The World Politics of Social Investment Volume Ii The Politics of Varying Social Investment Strategies International Policy Exchange Julian L Garritzmann All Chapter

The World Politics of Social Investment:
Volume II: The Politics of Varying Social

Investment Strategies (International
Policy Exchange) Julian L. Garritzmann
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-world-politics-of-social-investment-volume-ii-the-p
olitics-of-varying-social-investment-strategies-international-policy-exchange-julian-l-ga
rritzmann/
i
The World Politics of Social Investment

(Volume II): The Politics of Varying Social
Investment Strategies
ii
International Policy Exchange Series

Published in collaboration with the
Center for International Policy Exchanges University of Maryland
Series Editors
Douglas J. Besharov
Neil Gilbert
United in Diversity? Caring for a Living: Migrant Women, Aging
Comparing Social Models in Europe and America Citizens, and Italian Families
Edited by Jens Alber and Neil Gilbert Francesca Degiuli
Child Protection Systems: International Trends Child Welfare Removals by the State: A Cross-
and Orientations Country Analysis of Decision-Making Systems
Edited by Neil Gilbert, Nigel Parton, and Marit Edited by Kenneth Burns, Tarja Pösö, and Marit
Skivenes Skivenes
The Korean State and Social Policy: How South Improving Public Services: International
Korea Lifted Itself from Poverty and Dictatorship Experiences in Using Evaluation Tools to Measure
to Affluence and Democracy Program Performance
Stein Ringen, Huck-ju Kwon, Ilcheong Yi, Edited by Douglas J. Besharov, Karen J. Baehler,
Taekyoon Kim, and Jooha Lee and Jacob Alex Klerman
The Age of Dualization: The Changing Face of Welfare, Work, and Poverty: Social Assistance in
Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies China
Edited by Patrick Emmenegger, Silja Qin Gao
Häusermann, Bruno Palier, and Martin Youth Labor in Transition: Inequalities, Mobility,
Seeleib-Kaiser and Policies in Europe
Counting the Poor: New Thinking About Edited by Jacqueline O’Reilly, Janine Leschke,
European Poverty Measures and Lessons for the Renate Ortlieb, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, and Paola
United States Villa
Edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Kenneth A. Decent Incomes for All: Improving Policies in Europe
Couch Edited by Bea Cantillon, Tim Goedemé, and
Social Policy and Citizenship: The Changing John Hills
Landscape Social Exclusion in Cross National Perspective:
Edited by Adalbert Evers and Anne-Marie Actors, Actions, and Impacts from Above and
Guillemard Below
Chinese Social Policy in a Time of Transition Edited by Robert J. Chaskin, Bong Joo Lee, and
Edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Karen Baehler Surinder Jaswal
Reconciling Work and Poverty Reduction: How The “Population Problem” in Pacific Asia
Successful Are European Welfare States? Stuart Gietel-Basten
Edited by Bea Cantillon and Frank United States Income, Wealth, Consumption, and
Vandenbroucke Inequality
University Adaptation in Difficult Economic Edited by Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Times Europe’s Income, Wealth, Consumption, and
Edited by Paola Mattei Inequality
Activation or Workfare? Governance and the Neo- Edited by Georg Fischer and Robert Strauss
Liberal Convergence The World Politics of Social Investment (Volume I):
Edited by Ivar Lødemel and Amílcar Moreira Welfare States in the Knowledge Economy
Child Welfare Systems and Migrant Children: A Edited by Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja
Cross Country Study of Policies and Practice Häusermann, and Bruno Palier
Edited by Marit Skivenes, Ravinder Barn, Katrin The World Politics of Social Investment (Volume II):
Kriz, and Tarja Pösö The Politics of Varying Social Investment
Adjusting to a World in Motion: Trends in Global Strategies
Migration and Migration Policy Edited by Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja
Edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Mark H. Lopez Häusermann, and Bruno Palier
iii
THE WORLD POLITICS

OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT
(VOLUME II)
The Politics of Varying Social
Investment Strategies
Edited by
JULIAN L. GARRITZMANN
SILJA HÄUSERMANN
AND BRUNO PALIER
1
iv
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Garritzmann, Julian L., editor. | Palier, Bruno, editor. |
Häusermann, Silja, editor.
Title: The world politics of social investment / [edited by] Julian L.Garritzmann,
Bruno Palier, Silja Häusermann.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Series: International policy exchange series | Includes bibliographical
references and index. | Contents: Volume I. Welfare states in the knowledge
economy—Volume II. The Politics of Varying Social Investment Strategies.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021061165 (print) | LCCN 2021061166 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197585245 (hardback ; volume I) | ISBN 9780197601457 (hardback ; volume II) |
ISBN 9780197585269 (epub ; volume I) | ISBN 9780197585276 (ebook ; volume I) |
ISBN 9780197601471 (epub ; volume II) | ISBN 9780197601488 (ebook ; volume II)
Subjects: LCSH: Welfare economics. | Economic policy—Social aspects. |
Social policy—Economic aspects. | Welfare state.
Classification: LCC HB846 .W67 2022 (print) | LCC HB846 (ebook) |
DDC 338.9/2—dc23/eng/20220204
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061165
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061166
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197601457.001.0001
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
v
For our children

