The studies published in 1975, namely Harold Wilensky's "The Welfare State and Equality," David

Collier and Richard Messick's "Prerequisites versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations of
Social Security Adoption," and Hugh Heclo's "Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden,"
challenged existing theories and expanded the knowledge base in the field of social policy analysis in
several ways:

1. Challenging the Modernization Hypothesis: Wilensky's study, which was based on cross-sectional
analyses of countries and American states, initially supported the modernization hypothesis that social
policy efforts were primarily determined by economic development and social modernization. However,
Collier and Messick's study questioned this hypothesis by finding that the adoption of social insurance
policies was influenced by more complex factors beyond economic development alone. This challenged the
prevailing belief and prompted a reevaluation of the determinants of social policy.

2. Examining Longitudinal Data: Collier and Messick's study took a wider time horizon into account,
examining the adoption of social insurance policies over time. This approach allowed them to assess the
temporal patterns and dynamics of policy adoption, providing insights into the diffusion and spread of social
policies across countries. By considering the historical context, they expanded the understanding of how
social policies evolve and challenged the notion of generalizing from single-point analyses.

3. Comparative and Historical Approaches: Heclo's study on social policy in Britain and Sweden was one of
the first to adopt a comparative and historical approach. By focusing on specific countries and delving into
their historical experiences, Heclo shed light on how different contexts and historical trajectories shape
social policy development. This approach expanded the knowledge base by emphasizing the importance of
country-specific factors and historical contingencies in understanding social policy.

4. Multifaceted Determinants: Collectively, these studies highlighted the multifaceted nature of the
determinants of social policy. While economic development and modernization were recognized as
important factors, the research showed that demographic characteristics, historical legacies, and diffusion
processes also played significant roles. They expanded the understanding of the complex interplay between
various factors in shaping social policy efforts and adoption.

In summary, these studies challenged existing theories, such as the modernization hypothesis, by
presenting nuanced and multifaceted perspectives on the determinants of social policy. They expanded the
knowledge base by considering longitudinal data, adopting comparative and historical approaches, and
highlighting the significance of diverse factors in shaping social policy outcomes.
The author is discussing the advancements made in understanding social policy through comparative and
historical research since the studies published in 1975. They highlight several key points:

1. Empirical Knowledge: Comparative and historical research has provided insights into the timing of social
program adoption, expansions, contractions, and the forms social policy takes in different countries. It has
also shed light on the completion of social policy systems, differences in social spending over time, and
significant retrenchment of social policies in certain countries.
2. Theoretical Advancement: The author mentions that comparative and historical work has significantly
contributed to theoretical knowledge in the field of social policy. It has given rise to three main theories of
social policy and the welfare state, two of which emerged as responses to quantitative research on the
modernization thesis. By studying social policy history comparatively, researchers have been able to test
these theories and refine them, leading to a better understanding of when and how they apply.

3. Testing Hypotheses: Comparative and historical research has served as an empirical proving ground for
hypotheses based on these theories. Researchers have examined historical cases to validate or challenge
theoretical arguments, which has led to the revision and refinement of these arguments. Additionally, it has
helped scholars determine the scope conditions under which theoretical generalizations hold true.

4. Methodological Innovation: Comparative and historical scholars have developed new methodological
approaches by integrating comparative and historical methods with quantitative techniques. This
interdisciplinary synthesis has allowed researchers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of social
policy dynamics and has enhanced the quality of research in the field.

5. Identifying Research Questions: Comparative and historical research has played a vital role in generating
new research questions and identifying empirical puzzles that require further investigation. By posing
important questions and highlighting gaps in knowledge, this research has shaped the research agenda and
spurred further exploration in the field of social policy.

Overall, the author asserts that comparative and historical research has significantly contributed to
advancing theoretical understanding, refining concepts, and shaping the research agenda in the study
of social policy. It has provided empirical evidence, challenged existing theories, and sparked new lines of
inquiry, ultimately deepening our understanding of social policy and its impact on societies.
There has been significant progress in understanding social policy due to several factors:

1. Conceptual Agreement: Scholars have reached a broad consensus on what aspects of social policy are
important to study. They view social policy as state actions aimed at reducing income insecurity, providing
minimum income standards, and addressing inequalities. This shared understanding has provided a solid
foundation for empirical analyses.

2. Theoretical Disagreement within Broad Agreement: While scholars have disagreed on the best theoretical
arguments to explain social policy, they have agreed on a set of theoretical frameworks worth developing
and evaluating. These frameworks often focus on socioeconomic, political, or institutional factors, and they
are often embedded in larger theories of the state or politics.

