoolofArts,HistoriesandCultures,UniversityofManchester Abstract(250WordsMax) The consecration of social rights created a duty on the part of the state to take appropriate steps towards making possible their realization. The model of the democraticwelfarestatewasdevelopedtorealizetheserightsandfulfillmoregeneral goalsofeconomicsolidarity,socialcohesion,andegalitarianism.however,itssuccess in achieving these self proposed goals has varied greatly across countries. What part doinstitutionalfactorsplayinexplainingthemaintenanceofoldandtheemergenceof newinequalitieswithinestablishedwelfarestates? This workshop will analyze how and why institutions that were designed to reduce inequality met with such varying degrees of success, with particular attention to the politics of welfare systems and their consequences over time. Three themes are of particular concern. First, the interaction between overarching norms, regulation and outcomes how do constitutional, regulatory and operative definitions of equality affecttheoutcomesofredistributiveefforts?second,howdodifferentpoliticalactors within and without the state seek to condition, reform, appropriate and colonize welfare systems, and what are the consequences of this for its capacity to tackle inequality?finally,thisworkshopwillconsiderwhetherwelfaresystemswillbeableto adapttonewsocio economicconditionswhilebeingableto preserveorrenewtheir legitimacy and address the goals of social justice they set themselves? We welcome proposals from theoretical, quantitative and qualitative perspectives, and are particularly interested in approaches that address the interaction between path dependencyandchange. 1

2 WorkshopDescription Cross countrycomparisonsofinequalityhavelinkedittoavarietyofsocialproblems, including reduced life spans, incidence of disease, reduced levels of educational achievementandthedeclineofsocialtrust(wilkinsonandpickett2009).butlittlehas been done in the way of clarifying the institutional mechanisms through which inequalities are created and reproduced. Yet longitudinal analyses have revealed the varying success of some welfare regimes in reducing inequality over time, or how other states, previously successful on that account, have seen the gap between rich and poor begin growing once more (e.g. Gottschalk et al 1997; Caminada and Goudswaard 2001; Hills 2004). Why are some welfare states more successful than others in reducing levels of inequality through social policies? As Esping Andersen argued, a large part of the answer may be found in the design, development and operation of inequality concerned institutions (Esping Andersen 1990). What is the impact of social policy design and different distributive mechanisms(e.g. targeted or universal, equal to all or earnings, income and behaviour related, etc) upon the reduction of inequalities? To what extent does the capture of the welfare state by specialinterestgroupsreduceitsredistributivecapacity,andbywhichmeansdothey createandpreservetheirprivilegedposition? According to Charles Tilly, most inequality is created by the twin processes of exploitation and opportunity hoarding, which are embodied in complex networks of norms, rules, identities and systems (Tilly 1999). This workshop will investigate one particularaspectoftheseprocesses:theroleofinequality concernedinstitutionsand politicalconflictsovertheminstructuringsocio economicinequality.bringingtogether scholarsfromavarietyofdisciplines,itwillaskhowthepoliticsbehindthedesignand developmentofinequality concernedinstitutionsinfluencesocialstratificationandthe distributionofresourcesinthepopulationstheycover. The organizers invite contributions that relate to three inter related themes: (a) the role of abstract principles in shaping inequality concerned institutions; (b) political contention over inequality concerned institutions and its consequences for income distribution; and (c) future perspectives for inequality concerned institutions. These themesarefurtherdevelopedbelow. Gamesoverrules A key, if neglected, aspect of debates of the practical politics of inequality is the interactionbetweenformalrightsandtheirsubstantiveenjoyment.forinstance,does theconstitutionalizationofsocialrightsmatterforthereductionofinequality,andifso 2

3 why?arecentcross countryanalysisofthelinkbetweenconstitutionalcommitments and welfare offers mixed evidence, while showing that there may be a correlation between constitutional enshrinement and social transfer expenditure, is not able to findonebetweenconstitutionalizationofrightsandinequality(ben BassatandDahan 2008). From a different perspective, some authors have argued that constitutionalization provides discursive and symbolic resources for new political claimsthatcanbeusedtoinfluencethedistributionofrightsandresources(e.g.hunt 2007). Others have pointed to the potentially disrupting effects of the contrast between formally enshrined rights and their actual enjoyment by citizens, which can createspacesof insurgent,butalso dangerous,citizenship,thuscontributingtothe creationofnewpoliticaldynamicsandinstitutionalchange(holston2008). Asecondneglectedaspectofthisdiscussionconcernsthewaysinwhichtheframingof the principles of equality and rights in constitutions and legislation affects their enactmentandenjoyment.asamartyasenremindedus, equalityofwhat shouldbe acentralquestioninassessinginstitutionalgoalsandinstitutionaldelivery(sen1995). Doestheframingoffairnessasequalityofaccess,ofopportunities,ofoutcomes,orof capabilitiesmatter(andhow)intermsoftheresultswelfaresystemsproduce?whatis theimpactofsocialpolicydesignanddifferentdistributivemechanisms(e.g.targeted or universal, equal to all or earnings, income and behavior related, etc.) upon producingthesedifferentfacetsofequality? InstitutionsandPolitics To the extent that they play a central role in the allocation of resources in most advanced industrial societies, inequality concerned institutions are central objects of politicalcontentionandcompetition.howdothesestrugglesinfluencethemannerin whichinequalityarisesandisreproducedovertime?certaintypesofpoliticalconflict over inequality concerned institutions have received considerable attention, particularly those over the redefinition of entitlement and coverage of the benefits they administer. This is the case of the struggle of particular social groups, such as immigrants,forinclusioninthecategoriesthatallowaccesstoredistributedresources. Otherpoliticalconflictshavesoughttore defineparticularrelationshipsasinequalities worthy of public action, such as those previously justified through gender, race or sexuality.butothertypesofpoliticalcontention,oritsabsenceeveninfaceofsevere differencesinaccessandbenefit enjoyment,whichcanalsosignificantlyinfluencethe functioning of inequality concerned institutions have been relatively neglected. Charles Tilly has noted how redistributive systems may be the object of attempts to capture,colonizeordiminishthelevelofresourcestheyallocatethroughtheprocess ofopportunityhoarding(tilly1999).morespecifically,otherauthorshavepointedto the way in which welfare clienteles can appropriate or circumscribe the reach of 3