Lena and N.N. (forthcoming)
Alice and Nico
Lucas, Garance, Mia and Solveig
vi
vi
CON TEN TS
Acknowledgments xv
Contributors xix
INTRODUCTION
1.
Structural Constraints, Institutional Legacies, and the Politics of Social
Investment Across World Regions 1
Silja Häusermann, Julian L. Garritzmann, and Bruno Palier
PART I. WESTERN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
2.
Legacies of Universalism: Origins and Persistence of the Broad Political
Support for Inclusive Social Investment in Scandinavia 37
Alexander Horn and Kees van Kersbergen
3.
Loud, Noisy, or Quiet Politics? The Role of Public Opinion, Parties, and
Interest Groups in Social Investment Reforms in Western Europe 59
Marius R. Busemeyer and Julian L. Garritzmann
vii
vi
viii Contents
4.
The Partisan Politics of Family and Labor Market Policy Reforms
in Southern Europe 86
Reto Bürgisser
5.
Reforming Without Investing: Explaining Non–Social Investment
Strategies in Italy 108
Stefano Ronchi and Patrik Vesan
6.
The Politics of Early Years and Family Policy Investments in
North America 135
Susan Prentice and Linda A. White
PART II. CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
7.
Nation (Re)Building Through Social Investment? The Baltic
Reform Trajectories 159
Anu Toots and Triin Lauri
8.
Explaining the Weakness of Social Investment Policies in
the Visegrád Countries: The Cases of Childcare and
Active Labor Market Policies 185
Dorota Szelewa and Michał Polakowski
9.
Explaining the Contrasting Welfare Trajectories of the Baltic and
Visegrád Countries: A Growth-Strategy Perspective 209
Sonja Avlijaš
PART III. NORTH EAST ASIA
10.
The Politicization of Social Investment in the Media and
Legislature in North East Asia 231
Jaemin Shim
ix
Contents ix
11.
An Increasing but Diverse Support for Social Investment: Public Opinion
on Social Investment in the North East Asian Welfare Systems 259
Ijin Hong, Chung-Yang Yeh, Jieun Lee, and Jen-Der Lue
12.
The Quiet Diffusion of Social Investment in Japan: Toward Stratification 285
Mari Miura and Eriko Hamada
13.
Politics of Social Investment in Post-industrial South Korea 303
Sophia Seung-yoon Lee and Yeon-Myung Kim
PART IV. LATIN AMERICA
14.
The Politicization of Social Investment in Latin America 327
J. Salvador Peralta
15.
Social Policy for Institutional Change: Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru 358
Jane Jenson and Nora Nagels
16.
The Politics of Conditionality in Latin America’s Cash Transfer Reforms 379
Cecilia Rossel, Florencia Antía, and Pilar Manzi
17.
How Democracies Transform Their Welfare States: The Reform
Trajectories and Political Coalitions of Inclusive, Stratified, and
Targeted Social Investment Strategies in Capitalist Democracies 402
Bruno Palier, Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja Häusermann, and
Francesco Fioritto
Index 477
x
xi
CON TEN TS O F VO LUME I
The World Politics of Social Investment (Volume I):

Welfare States in the Knowledge Economy
1
Toward a Worldwide View on the Politics of Social Investment
Bruno Palier, Julian L. Garritzmann, and Silja Häusermann
2
The Politics of Social Investment: A Global Theoretical Framework
PART I. THE IDEATIONAL CONTEXT OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT POLITICS
3
Multiple Sources of the Social Investment Perspective:
The OECD and the World Bank
Jane Jenson and Rianne Mahon
4
The Politics of European Union’s Social Investment Initiatives
Caroline de la Porte and Bruno Palier
xi
xi
xii Contents of Volume I
PART II. THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCOPE CONDITIONS

OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT REFORMS
5
Social Investment and Social Assistance in Low-and
Middle-Income Countries
Armando Barrientos
6
Political Linkage Strategies and Social Investment Policies:
Clientelism and Educational Policy in the Developing World
Haohan Chen and Herbert Kitschelt
7
State Capacity and Social Investment: Explaining Variation in
Skills Creation Reforms in Latin America
Juan A. Bogliaccini and Aldo Madariaga
8
The Emergence of Knowledge Economies: Educational Expansion,
Labor Market Changes, and the Politics of Social Investment
Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja Häusermann, Thomas Kurer,
Bruno Palier, and Michael Pinggera
PART III. DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT:

