David Jacobson DCU
Ireland: Boston or Berlin?
Mary Harney, 2000 “[T]he American way… economic model …heavily based on enterprise and incentive, on individual effort and with limited government intervention.
[T]he European way… strong concern for social harmony and social inclusion, with governments being prepared to intervene strongly through the tax and regulatory systems to achieve their desired outcomes.”
Mary Harney, 2000 “We in Ireland have tended to steer a course between the two but I think it is fair to say that we have sailed closer to the American shore than the European one.”
The Framework Esping-Andersen (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism + many other writings Welfare regimes emerge from historical evolution of national institutions, influenced by international factors Key concepts: de-commodification of labour, familialism, welfare pillars, welfare regimes
De-commodification of Labour ď şThe greater the ease with which people can leave the labour force without suffering serious reduction in income, the greater the de-commodification of labour ď şIndicators: unemployment benefits, social income supports, rent supplements, social housing, etc.
Familialism ď şThe greater the participation rate of women in the labour force, the less familialistic the society ď şCommodification of female labour is associated with de-familialised societies
Welfare pillars, welfare regimes Three welfare pillars: Market State Family
Three welfare regimes: Liberal – Example, USA Social Democratic – Example, Sweden Conservative (Corporatist) – Example, Germany
Table 1: Countries classified according to Esping-Andersen (1990, Table 2.2) Welfare Regimes Conservative
Social Democratic
Liberal
Finland
Austria
United Kingdom Cyprus
France
Belgium
Ireland
Germany
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Denmark
Malta
Sweden
Portugal
Unclassified
Greece
Spain
Ireland in Context ď şIn 22 (24) studies using quantitative methods to categorise countries by welfare regime, Table 2 shows findings for Ireland (UK):
Table 2: Categorisation of Ireland and UK (Quant.) Cons./ SE/M Corp. Soc. Dem. Liberal (Rud.) Other
Ireland (6) 27%
(0) 0%
(13) 59% (1*) 5% (2) 9%
UK
(1) 4%
(19) 79% (0) 0% (3) 13%
(1) 4%
*Obinger and Wagschal, 2001
Table 3: Country Clusters, 1960-1995 (Obinger and Wagschal, 2001)
Continental Scandinavian Anglo-Saxon Peripheral
Austria
Denmark
Canada
Spain
Germany
Sweden
UK
Portugal
France
Norway
USA
Greece
Belgium
Finland
Australia
Italy
Netherlands
Ireland
Ireland in Context ď şIn the vast majority of publications using qualitative methods Ireland is again seen as conforming to the characteristics of the Liberal Welfare Regime:
Table 4: Categorisation of Ireland (Qual.) Author(s) McLaughlin Boucher and Collins McCashin Millar and Adshead
Year 1993 2003 2004 2004
Welfare Regime Lib. Cons/Corp Soc. Dem. SE/M X X X <X X
NESC (Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donnell) Cousins
2005 X*> 2005 X
Payne and McCashin Lynch
2005 2006
X X
Murphy and Millar Kirby Millar Kirby and Carmody Kirby and Murphy Regan Begg
2007 2008 2008 2009 2011 2012 2014
X X X X X* X X
Notes
Anglo-Sax., Dev., Hybrid. X
X
CS not DS Hybrid
New Research “Welfare regime, welfare pillar and southern Europe” Journal of European Social Policy (2014) Minas, Jacobson, Antoniou and McMullan
Table 5: Dimensions, Variables Dimension Family
Variables People per Household Age Leaving Home
State vs Market
Expenditure on Social Protection as % of GDP
Religion
Attendance at Religious Service at least Once a Week
Clientelism/Corruption
Perception of Corruption as Part of Business Culture Perception of Corruption as Major Problem
Table 5: Sources Dimension
Family
State vs Market Religion
Clientelism
Variables People per Household Age Leaving Home (Male) Age Leaving Home (Female) Expenditure on Social Protection as % of GDP (ESP/GDP) General Government Contributions to Receipts of Social Protection Schemes as % of GDP (GGC/GDP) Attendance at Religious Service at least Once a Week Perception of Corruption as Part of Business Culture Perception of Corruption as Major Problem
Source
Year
Eurostat Eurostat Eurostat
2011 2007 2007
Eurostat
2010
Eurostat
2010
ESS
2010
Eurobar.
2011
Eurobar.
2011
Results HCA Dendogram: where is Ireland? Where is the UK?
What are the European clusters? What are the main welfare regimes?
Fig. 1: HCA Dendogram
Table 6: “Distance” from Cluster Medoid Cluster Conservative
SE/M
Soc. Dem.
Country Distance
Country Distance
Country Distance
BE
medoid
PT
medoid
SE
medoid
AT
0.76
CY
1.45
FI
0.85
UK
0.93
IT
1.45
DK
2.27
FR
1.10
ES
1.54
DE
1.28
EL
1.65
NL
1.85
Ireland 1.98
LU
2.39
MT
2.41
Results: Summary 1 ď ş Using primarily post-Celtic tiger data, Ireland falls firmly into the SE/M/P cluster ď ş The UK falls firmly into the Conservative/Corporatist cluster ď ş In terms of the clusters themselves, the SE/M cluster is more different statistically from the Liberal and Social Democratic clusters than they are from one another
Results: Summary 2 Esping-Andersen set the scene => Cons/Corp
Soc Dem
Liberal
with
welfare pillars the key factors: State => Soc Dem Market => Liberal Family/Market/State => Cons/Corp
Results: Summary 2 New story? Cons/Corp
Soc Dem
SE/M/P
with
welfare pillars the key factors: State => Soc Dem Family => SE/M/P Family/Market/State => Cons/Corp
Fig. 2: New Typology of WSs
Dominant Pillar
Welfare Regime
Conservative in comparison, with respect to: Family State Market
Family
SE/M or Peripheral
Less
More
More
State
Social Democratic
More
Less
More
Market
Liberal
More
More
Less