3. Informational Preconditions: The availability of extensive historical records and comparative data has
played a crucial role in facilitating progress. These resources have allowed researchers to delve into detailed
analyses of social policy developments over time and across countries.
4. Open-minded Outlook on Methodology and Theory: Scholars have maintained an open-minded approach
to methodology and theory. Comparative and historical research in social policy has engaged in fruitful
dialogue with quantitative cross-national research, combining different methodological approaches. This
openness has fostered a diverse and comprehensive understanding of social policy.
The author categorizes comparative and historical causal analyses in social policy as "type 1" research,
which includes major monographs and studies that employ quantitative, comparative, and historical
methods. These studies situate social policy developments in comparative perspective, employ comparative
methods, and offer arguments that can be applied beyond a specific context.’
 '"type 1," includes major small-AA monographs such as Gaston Rimlinger's (1971) Welfare Policy
and Industrialization in Europe, America, and Russia and Heclo's aforementioned Modern Social
Politics in Britain and Sweden. John Stephens's (1979) The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism
and comparatively informed case studies such as Theda Skocpol's (1992) Protecting Soldiers and
Mothers (for some additional American examples, see also Katznelson and Pietrykowski 1991;
Quadagno 1994; Howard 1997; Lieberman 1998)
historical-only research (type 2).
 Michael Katz's (1986) In the Shadow of the Poorhouse or James Patterson's (1986) America's
Struggle Against Poverty.
comparative-only work (type 3)
 cross-national quantitative comparative analysis studies (Ragin 1994) and cross-national workrelying
mainly on Andrew Abbott's sequence analyses (Abbott and DeViney 1992) - as each methodological
technique is based on algorithms that can be employed on preexisting or easily created data sets.
These methods could, of course, be employed in work that is broadly comparative and historical
(e.g., Wickham-Crowley 1992: conclusion).
Other categories mentioned include within-country quantitative work (type 4), , The author notes that the
most significant advancements in understanding social policy have come from the comparative and
historical research category
The author believes that progress is made when we identify and address important questions. Through
empirical demonstrations (using real-world evidence), we provide answers that are well-informed and
theoretically meaningful. Scholars then use these answers to come up with more questions and refine their
theories. This continuous process helps us develop new theoretical arguments and understand the conditions
in which they apply or don't apply.
As a result of this research, we uncover new facts and patterns about social policy. It's not just about how
much work exists on a subject or how often it is mentioned, but rather about how much we have learned and
how well we understand the complex issues related to social policy.
In simpler terms, comparative and historical research helps us put together all the important pieces of the
puzzle of social policy. It allows us to answer questions, learn new things, and improve our understanding of
how social policies work.

Then Author Asks questions:

1. What important things have we learned from comparing different countries and studying the history of
social policy?
- What knowledge have we gained from looking at how social policies have been implemented in different
places and over time?
2. How has this research contributed to our understanding of social policy theories?
- Has this research helped us develop and improve our theories about social policy?

3. Has the research extensively tested cause-and-effect explanations to refine our understanding?
- Have researchers tested their ideas about why social policies happen and how they work, and refined
those ideas based on evidence?

4. Has the research helped in developing new theories and expanding existing ones?
- Has the research contributed to creating new theories about social policy and building upon existing
theories?

5. Have scholars deepened their understanding of the concepts related to social policy and used them to
strengthen their arguments?
- Have researchers made the concepts related to social policy clearer and used them to support and
strengthen their theories?

6. Has the research led to new areas of study and made progress in those areas?
- Has the research opened up new topics for further study and made advancements in those areas?

7. Have there been additional benefits in terms of new research methods and the application of theories to
other fields?
- Has the research led to the development of new research methods and the effective use of theories in
other areas of study?

Certainly! Let's go through each point and explain it along with the cited works mentioned in the paragraph:

1. Gathering Key Information: Comparative and historical social policy scholars have played a crucial role
in gathering important information that forms the basis for higher-order analyses. They have conducted
primary research and intervened in primary literature to make and defend their own interpretations.

- Cited Work: Lustick (1996) suggests that comparative and historical research may be limited by the data or
interpretations of the historiography on which they rely.

2. Filling Information Gaps: Scholars in this field have supplemented existing historiography with their own
archival work to fill gaps in information or to adjudicate among historical interpretations.
- Cited Works: Amenta, Bonastia, and Caren (2001) provide a review of the problems of historical and
comparative research, highlighting the reliance on selective interpretations or data in existing historiography.

3. Consensus on Social Policy: Comparative and historical research in social policy has operated within a
consensus view, defining modern social policy as state efforts to reduce economic inequality, provide
income floors and services, and address various risks.

- Cited Works: Skocpol and Amenta (1986) and Amenta (1993) are cited as references for the consensus
view on social policy, which focused on the enactment of major social insurance programs and differences
in social spending.

4. Enactment and Social Spending: Comparative and historical analyses have often focused on the
enactment of major social insurance programs and differences in social spending efforts across countries.

- Cited Works: Skocpol and Amenta (1986) and Amenta (1993) are mentioned as references for studies that
focused on the enactment of social insurance programs and variations in social spending.

5. Conceptualization and Rationale: The conceptualization of social policy as a means to understand the
growth and transformation of states in the twentieth century has guided comparative and historical research
efforts.

- Cited Works: The U.S. Social Security Administration, as well as William Beveridge, are mentioned as
influential in shaping the conceptualization of social policy and its significance (Rimlinger 1971; Wilensky
1975).

6. Primary Research: Scholars have supplemented secondary sources with primary research, such as
governmental records and primary documents, to enhance empirical knowledge and provide their own
interpretations.

- Cited Work: Theda Skocpol (1992) is cited as an example of a scholar who turned to primary documents,
including governmental records, to gain information for her study on American social policy through the
1920s.