4 particular benefits, skewing the redistributive function of welfare systems with longterm consequences (Petmesidou 1996; Garcia and Karakatsanis 2006; Keefer and Vlaicu 2007). Their positioning with respect to the state apparatus (e.g., are they employees of the public or private sector?), and their interaction with decisionmakers,throughlobbying,electoralbargainingandothermethodsisaparticulararea ofinterestforthisworkshop. ReassemblingWelfarePolicies Even where the welfare state was successful at generating or preserving greater equality,demographic,economicandsocietalfactorsloomthatposeachallengeforits abilitytocontinuedoingso.thischallenge,whichisultimatelyposedbythethreatof financial breakdown, comes to meet welfare systems that are submitted to a strong elementofpathdependencythatwillconditiontheirrangeofresponsestotheimpact ofpopulationaging,familyinstability,low skilledimmigration,andtransformationsin thelabourmarketthatspringfromeconomicglobalizationandtechnologicalchange. We invite papers which offer a reflection on the redefinition of the priorities of welfare, on various reform strategies (privatization, decentralization, familialization, etc)andonspecificpolicyoptionsforreassemblingthewelfarestateunderconditions ofgreaterfiscalausterity. Participants&Papers This workshop aims to approach the topic from an interdisciplinary perspective. We invite contributions, both qualitative and quantitative, from the relevant social sciences, including, but not limited to, political science, sociology, economics, and history. Both comparative and individual case studies will be accepted and we particularly welcome proposals that address the tension between institutional continuities and change by taking a longitudinal perspective. Both experienced and earlycareerresearchersarewelcometoapplyandtheselectedpaperswillcomefrom arangeofexpertiseandlevelsofexperience. Funding The workshop directors have secured funding from Portugal s Foundation for TechnologyandScienceaspartofanongoingresearchprojectonthePoliticalOrigins ofinequalityinportugal. 4

5 BiographicalNote MónicaBritoVieiraisaResearchFellowattheInstituteforSocialSciences,University of Lisbon, and Visiting Scholar at Murray Edwards College, Cambridge. Her research currently focuses on three main areas: intellectual history, the history of political thought,andcontemporarypoliticaltheory.sheisaboveallinterestedinthehistoryof early modern and modern political thought. Her work in this area revolves around seventeenth century political philosophy, in particular that of Thomas Hobbes. Her mostrecentpublicationsinclude(withdavidrunciman)representation(2008)andthe ElementsofRepresentationinHobbes(2009). Pedro Ramos Pinto is Simon Research Fellow at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He works on the contemporary history and politics of citizenship in Portugal and Southern Europe. His current research investigates the authoritarian origins of the Portuguese Welfare State and how this legacy conditions its workings andpossibilitiesofreform.pedroreceivedhisphdfromtheuniversityofcambridgein 2007 and a monograph on his doctoral research, The Politics of Urban Citizenship in Portugal, , is forthcoming. He has publications, amongst others, in The HistoricalJournalandContemporaryEuropeanHistory. References: Ben Bassat,AviandMomiDahan, Socialrightsintheconstitutionandinpractice, JournalofComparativeEconomics,36,2008: Caminada,KoenandKaasGoudswaard, InternationalTrendsinIncomeInequalityand SocialPolicy InternationalTaxandPublicFinance,8(4),2001: Esping Andersen,Gøsta,TheThreeWorldsofWelfareCapitalism,PolityPress1990. Gottschalk,Peter,BjörnGustafsson,EdwardE.Palmer(eds.)Changingpatternsinthe distributionofeconomicwelfare:aninternationalperspective,cambridgeuniversity Press,1997. Hills,John,InequalityandtheState,OxfordUniversityPress,2004. Holston, James, Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil,PrincetonUniversityPress,2008. Hunt,Lynn,InventingHumanRights:AHistory,W.W.Norton,

6 Keefer, Phillip and Razvan Vlaicu, Democracy, Credibility and Clientelism, Journal of Law,EconomicsandOrganization,24(2),2007: Petmesidou, Maria, Social Protection in Greece: A Brief Glimpse of a Welfare State, SocialPolicy&Administration,30(4),1996: Sen,Amartya,InequalityReexamined,OxfordUniversityPress,1995 Tilly,Charles,DurableInequality,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999. Wilkinson,RichardandKatePickett,TheSpiritLevel:WhyMoreEqualSocietiesAlmost AlwaysdoBetter?AllenLane,