PUBLIC OPINION AND SOCIAL PARTNERS’
SOCIAL INVESTMENT POLICY PREFERENCES
9
Employers and Social Investment in Three European Countries:
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Emmanuele Pavolini and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
10
Social (Investment) Partners?: Trade Unions and the Welfare State for
the Knowledge Economy
Niccolo Durazzi and Leonard Geyer
11.
Trade Unions, Labor Market Dualization, and Investment in
Early Childhood Education and Care in Latin America
Melina Altamirano and Bárbara Zárate-Tenorio
xi
Contents of Volume I xiii
12
Public Preferences Toward Social Investment: Comparing Patterns
of Support Across Three Continents
Björn Bremer
PART IV. THE COMPARATIVE POLITICS OF

SOCIAL INVESTMENT REFORMS
13
Social Investment and Neoliberal Legacies in Latin America:
Breaking the Mold?
Evelyne Huber, Claire Dunn, and John D. Stephens
14
Different Paths to Social Investment?: The Politics of
Social Investment in North East Asia and Southern Europe
Margarita Estévez-Abe and Margarita León
15
Social Investment or Childcare on the Cheap?: Quality, Workforce,
and Access Considerations in the Expansion of Early Childhood
Education and Care
Kimberly J. Morgan
16
The Politics of Social Investment in the Knowledge Economy:
Analytical Insights from a Global Comparison
Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja Häusermann, and Bruno Palier
xvi
xv
ACKN OWLEDG MENTS
T he knowledge economy is centered around the increasing productivity of

skills, knowledge, and capabilities, and its determinants and consequences
within and across countries around the world. And so is this book and its sister
volume. The two books are the result of a large and truly collective endeavor
that we could not have done without the immense scholarly work and input of
our contributors from around the globe. The 52 contributors to the two WOPSI
volumes (“World Politics of Social Investment”) have taught us invaluable
insights into the fascinating politics of welfare state reform in emerging and de-
veloped knowledge economies.
Needless to say, this also has been a challenging journey. From the start
(around 2015), our project has been ambitious, aiming to descriptively map
and analytically explain how and why policy-makers in such diverse contexts as
Argentina, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Sweden, Spain, Taiwan, or
the United States reform their welfare states in different ways to make their coun-
tries fit for the knowledge economy. Our vision has been to create a coherent
theoretical framework that is broad and general enough to be able to cover so-
cial investment reforms and their politics around the globe and over time, while
at the same time being substantively meaningful and concrete enough to really
grasp the particularities of policy-making in different contexts. We hope that this
book as well as its sister volume deliver on these aims.
The two volumes offer two different, but complementary views on the politics
of welfare state reform in the century of knowledge—and on social investment
policies in particular. While Volume I focuses on the politics of social investment
xv
xvi
xvi Acknowledgments
from the perspective of explanatory factors such as structural dynamics, collective

political actors, welfare legacies, and institutions (“the independent variables”),
Volume II is geographically organized (along the “dependent variables”) and
offers a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the politics of social invest-
ment focused on different world regions, from Nordic Europe, via Continental,
Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, North America, Latin America, to North
East Asia. All chapters “speak the same analytical language” as they use, apply,
and test the same theoretical framework. We are extremely thankful and deeply
indebted to all contributors for helping us to develop and to apply this unified
framework. Not least, we are thankful that all contributors bore with us during
the lengthy process and multiple rounds of revisions that we asked everyone to
do for the sake of coherence and uniformity.
We also owe gratitude to a large number of people who commented on first
(or later) drafts of our framework and/or individual chapters. Moreover, sev-
eral people helped us to organize various meetings. In particular, we wish to
thank all participants of three larger conferences that we organized in Paris (in
2017 and 2018) and at the EUI (in 2018). At the EUI, Hanspeter Kriesi, Maureen
Lechleitner, and Reto Bürgisser generously offered to act as our “local hosts”
and made sure we had a wonderful and productive time in the Badia Fiesolana.
Dorothee Bohle, Giuliano Bonoli, Helen Callaghan, Ellen Immergut, Jane
Gingrich, and Anton Hemerijck offered highly valuable feedback on various
parts of the project.
We also met and discussed with many of the contributors and discussants
at various conferences and workshops and again wish to thank all panelists,
discussants, and organizers, for example, at the CES conference in Chicago,
the “virtual” CES conference in Iceland, the SASE conference in Kyoto, the
ESPAnet conference in Stockholm, the RC19 “hybrid” meeting in Fribourg,
and the EU’s Social Situation Monitor in Brussels. Moreover, we received ex-
cellent questions and feedback at various talks, for example at the University
of Oslo, at Oxford, in Milan, and Royal Holloway, and at other occasions.
Many participants at these conferences and workshops have helped us develop,
clarify and sharpen our work, and we are grateful to all of them. Special thanks
go to Ben Ansell, Pablo Beramendi, Tom Chevalier, Mary Daly, Bernhard
Ebbinghaus, Jane Gingrich, Charlotte Haberstroh, Ursula Hackett, Jens
Jungblut, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Kati Kuitto, Jim Mosher, John Myles, Agustina
Paglayan, David Rueda, and Simone Tonelli.
Andrea Stork and Delia Zollinger provided invaluable help finalizing all
material. Both helped enormously in collecting and formatting all materials
(countless documents, graphs, tables, CVs, abstracts, appendices, etc.). Thank
you! Moreover, several persons helped us along the way, especially Samira
Jebli, Andreana Khristova, Latifa Louaso, and Léonie Trick. Finally, Christine
Zollinger worked with us during the beginning of the project and co-authored
our first WOPSI publication (a LIEPP working paper). Regina List carefully read
xvi
Acknowledgments xvii
and commented on several of our chapters, correcting mistakes and improving