7. Periodization: The identification of distinct periods in the development of social insurance programs has
facilitated the drawing of group portraits of social policy development over time.

- Cited Works: Peter Flora and Jens Alber (1981) are mentioned for their identification of four periods in the
development of social insurance programs in Europe and the United States, as well as their research on the
development of welfare states.
These cited works provide references to studies and research projects that have contributed to the empirical
knowledge and understanding of comparative and historical research in social policy. They support the
points made in the paragraph by providing evidence, examples, and scholarly contributions in the field.

Some comparative and historical studies (Steinmo 1993; Howard 1997) mentioned studies emphasize the
need to include tax expenditures in the analysis of social policy, as they can have significant implications for
redistributive outcomes. However, further research and refinement of the concept are necessary to ensure its
applicability in different research contexts and to differentiate between redistributive and non-redistributive
tax expenditure policies.

Lecture
Session 4 Rich OECD Countries Part I: Explaining welfare state development
Welfare State Dvp Theories: introduction
Welfare state development theories provide frameworks for understanding the emergence and expansion of
the welfare state. These theories analyze the socio-political factors and dynamics that influence the
establishment and evolution of social policies and programs. The theories studied in the course include
functionalist, politics matter, state-centered approaches, ideas-based theories, and theories that consider the
transnational context.
Functionalism
 The Logic of Industrialism, as proposed by Wilensky in 1975, suggests that regardless of the
economic and political systems in place, rich countries tend to develop a common social insurance
strategy. This universal and evolutionist logic of industrialism is based on several factors associated
with industrialization and societal changes:
1. Technological Development: Industrialization is often accompanied by significant technological
advancements. These technological developments can lead to changes in the labor market, productivity, and
the overall organization of society.
2. Decline of Agricultural Employment & Urbanization: As economies transition from primarily agricultural
to industrial, there is a decline in the number of people employed in the agricultural sector. This shift is often
accompanied by urbanization, as people move from rural areas to cities in search of employment
opportunities.
3. Landless Working Class: Industrialization creates a working class that is largely detached from land
ownership and reliant on wage labor. This shift in employment patterns and social structure can lead to the
emergence of new social risks and needs.
4. Changing Patterns of Family and Community Life: Industrialization can disrupt traditional family and
community structures. The nuclearization of families, increased mobility, and changing gender roles can
create new challenges and social needs.
5. 'New Social Risks' & Needs: The processes associated with industrialization and societal changes can
give rise to new social risks and needs. These may include unemployment, workplace injuries, health risks,
and poverty. The development of the welfare state is seen as a response to these emerging social needs.
According to this perspective, the expansion of the welfare state is seen as a by-product of the evolving
social risks and needs created by industrialization. The economic imperative of addressing these needs is
considered a sufficient condition for the expansion of the welfare state. In other words, the theory suggests
that the economic system and the changing social landscape drive the development of the welfare state,
regardless of the specific political regime in place.