our writing. Thank you all!
At Oxford University Press, we particularly wish to thank the series editors,
Douglas Besharov and Neil Gilbert, and the editorial board, who were enthusi-
astic and supportive of the project from the start. In current times, major presses
have generally become more critical of edited volumes. At the same time, we are
convinced that such integrated collections of studies become increasingly im-
portant for advancing the cumulative stock of knowledge, because they connect
the dots between ever more specialized empirical research contributions. In this
context, our editors at OUP did a wonderful job helping us improve the coher-
ence of the volumes and the integration and synthesis of their findings. Birgit
Pfau-Effinger, Espen Dahl, and Martin Potucek provided helpful comments
pushing us further. Thanks also to Dana Bliss and Prabha Karunakaran at OUP
for working with us efficiently and very supportively during the production
process.
Financially, we gratefully acknowledge support from the Goethe University
Frankfurt, the University of Zurich, the ANR and the French government under
the Investments for the Future program LABEX LIEPP (ANR-11-LABX-0091,
ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02) and the Idex University of Paris (ANR-18-IDEX-0001).
Frankfurt, Zurich, Paris

January 2022
Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja Häusermann, and Bruno Palier
xvi
xi
CON TRI BUTOR S
Florencia Antía, PhD in Political Science (Instituto de Estudos Sociais e

Políticos, Universidade Estadual de Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). Her research focuses
on comparative political economy, with a particular interest in social policy and
the politics of redistribution in Latin America. She is Associate Professor in the
Political Science Institute, Universidad de la República in Uruguay.
Sonja Avlijaš is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow at the University of Belgrade’s

Faculty of Economics and research associate at LIEPP, Sciences Po. She holds a
PhD from the LSE. Sonja is a member of the Executive Board of the European
Association for Comparative Economic Studies (EACES), following receipt of
the 2018 EACES PhD Thesis Award. She is interested in gender and welfare
dynamics of modern capitalism, especially as experienced in the European
post-socialist periphery. She will be completing her book on gender, work and
social reproduction in the post-1989 world order during her 2022 fellowship at
Stanford University.
Reto Bürgisser is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political

Science at the University of Zurich. He holds a PhD from the European
University Institute (EUI). His research focuses on the politics of welfare state
recalibration in Continental and Southern Europe, fiscal and environmental
policy preferences, technological change, and growth models.
Marius R. Busemeyer is a Professor of Political Science and Speaker of the

Excellence Cluster “The Politics of Inequality” at the University of Konstanz,
xix
x
xx Contributors
Germany. His research focuses on comparative political economy and welfare

state research. He holds a doctoral degree from the University of Heidelberg and
worked as a senior researcher at the MPI for the Study of Societies in Cologne.
His publications include the book Skills and Inequality (Winner of the 2015
Stein Rokkan Prize) and the recently published A loud, but noisy signal? Public
opinion and education reform in Western Europe (with Julian Garritzmann and
Erik Neimanns).
Francesco Fioritto is a MSc Student in Development Studies - Applied

Development Economics at the London School of Economics. His research
interests lie in comparative social policy, growth theory, and industrial policy.
Julian L. Garritzmann is Professor of Political Science at the Goethe University