However, it is important to note that more recent research has shown that the Logic of Industrialism, as
originally proposed, may have limitations. Highly aggregated regression models used to test the theory have
been found to be weaker when more sophisticated techniques and different periods of development are
considered. Other factors, such as political ideology, social movements, and power dynamics, have been
shown to influence the development and expansion of the welfare state alongside economic imperatives.
 Modernization theory, in the context of welfare state development, focuses on the process of societal
modernization and its influence on the expansion of social policies. It suggests that industrialization
is a necessary but not sufficient explanatory variable for the development of the welfare state.
Modernization theory highlights the following factors:
1. Political Citizenship/Universalization of Franchise: According to scholars like Flora and Heidenheimer,
the expansion of political citizenship and the universalization of the franchise have played a significant role
in the development of the welfare state. As more people gained political rights and participation, there was
increased pressure to address social needs and inequalities through social policies.
2. Importance of National Values: Rimlinger emphasizes the importance of national values in shaping the
development of the welfare state. National values, such as liberalism, paternalistic ideals, or the Christian
social ethic, can influence the early introduction of social insurance systems. For example, the influence of
paternalistic ideals and the Christian social ethic in Germany contributed to the early establishment of social
insurance programs in the German Reich.
3. First Political Elements: Modernization theory recognizes the importance of the first political elements in
welfare state development. These early political elements include the initial steps taken to address social
needs through policy interventions. These early initiatives often serve as precursors to more comprehensive
welfare state programs.
Overall, modernization theory suggests that industrialization alone is not sufficient to explain the
development of the welfare state. It emphasizes the significance of political factors, such as political
citizenship, national values, and the early introduction of social policies, in shaping the expansion of social
protection systems. By considering these factors, modernization theory provides insights into how societal
modernization processes influence the development and trajectory of the welfare state.
 Neo-Marxist explanations of welfare state development build upon the logic of industrialism and
modernization theories but introduce a critical perspective rooted in Marxist analysis of capitalism.
Here are the key points regarding neo-Marxist explanations:
1. Transition to Advanced Monopoly Capital: Neo-Marxist scholars focus on the transition from "early
competitive capitalism" to "advanced monopoly capital" rather than the transition from agrarianism to
industrialism. They analyze how social policies respond to the social reproduction needs of advanced
capitalism, where large corporations and monopolies dominate the economic landscape.
2. Functional Response to Social Needs: Similar to the logic of industrialism, neo-Marxists recognize that
social policies are functional responses to social needs. They argue that the welfare state emerges as a means
for the state to address the social reproduction needs of advanced capitalism. Social policies are seen as
serving the dual purpose of reducing reproduction costs for capitalist workforces and securing social peace
among the unemployed, thus maintaining the process of capital accumulation.
3. Work Control and Capitalism: Neo-Marxists emphasize the importance of work control established by
capitalism in understanding the welfare state. They argue that social policies and welfare interventions serve
to regulate and control the workforce, ensuring a stable labor force for capitalist production. By providing
social benefits and welfare payments, the state helps secure the legitimacy of capitalist rule and maintains
social stability.
4. Capital Accumulation and Legitimation: According to neo-Marxists, capitalist governments aim to secure
two essential functions: the accumulation of capital and legitimation. Social programs, including welfare
state interventions, are instrumental in reducing reproduction costs for the workforce and increasing profit
rates for capitalists. Additionally, welfare payments help maintain social peace among the unemployed,
contributing to the smooth functioning of the capitalist system.
5. Rhythm of Capital Accumulation: Neo-Marxist perspectives suggest that both the initial expansion and
crises of welfare state interventions should follow the rhythm of capital accumulation and transformations in
class relations. Welfare state policies are influenced by the dynamics of capitalist production, the balance of
power between capital and labor, and broader class struggles.
While there may be variations among different neo-Marxist scholars, they generally agree that welfare state
interventions are shaped by the imperatives of capital accumulation and related transformations in class
relations. The critical lens of neo-Marxist analysis offers insights into the structural dynamics and power
relations within capitalist societies that influence the development and trajectory of the welfare state.
Critique of Functionalism
1. Dependence on Country and Time Period Selection: Functionalism's generalizations can overlook
important variations among countries. For instance, comparing the welfare states of Sweden and the United
States demonstrates significant differences. Sweden has a comprehensive and generous welfare state with
high levels of social protection, while the United States has a more fragmented and targeted system with
lower levels of social spending. These variations suggest that country-specific factors beyond functional
needs, such as historical, political, and cultural factors, play a crucial role in shaping welfare state
development.
2. Variation among Developed Countries: Functionalism tends to assume converging patterns among
developed countries, but this is not always the case. Germany and the United Kingdom provide contrasting
examples. Germany has a coordinated market economy with a strong emphasis on social insurance and
corporatist arrangements, resulting in a highly regulated and generous welfare state. In contrast, the United
Kingdom has a more liberal market economy with a greater emphasis on means-tested benefits and a less
generous welfare state. These variations challenge the notion of a universal path of welfare state
development and highlight the influence of specific national contexts.
3. Focus on Welfare State Spending: Functionalism often treats welfare state spending as the primary
indicator of social protection. However, comparing France and Japan demonstrates that expenditure levels
alone do not capture the comprehensiveness of social programs. France has a more comprehensive welfare