Frankfurt. He works at the intersection of comparative political economy, public
policy, party politics, and public opinion, with a special focus on education
and social policies. His previous books include The Political Economy of Higher
Education Finance (Palgrave), and A Loud, but Noisy Signal? Public Opinion,
Parties, and Interest Groups in the Politics of Education Reform in Western Europe
(Cambridge University Press; with Marius Busemeyer and Erik Neimanns).
Eriko Hamada is Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Community

and Human Services, Rikkyo University. She received her Ph.D. from Sophia
University, Japan. Her main interests are comparative studies of welfare state
reforms in Japan and Europe, with a special focus on youth employment policy.
She has published numerous articles and book chapters on the topic, including
chapters in Investing in Society (2018, edited by Mari Miura, in Japanese).
Silja Häusermann is Professor of Political Science at the University of Zurich

in Switzerland. She studies welfare state politics and party system change in
advanced capitalist democracies. She directs the ERC-project “welfarepriorities”
(www.welfarepriorities.eu) and is the co-director of the UZH University Research
Priority Programme “Equality of Opportunity”. For further information on
projects and publications, please see www.siljahaeusermann.org
Ijin Hong is Associate Professor at the School of Government in Sun Yat-sen

University, P.R. China. Prior to this, she has held several appointments in Korean
universities, such as Yonsei University and Ewha Women’s University in Seoul.
Her research interests include welfare states and social policy in East Asia,
comparative research, social care, labour markets. Her work has been published
in Social Policy and Administration, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis,
Political Quarterly, Stato e Mercato, among others. Since 2017 she joined the East
Asian Social Policy Network (EASP) as a member of the organizing committee.
Alexander Horn is head of the Emmy Noether Research Group “Varieties of

Egalitarianism: Mapping the Politics of Inequality with Online Crowdcoding” at
xxi
Contributors xxi
the University of Konstanz. Previously, he was Assistant Professor (Comparative

Politics) at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University and John
F. Kennedy Memorial Fellow at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European
Studies at Harvard. He is the author of Government Ideology, Economic Pressure
and Risk Privatization: How Economic Worldviews Shape Social Policy Choices
in Times of Crisis (Amsterdam University Press 2017) and The asymmetric long-
term electoral consequences of unpopular reforms (Journal of European Public
Policy 2021).
Jane Jenson is a professor emerita in the political science department,

Université de Montréal and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada since 1979.
Her research focuses on comparative social policy in Europe and the Americas,
with particular attention to the narratives surrounding the social investment
perspective, and including the consequences for gender relations and women’s
status. Her most recent book is Reassembling Motherhood: Procreation and
Care in a Globalized World, Colombia University Press, 2017 (co-edited
Y. Ergas & S. Michel).
Kees van Kersbergen is Professor of Comparative Politics at the Department

of Political Science of Aarhus University, Denmark. His research interests lie in
comparative politics, political economy and political sociology. He has published
widely in the area of welfare state studies in refereed journals and with major
university presses. He is the author (with Barbara Vis) of Comparative Welfare
State Politics: Development, Opportunities, and Reform (Cambridge University
Press 2014) and (with Carsten Jensen) of The Politics of Inequality (Palgrave
Macmillan 2017).
Yeon-Myung Kim obtained his PhD in social policy from Chung-Ang University
in Seoul and is a professor of social policy at Chung-Ang University. He served
as the Senior Secretary to the President for Social Policy in the Republic of Korea
from 2018–2020. He has written numerous articles on East Asian welfare states,
Korean pension reform, and social investment policy.
Triin Lauri is Associate Professor of Public Policy in Tallinn University. In 2019–

2020 she worked as Departmental Lecturer in Comparative Social Policy at
Department of Social Policy and Intervention in University of Oxford. In 2020–
2023 she is conducting her post-doctoral project at the University of Konstanz
focusing on Baltic skill regimes and their distributional effects. Triin’s research
is focusing on comparative social policy with a particular interest in education
policy and social investment turn.
Jieun Lee was recently awarded her PhD by the department Social Policy and
Social Work at the University of York, the UK. Before undertaking her PhD she
worked for the National Pension Research Institute in South Korea. Her research
interests lie in pensions, family policy, social investment, poverty, and inequality
xxi
xxii Contributors
in comparative perspective. Currently, she is based in Boeblingen, Germany, and

is working as an independent researcher.
Sophia Seung-yoon Lee obtained her Dphil (PhD) in comparative social policy
from the University of Oxford, UK and is an Associate Professor of Social Policy
at Chung-Ang University. She has written numerous articles on precarious
workers in East Asian welfare states and also on new forms of work and social
security in South Korea. She is also the first Vice Chair of the Committee for
Youth Policy Coordination in the Republic of Korea.
Jen-Der Lue is a Professor in Department of Social Welfare, National Chung-

Cheng University, Taiwan. He served as Director-General for Social Affairs at
Taichung City-Government during 2014–2018 and pushed the idea of social
investment reforms. His research interests include democratization, globalization
and welfare state in East Asia. Recently, He has embarked on research related to
welfare attitudes change of Taiwan’s citizens after 2008.
Pilar Manzi, PhD Candidate in Political Science at Northwestern University. Her

main research interests are the politics of inequality and political representation
in Latin America.
Mari Miura is Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Law, Sophia University.