state with a wide range of universal social benefits, while Japan relies more heavily on social insurance
programs with a narrower scope of coverage. Evaluating welfare state development based solely on
expenditure levels can overlook important differences in program design and access to services.
4. Lack of Agency: Functionalism tends to downplay the role of agency and political struggles in shaping
welfare state development. The case of the United States provides an example. The limited expansion of the
welfare state in the United States compared to European countries can be attributed to ideological debates,
political interests, and resistance from conservative groups. These factors have shaped the nature and scope
of social policies, highlighting the agency of various actors in shaping welfare state outcomes.
By considering these examples, we can see that functionalism's generalizations may not fully capture the
diversity of welfare state development across countries. Factors such as historical context, political
dynamics, cultural values, and power struggles among different actors play a significant role in shaping the
specific configurations and trajectories of welfare states.
Politics Matter
  The Simple Democratic approach to understanding welfare state development emphasizes the role of
political factors, particularly formal democratic structures, in shaping social policies. It argues that
the presence of competitive elections and mass electoral participation are crucial in driving the
expansion of social policies. Here are examples of countries that highlight the key points of the
Simple Democratic approach:
1. Sweden: Sweden is often cited as an example of the Simple Democratic approach. The country has a
strong tradition of democracy, with competitive elections and high levels of voter participation. The Social
Democratic Party, which dominated Swedish politics for much of the 20th century, implemented a
comprehensive welfare state with universal social programs. The expansion of social policies in Sweden can
be attributed to the political power of labor movements, active citizen participation, and the electoral support
for parties advocating for social welfare.
2. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom provides an interesting example within the Simple Democratic
framework. The expansion of the welfare state in the UK was driven by political factors, particularly the
post-World War II period. The Labour Party, which championed social reforms, came to power and
implemented policies such as the establishment of the National Health Service (NHS) and the expansion of
social security. These policy changes were influenced by the political climate, with the electorate demanding
social protections and greater equality.
3. Germany: Germany's welfare state development aligns with the Simple Democratic perspective. The
country's social policies were influenced by the post-war democratic reconstruction and the political
mobilization of various interest groups. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic
Party (SPD), as major political parties, played significant roles in shaping the German welfare state. The
existence of competitive elections and citizen participation, combined with strong trade unions and the
historical influence of social Catholicism, contributed to the expansion of social policies in Germany.
4. Australia: Australia exemplifies the Simple Democratic approach with its welfare state development. The
Australian Labor Party, historically linked to the labor movement, has played a significant role in shaping
social policies. For example, the introduction of universal healthcare, known as Medicare, was implemented
by the Labor Party when in power. The competitive electoral environment, combined with citizen
participation, influenced the Labor Party's commitment to social protection and its expansion.
These examples illustrate how political factors, including formal democratic structures, mass electoral
participation, and political party dynamics, have influenced the expansion of social policies in different
countries. The Simple Democratic approach highlights the importance of political processes and citizen
engagement in shaping welfare state development within democratic contexts.
 The perspective of popular protests challenges the notion that formal representative structures and
conventional elections are the sole avenues through which popular aspirations influence social
policymaking in capitalist democracies
It challenges the notion that formal representative structures and conventional elections are the sole avenues
for shaping social policies. Here is a detailed explanation of the points mentioned:
1. Influence of Popular Protests: Piven and Cloward argue that new or increased welfare benefits often result
from concessions made by elites in response to protests by marginalized groups, such as the poor and
workers. These protests, which can take the form of riots, strikes, or demonstrations, create disruptions that
force elites to address the grievances of the protesters. When faced with economic and political crises that
make repression less viable, elites may choose to make policy concessions to appease the protesting masses.
2. Context of Economic and Political Crises: The authors suggest that improvements in welfare benefits
occur when economic and political crises weaken the elites' ability to suppress or ignore protests. During
times of crisis, the disruptive actions of the working class or other organized democratic forces gain
leverage, and elites may be compelled to address their demands. This indicates that social policy changes
through popular protests are more likely to occur in situations where institutional channels for influencing
social policies are limited or inaccessible to marginalized groups.
3. Limitations and Backlash: It is important to recognize that the effects of popular protests and disruptions
on social policy outcomes can vary. While concessions may be made, they may not fully align with the
demands raised by the protesters. The extent of policy changes in response to protests can be limited or
diluted, and the actual outcomes may fall short of the desired goals. Additionally, analysts should also
consider the possibility of a backlash against those who engage in protests. Backlash can manifest as
negative public opinion, repression, or attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the protesters and their
demands.
In summary, the section emphasizes that popular protests and disruptions play a role in shaping social
policies alongside formal representative structures and elections. The ability of marginalized groups to
influence social policies through protests is more pronounced when conventional institutional channels are
limited or inaccessible. However, the outcomes of such protests can be influenced by the context of
economic and political crises, and the concessions made by elites may not fully meet the demands raised. It
is also important to consider the potential backlash against those involved in protests.
Here are examples that further illustrate the points mentioned:

1. Civil Rights Movement in the United States: The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s serves
as a powerful example of popular protests influencing social policymaking. African Americans and their
allies organized protests, marches, and acts of civil disobedience to demand an end to racial segregation and
discrimination. The disruptive nature of these protests, coupled with the increasing public support for civil
rights, eventually led to significant policy changes, including the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These legislative victories were concessions made by the political elites
in response to the pressure and demands generated by the Civil Rights Movement.
2. Labor Movement and Workers' Protests: Throughout history, organized labor movements have used
strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of protest to demand better working conditions, fair wages, and
improved social protections. For example, the labor movement in many countries has played a significant
role in advocating for workers' rights and social welfare policies. In response to protests and labor strikes,
governments have often introduced or expanded labor laws, minimum wage regulations, and social security
systems.
3. Student Protests for Education Reforms: Student protests have been influential in shaping social policies
related to education. In various countries, students have organized protests and demonstrations to demand
affordable education, increased access, and improved quality. For instance, the student protests in Chile in
2011 and subsequent years called for educational reforms and greater investment in public education. The
sustained pressure from the student movement resulted in policy changes, including increased funding for
education and the introduction of tuition fee reforms.
4. Environmental Activism and Climate Change Protests: In recent years, global movements and protests
focused on environmental concerns and climate change have gained momentum. Activist groups, such as
Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future, have organized mass demonstrations, strikes, and civil
disobedience actions to demand urgent action on climate change from governments and institutions. These
protests have raised awareness, influenced public discourse, and pushed policymakers to address
environmental issues through policy changes and commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
These examples demonstrate how popular protests and disruptions have played a role in shaping social
policies. The demands raised through protests have forced political elites to address the concerns of
marginalized groups, leading to policy concessions and reforms. However, it is important to note that the
outcomes of these protests can vary, and the concessions made may not always fully align with the original
demands. Additionally, there can be backlash and resistance from certain sectors of society or political
establishments against the protesters and their objectives.
 the Social Democratic Model of Welfare Development, which emphasizes the role of class division
and democratic processes in shaping social policies.
1. Class Division and Power Struggles: Similar to neo-Marxist perspectives, the Social Democratic Model
considers class division, particularly between capitalists and wage workers, as the primary axis of power and
political struggles in industrialized capitalist democracies. The model recognizes that the working class,
when organized and politically mobilized, can exert significant influence over social policymaking.
2. Democracy and Organized Workers: Democracy plays a crucial role in the Social Democratic Model as it
allows wage workers to organize themselves and utilize the democratic state as a non-market instrument for
redistributing income and services. Through their collective power, organized workers can influence
policymaking without solely relying on disruptive actions such as strikes.
3. Process of Influence: The model describes an ideal-typical process through which organized workers
exert influence over social policies:
(1) A significant proportion of wage and salaried workers organize themselves into central unions.
(2) These unions provide financial support to social democratic or labor parties that are supported by
working-class voters.
(3) With a strong working-class organizational presence, the state's taxing, spending, and administrative
powers can be expanded.
(4) Class struggles shift from the economic arena to the political arena, where workers, due to their
numerical strength in a democracy, are favored.
(5) The earlier workers organize themselves into unions, the earlier a modern welfare state is expected to
develop.
4. Social Democratic Policies: The Social Democratic Model is associated with social policies that are
universalistic rather than residual in nature. It emphasizes tax-financed social benefits rather than selective
contributory or regressive financing. These policies aim to provide better-than-minimal benefits to all
citizens and rely on a high degree of social provision directly through the state, rather than relying heavily
on private organizations. The model promotes social welfare without excessive bureaucratic control over
individual behaviors.
In summary, the Social Democratic Model of Welfare Development emphasizes the importance of class
division, organized workers, and democratic processes in shaping social policies. It suggests that the
organized working class can exert influence over the state through their collective power and support for
social democratic or labor parties. This model promotes universalistic social policies, tax-financed benefits,
and a high degree of state provision, while aiming to avoid excessive bureaucratic control.
 The Power Resources approach within the Social Democratic perspective emphasizes the influence
of political factors and power dynamics in the development and expansion of the welfare state. Here
are the key points of this approach:
1. Strength of Social-Democratic Parties and Organized Labour: According to scholars like Korpi, the
strength and influence of social-democratic parties and organized labor are closely associated with the
development and expansion of the welfare state. These actors play a crucial role in advocating for social
policies that benefit the working class and in redistributing resources through political channels.
2. "Politics against Markets": Esping-Andersen coined the term "politics against markets" to highlight the
idea that social-democratic parties and labor movements prioritize social welfare and egalitarian goals over
unrestricted market forces. They seek to counteract the potential negative effects of market capitalism on
social inequality and promote greater social protection through state intervention.
3. "First Step toward Socialism": Stephens argued that the welfare state, particularly in its social-democratic
form, can be seen as an essential initial step toward achieving broader socialist goals. By establishing social
rights and protections for citizens, the welfare state lays the groundwork for advancing a more egalitarian
and collectively oriented society.
4. Concept of Social Citizenship: Much of the research within the Power Resources approach focuses on
understanding the factors that influence the expansion of social citizenship. Social citizenship refers to the
rights and entitlements granted to individuals as members of a society. The strength of social-democratic
parties and organized labor is seen as central to the development of inclusive social citizenship.
5. Influence on the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: The Power Resources approach has had a
significant influence on the classification of different welfare state models proposed by scholars like Esping-
Andersen. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism framework, with Sweden as a central example,
categorizes welfare states based on their approach to social citizenship and the dominance of social-
democratic policies.
Overall, the Power Resources approach highlights the importance of political factors, particularly the
strength of social-democratic parties and organized labor, in shaping the development and expansion of the
welfare state. It emphasizes the role of politics in countering market forces, advancing social welfare, and
laying the foundation for more egalitarian societal goals. The concept of social citizenship serves as a key
indicator of the level of inclusivity and redistributive policies within a welfare state.