She received her PhD from University of California, Berkeley. She is the author
of Welfare Through Work: Conservative Ideas, Partisan Dynamics, and Social
Protection in Japan (Cornell University Press, 2012) and editor of Investing in
Society (2018, in Japanese) among other numerous publications. She received
the Wilma Rule Award (IPSA Award for the Best Research on Gender and
Politics) in 2018.
Nora Nagels is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Université de

Québec à Montréal (UQAM). Her research is concerned with gender, citizenship,
and social policies in Latin America. She has recently published on comparative
politics, conditional cash transfers, development, citizenship and gender in
leading journals such as International Feminist Journal of Politics; Social Politics;
Social Policy & Administration; Social Policy & Society; and Revue internationale
de politique comparée. She will publish Gender, International Institutions and
Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America at Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.
Bruno Palier is CNRS Research Director at Sciences Po, Centre d’études

européennes et de politique comparée. Trained in social science, he has a PhD in
political science. He works on the comparative political economy of welfare state
reforms. He was director of LIEPP (Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Evaluation
of Public Policies) between 2014 and 2020. He has published numerous articles
xxi
Contributors xxiii
in international Journals and various books. In 2021, he co-edited with Anke

Hassel Growth and Welfare in Advanced Capitalist Economies (Oxford University
Press). In 2018, he co-edited Welfare democracies and party politics: Explaining
electoral dynamics in times of changing welfare capitalism (with Philip Manow and
Hanna Schwander), Oxford University Press. In 2012, he co-edited The Age of
Dualization: The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies (with
Patrick Emmenegger, Silja Häusermann and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser), Oxford
University Press, and Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, Policies
and Challenges (with Nathalie Morel and Joakim Palme) Policy Press.
J. Salvador Peralta is a Professor of Political Science at the University of West

Georgia, USA. He teaches courses on American Politics, Comparative Politics,
and Latin American Politics. His current research explores presidential behavior,
social investment policies, higher education politics, and the politics of poetry
in Latin America. His most recent publications have appeared in PS: Political
Science and Politics; Politics & Policy; Centro Presidencial: Presidencias y Centros
de Gobierno en América Latina, Estados Unidos y Europa from Tecnos; The
Transnational Politics of Higher Education from Routledge; and an Interview
with Claribel Alegría in the Birmingham Poetry Review.
Michał Polakowski is Assistant Professor at Poznan University of Economics

and Business and Policy Officer at EMN Ireland, ESRI, Dublin, Ireland. His has
interest in comparative political economy of welfare and migration. This work is
part of research Project UMO‐2016/20/S/HS5/00452 financed by the National
Science Centre of Poland.
Susan Prentice holds the Duff Roblin Professor of Government and is Professor
of Sociology at the University of Manitoba. Her research focusses on historical
and comparative family policy, with a particular interest on gender and social
care, and a specialty in childcare. She is co-editor, most recently, of Caring for
Children: Social Movements and Public Policy in Canada (UBC Press, 2017).
Stefano Ronchi is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Political and

Social Sciences of the University of Milan. Previously he was a Max Weber Fellow
at the European University Institute in Fiesole. He holds a PhD in Political Science
from the Research Training Group SOCLIFE (University Duisburg-Essen and
University of Cologne). His research interests include comparative welfare state
analysis, the politics of social policy and European integration. He has published
in journals such as West European Politics, Journal of Social Policy, International
Political Science Review, and South European Society and Politics.
Cecilia Rossel Sociologist and PhD in Government and Public Administration

(Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset—Universidad Complutense de Madrid).
xvi
xxiv Contributors
Her research focuses on citizen-public administration relationship (state-third

sector relationships, links between bureaucracies and citizens), the political
economy of social policy, and welfare regimes and inequality in Latin America.
She is Associate Professor at the Social Sciences Department, Universidad
Católica del Uruguay.
Jaemin Shim is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Government and

International Studies at the Hong Kong Baptist University. His primary research
interests lie in democratic representation, comparative welfare states, gender and
legislative politics. His works have appeared or are forthcoming in international
journals including Democratization, Parliamentary Affairs, Journal of Legislative
Studies, and Journal of East Asian Studies.
Dorota Szelewa is an Assistant Professor in Social Justice at University College

Dublin and a Co-Editor in Chief of Journal of Family Studies. Her research
interests include gender-centered policy analysis, social policy and religion,
intra-EU migration, right-wing populism, and East-European politics.
Anu Toots is Professor of Social Policy in Tallinn University, Estonia. Her research
interests are related to macro-level changes of the welfare state such as impact of
the de-industrialization, turn to the social investment regime, transformation of
the welfare state in the era of political discontent and fiscal adjustment. In 2018–
2022 she chaired the COST Action ‘Transdisciplinary solutions to cross sectoral
disadvantage in youth’ (YOUNG-IN). In 2021 she has been nominated to the
High Level Group on the Future of Social Protection and of the Welfare State in
the EU, Tallinn, Estonia.
Patrik Vesan is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Department

of Economic and Political Sciences of the University of Aosta Valley (Italy).
He is co-editor of Politiche sociali/Social Policies the leading journal of the
Italian branch of the European Social Policy Analysis Network (Espanet).
His research focuses on Italian employment policy, European social policies,
and the governance of welfare services. He has published in journals such
as Journal of Common market Studies, Journal of European Integration,
Comparative European Politics, Public Administration, and South European
Society and Politics.
Linda A. White is the RBC Chair in Economic and Public Policy and a Professor
of Political Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy
at the University of Toronto. Her areas of research include comparative social
and family policy, particularly maternity and parental leave and early childhood
education and care; the politics of education policy; ideas, norms, and public
policy development; federalism, law and public policy; and gender and public
xv
Contributors xxv
policy. She is the author, most recently, of Constructing Policy Change: Early
Childhood Education and Care in Liberal Welfare States (UTP, 2017).
Chung-Yang Yeh is an Associate Professor in Department of Sociology, Soochow

University, Taiwan. He received his PhD from Division of Sociology, Social
Policy & Criminology, the University of Southampton, the United Kingdom. His
main research interests include comparative East Asian welfare states, welfare
attitudes, pension policy, and poverty studies. He published some journal articles
and books chapters focusing on pension policies, social investment policies, and
in-work poverty in East Asia.
xvi
1
1
STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS, INSTITUTIONAL
LEGACIES, AND THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL
INVESTMENT ACROSS WORLD REGIONS
1.1. INTRODUCTION: VARYING SOCIAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
Around the globe, welfare states are undergoing transformation. This is hap-
pening against the background of largely parallel global trends of changing
capitalism, technological innovation and an accompanying shift towards skill-
focused knowledge economies, adjusting labor markets, intensifying glob-
alization, and demographic changes leading to both fiscal pressures as well
as “new social risks” such as single parenthood, youth unemployment, and
working poverty. As a reaction to these global trends, existing welfare states
are adapting. In many countries around the world, policy-makers’ main re-
sponse to these challenges has been to modernize welfare states by focusing
on future-oriented policies that aim at creating, mobilizing, and preserving
human capabilities and skills. These policies are what we call social investment.
Social investment policies, such as—typically—education over the life course,
early childhood education and care, employment-oriented family policies, and
active labor market policies, aim to simultaneously fulfill both economic and
social goals.
Yet, this generalized upswing of social investment policies has taken very dif-
ferent forms and has happened to different degrees and at different points in
time across world regions and across democratic countries around the globe
Silja Häusermann, Julian L. Garritzmann, and Bruno Palier, Structural Constraints, Institutional Legacies, and the
Politics of Social Investment Across World Regions In: The World Politics of Social Investment (Volume II). Edited by:
Julian L. Garritzmann, Silja Häusermann, and Bruno Palier, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197601457.003.0001
2
2 Silja Häusermann et al.
(e.g. Szelewa and Polakowski 2008, Cecchini and Madariaga 2011, Morel et al.
2012, Morgan 2013, Hemerijck 2013, Peng 2014, Huber and Stephens 2014, León
and Pavolini 2014, van Kersbergen and Kraft 2017, Fleckenstein and Lee 2017,
Sandberg and Nelson 2017). And while the existing literature delivers increas-
ingly detailed insight into the determinants of social investment policies within
particular regions, countries, and policy fields, there is neither a joint conceptu-
alization and mapping of social investment development across world regions
and fields, nor an analytical framework that integrates the various ways in which
policy legacies and structural developments across world regions interact to
shape the political supply of and demand for social investment policy and to
enable the formation of the political coalitions shaping concrete reforms (see
Häusermann et al., Chapter 2, Volume I, in Garritzmann et al. 2022). Such a
global analytical perspective is necessary, however, in order to assess whether
what we observe is indeed a trend that relates to a shared (possibly implicit)
policy paradigm, to identify the scope conditions for social investment politici-
zation, and to determine the link between institutional social policy legacies in
a world region and the actors and policy functions that prevail in the regional
politics of social investment. Ultimately, we also need a global perspective to
determine whether the development of social investment policies around the
globe indeed represents a paradigm “shift,” i.e. a turn away from consumptive to
investive policies, or whether—alternatively—consumptive and investive social
policies are developed in parallel as complements to each other.
Only the study of social investment politics across a very wide range of dif-
ferent contexts allows us to integrate the study of social investment in the estab-
lished conceptual and analytical toolbox of welfare state research. In the existing
literature, social investment is usually treated as somewhat “special,” since the
logic of such policies deviates fundamentally from the traditional principle of
decommodification. Scholars have also been skeptical about the balance of ec-
onomic and social goals that social investment is pursuing simultaneously, and
about the possibility of drawing a clear line between social investment on the
one hand and purely liberal commodification on the other. As a result, social
investment as a social policy strategy has been held to higher standards than
traditional social policy in terms of distributive implications.
We argue that an integration and “normalization” of the study of social in-
vestment requires that we conceptualize social investment politics in a way that
enables us to acknowledge the systematic variation in policy dimensions and
determinants, just as welfare state research routinely does for social compensa-
tion policies. For example, social investment policies may indeed have regres-
sive distributive effects (the famous Matthew effects), but they certainly do not
have these regressive effects universally and necessarily. Hence, our objective as
scholars is not to assess whether social investment per se is regressive but to un-
derstand the structural and political conditions under which progressive or re-
gressive distributive policies are adopted. To allow for the study of this systematic
3
Structural Constraints, Institutional Legacies 3
variation of politics and policies, the “World Politics of Social Investment”-project