Critique
1. Sweden-Centric Focus: One common critique is that the Power Resources approach tends to heavily focus
on Sweden as the paradigmatic case of welfare state development. While Sweden has indeed been influential
in the development of social democracy and the welfare state, the approach's overemphasis on Sweden may
limit its applicability to other countries and contexts. It fails to account for the diversity of welfare state
models and the role of different political and historical factors in shaping welfare state development in other
countries.
2. Weakness of Right-Wing Parties: Critics argue that the approach tends to downplay the role of right-wing
parties in welfare state development. It is important to recognize that conservative or right-wing parties have
also played significant roles in shaping social policies and welfare state expansion in some countries.
Ignoring the perspectives and actions of these parties can limit our understanding of the complex dynamics
involved in welfare state development.
3. Role of Christian Democracy: The approach's focus on social-democratic parties may overlook the
influence of Christian Democratic parties in certain countries. Christian Democracy has been influential in
shaping social policies in countries such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, based on their Christian
social principles. Failure to account for the specific contributions and perspectives of Christian Democracy
can lead to an incomplete understanding of welfare state development.
4. Class Cohesion, Class Interest, and Coalition Governments: Critics question the assumption of unified
class cohesion and shared class interests within the working class. Different segments of the working class
may have diverse interests and priorities, leading to variations in social policy objectives and outcomes.
Additionally, reliance on coalition governments, which are common in many democracies, can introduce
compromises and trade-offs that may deviate from pure class-based policy objectives.
5. Employers and Welfare State Expansion: The approach's assumption that employers are generally
opposed to welfare state expansion has been challenged by the Varieties of Capitalism perspective. This
perspective argues that in coordinated market economies, employers may support social policies as a means
of maintaining social stability and sustaining their long-term interests. It highlights the complex relationship
between employers, the state, and welfare state development, suggesting that employer interests are not
always antithetical to the expansion of social policies.
Overall, these critiques raise important considerations regarding the limitations and biases of the Power
Resources approach and the Social Democratic perspective. They highlight the need to take into account a
broader range of factors, including the role of non-social-democratic parties, diverse class interests, coalition
dynamics, and the nuanced relationship between employers and the welfare state.
 In the context of welfare state development, the role of party systems and party organization has
been examined as an alternative perspective to the Social Democratic approach. Here is an
explanation of these perspectives:
1. Parties other than Social Democratic: Scholars have argued that parties other than social democratic
parties have also had an impact on social policy development. For example, Wilensky proposed that the
alternation in power between Catholic and left-wing parties could influence social security efforts. However,
it is important to note that this perspective heavily relies on countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, Italy,
Austria, and Germany. Similar to the Social Democratic model's focus on Scandinavian cases, Wilensky's
"Catholic party power" approach is most useful when seen as one of the alternative routes to welfare state
expansion.
2. Right-Wing Parties: Castles has specifically examined the role of right-wing parties in welfare state
development. He argues that right-wing parties tend to discourage the expansion of the welfare state, in
contrast to social democratic parties that are more inclined to support its development. This perspective
recognizes that political parties across the ideological spectrum can have differing approaches to social
policy and welfare state expansion.
3. Influence of Patronage and Factionalized Parties: Another aspect considered in the analysis of party
systems and party organization is the influence of patronage and factionalized parties. Patronage refers to the
practice of providing favors or benefits in exchange for political support, and it can shape social policy
decisions. Factionalized parties, characterized by internal divisions and competing factions, may face
challenges in formulating and implementing coherent social policy agendas.
These perspectives provide alternative lenses through which to understand the role of political parties and
party systems in shaping welfare state development. They highlight the importance of considering a range of
political actors and dynamics beyond social democratic parties to gain a more comprehensive understanding
of social policy outcomes.
State Centered
The Impact of States on Social Policy Making:
1. States as Partially Autonomous Actors: This perspective reconceptualizes states as partially autonomous
actors in social policy making. It goes beyond the traditional focus on the influence of actors within the
state, such as bureaucracy, and recognizes that states have their own interests and capacities to shape social
policy.
2. Role of Bureaucracy: The literature has traditionally examined the role of actors within the state,
particularly the bureaucracy, in shaping social policy. Bureaucrats play a crucial role in policy formulation,
implementation, and administration. They bring expertise and technical knowledge to the policy process and
can have a significant impact on the design and implementation of social policies.
3. Decentralization: Another important theme in the discussion of the impact of states on social policy
making is the role of decentralization. Decentralization refers to the transfer of authority and decision-
making power from the central government to regional or local levels. It can have implications for the
design and delivery of social policies, as local governments may have greater flexibility to tailor policies to
local needs and preferences.
4. State Building and Institutional Structures: Scholars have highlighted that the process of state building
and the institutional structures of states have long-term effects on social policy making. The historical
development of state institutions, such as political parties, class formation, and political culture, can shape
the trajectory of social policy. Different institutional structures may lead to different policy outcomes.
5. Policy Feedbacks and Path Dependency: The analysis of the impact of states on social policy making
includes tracing the political consequences of already instituted policies or a set of policies. Policy feedback
refers to the ways in which existing policies can influence future policy decisions and political dynamics.
Path dependency suggests that once certain policies are established, they can create a path that is difficult to
deviate from, leading to a lock-in effect on social policy trajectories.
These perspectives emphasize the role of states as important actors in social policy making, taking into
account their autonomy, bureaucratic influence, decentralization, institutional structures, and the feedback
effects of existing policies. They provide insights into the complex interplay between states and social
policies, highlighting the long-term consequences and dynamics of policy decisions.
Ideas
The quote by Stone highlights the significance of ideas in politics and how they shape political conflict. It
emphasizes that political disagreements are not solely about material conditions and choices but also about
differing notions of legitimacy. Ideas such as fairness, justice, rightness, and goodness form the basis of
political debates and mobilize people to fight for or against them.
 The concept of solidarity in Europe is an example of an idea that has influenced political discourse
and policymaking. Solidarity refers to the idea of collective responsibility and support for one
another, particularly in times of need. It has been a central principle in the development of social
policies in European countries, where welfare states have been built upon the notion of solidarity
among citizens.
The concept of solidarity in Europe has evolved over time and has held different meanings for social
democratic parties and Christian democratic parties. Initially, solidarity was not a central idea for socialist
parties, but it gained prominence after World War II when it became the unifying element between
Keynesianism and social democracy during a period of economic growth.
During this period, solidarity was emphasized more than class conflict as a way to foster social cohesion and
consensus. Social democratic parties recognized that focusing solely on class conflict might hinder their
electoral success, so they embraced the concept of solidarity to appeal to a broader base of voters. However,
as solidarity became more inclusive and vague, its original meaning became somewhat diluted.
In the 1980s, social democratic parties went through a process of adaptation. They had to adjust to the
changing economic climate, which included the decline in the value of solidarity and collectivism. Despite
this, solidarity remained a prominent feature in their political manifestos. In practice, however, there was an
acceptance of neoliberal policies and privatization, which raised questions about the actual implementation
of solidarity-based policies.
The idea of solidarity in the context of social democratic parties is often associated with values such as
freedom, justice, solidarity, and equality. These values distinguish them from Christian democratic parties,
which also embrace the concept of solidarity but with greater flexibility and adaptability.
In recent decades, both social democratic and Christian democratic parties have witnessed a shift in their
understanding of solidarity. It is no longer seen as a weapon in workers' struggles, but rather as a mechanism
that promotes moderation, encourages workers to set aside demands for wage increases, and fosters a sense
of identification with the entire society. This shift reflects a departure from the Marxist perspective of
solidarity and a closer alignment with the concept of organic solidarity as proposed by Durkheim.
Overall, the concept of solidarity in Europe has undergone changes and adaptations, reflecting the evolving
political and economic landscapes. Its meaning has shifted to accommodate the changing priorities and
strategies of social democratic and Christian democratic parties.
 American Exceptionalism is another example of an idea that has shaped American politics. It is the
belief that the United States is a unique and exceptional nation with a special mission and destiny in
the world. This idea has influenced various aspects of American political culture and policymaking,
including notions of individualism, limited government intervention, and a preference for market-
based solutions.
 Japanese Uniqueness is a concept that pertains to the idea that Japan has distinct cultural, social, and
political characteristics that set it apart from other nations. This idea has influenced Japanese politics
and policymaking, shaping their approach to issues such as social harmony, consensus-building, and
maintaining traditional values alongside economic development.
These examples illustrate how ideas play a crucial role in politics. They provide frameworks for
understanding and interpreting the world, guide policy choices, and mobilize people to support or oppose
certain political agendas. Conflicting ideas and differing interpretations of legitimacy can lead to passionate
political debates and struggles for power. Understanding the role of ideas in politics helps us grasp the
complexities of political dynamics and the motivations behind political actions.
Transnational Context
The transnational context plays a significant role in shaping domestic social policy in various ways. Firstly,
the influence of the international economy is crucial in structuring social policy differences between
Western democracies and countries in Latin America. Western democracies, with their stronger economies
and greater integration into the global market, tend to have more comprehensive social policies compared to
Latin American countries.
Secondly, the degree of openness of an economy also affects the structuration of social policy. "Small open
economies," which are more dependent on international trade and investment, often have more generous
social programs. This is because these countries recognize the importance of social policies in attracting and
retaining businesses and maintaining their competitive edge in the global market.
Moreover, social policy can be viewed as a mobilization of resources for international competition. In
today's context, this can be observed in the form of competitive austerity measures, where countries
implement cuts and reforms in their social policies to enhance their economic competitiveness on the global
stage.
The transnational context also includes the influence of international cultural factors. Social policies can
spread across countries through international organizations and individuals, leading to the adoption of
similar policies in different contexts. For example, European social insurance policies were seen as positive
models for US reformers before World War I, but they became negative models afterwards, as the US
sought to differentiate itself and pursue its own path in social policy.
In some cases, there is an avoidance of imitation in response to the international cultural context. Scholars
such as Skocpol and Ikenberry argue that certain countries may reject the adoption of social policies that
have been successful elsewhere due to political or ideological reasons. They may prefer to develop their own
unique approaches to social policy rather than imitate the models of other countries.
Overall, the transnational context has a significant impact on social policy, shaping it through economic
influences, openness to international markets, resource mobilization for international competition, and the
diffusion of policies through international organizations and individuals. It is a complex and dynamic
process that involves interactions between domestic and international factors, and it influences the trajectory
of social policy development in different countries.
some examples to help understand how the transnational context can influence social policy in different
countries.
Example 1: Western Democracies and Latin America
In Western democracies like Sweden, Norway, and Germany, there are strong social policies that provide
support to people, such as healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits. These countries have been
influenced by each other and have learned from one another's policies. They have also been influenced by
international organizations like the European Union, which encourages member countries to have certain
social standards.
On the other hand, in countries in Latin America, like Brazil or Mexico, social policies may not be as
developed. These countries have different economic and political challenges, and their policies are shaped
by their own unique contexts. They may face more difficulties in providing comprehensive social support
due to limited resources and other priorities.
Example 2: Small Open Economies
Some small countries, like Denmark or the Netherlands, have generous social policies even though they may
not have as much money or resources as larger countries. These countries focus on providing support to their
citizens and maintaining a high quality of life. Their policies are influenced by their commitment to social
welfare and the belief that taking care of their people is important.
Example 3: International Cultural Context
Countries can also learn from each other through international organizations and individuals. For instance,
after World War I, the United States looked at European countries like Germany and England as positive
examples of social insurance policies. They wanted to adopt similar policies to provide social support to
their citizens. However, after some time, the U.S. started to have a different perspective and saw these
policies as negative models. They decided to create their own unique social policies that fit their own
cultural and economic context.
These examples show how countries can be influenced by what is happening in other parts of the world and
how they adapt social policies to their own specific circumstances. It's important to remember that each
country has its own challenges, priorities, and resources, which shape their approach to social policy.