that we present in this volume and its twin volume (Garritzmann et al. 2022) has
pursued a highly ambitious research strategy, tracing social investment policies
and explaining their politics across and within four larger world regions. We thus
offer the first worldwide analysis of welfare state reforms and more specifically the
politics of social investment reforms around the globe in the early 21st century.
The focus of our research is on democratic countries because we conceive of pol-
itics (and mass politics in particular) in a way that presupposes democratic interest
representation and competition as well as programmatic competition between dif-
ferent parties and interest groups. Within the universe of democratic countries,
then, the project maximizes diversity in terms of structural economic change, in-
stitutional legacies, and different types of political coalitions. This is why our re-
search design includes a very wide range of countries from Nordic, Continental
and Southern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe (Baltic and Visegrad countries),
North America (the United States and Canada), North East Asia (Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan), and Latin America. In addition, the chapters studying the
scope conditions of social investment politics, i.e. state capacity and democratic
development, also cover many (including non-democratic) countries of Africa and
South East Asia (notably Barrientos, Chapter 5, in Volume I [Garritzmann et al.
2022] and Chen and Kitschelt, Chapter 6 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al. 2022]).
In order to allow such broad geographical and temporal comparisons, as well
as to integrate the study of social investment in the established analytical toolbox
of welfare state research, we offer a new typology of social investment reform
strategies (Table 1.1), distinguishing between three different functions of social
investment policies (human capital, skills and capabilities creation, mobilization,
and preservation) and between three different distributive profiles (inclusive,
stratified, and targeted social investment).
In terms of function, social investment policies can first refer to an invest-
ment in human capital, capabilities and skills (creation). Second, they can com-
prise an investment in the mobilization of human capital, skills and capabilities for
labor market participation (mobilization). Third, they can aim at preserving and
Table 1.1 Nine types of social investment policy strategies

Function Distributive profile
Inclusive social Stratified social Targeted social
investment investment investment
Creation of human capital,
skills and capabilities
Mobilization of human
capital, skills and capabilities
Preservation of human
capital, skills and capabilities
4
improving human capital, skills and capabilities so that people can better handle
life events and transitions (preservation). Capability and skill creation focus on
the formation of resources, mobilization focuses on the effective use of existing
resources, and preservation focuses on the maintenance or enhancement of ex-
isting human capital, skills and capabilities.
The distributive profiles of social investment policies are defined fully in
line with established categories in comparative welfare state research: Inclusive
policies are encompassing and egalitarian, including all or large parts of so-
ciety in a joint policy scheme, with benefits being widely and relatively equally
distributed; stratified policies distribute different benefits to different (vertical)
segments of society, thereby fragmenting groups of beneficiaries along usually
vertical class lines (it is here that we would expect Matthew effects); and targeted
policies channel benefits to lower social classes and precarious social groups spe-
cifically, often using needs-based criteria.
In their varied functions and distributive profiles, social investment policies
are as diverse as traditional compensatory social policies; and the typology
presented in Table 1.1 allows for the categorization and systematic compar-
ison of social investment proposals, programs, and reforms across the world
and over time. When analyzing a specific strategy in terms of this typology, we
look at the proposals or reforms (i.e., the policy outputs) and not the outcomes
of the respective reform in terms of actual policy effects as these depend on
further conditions. In other words, we categorize policy reform strategies as
our key dependent variable (i.e., individual policies and sets of policies, not
policy outcomes). More specifically, we study two dimensions of these reform
strategies: 1) the politicization of social investment and 2) social investment
reforms (or inaction).
When it comes to explaining the politicization of social investment and the
reform strategies, the two volumes resulting from our research differ in their
orientation and perspectives: Volume I (Garritzmann et al. 2022) highlights the
similarities and trends our project revealed across different world regions and is
organized around the explanatory factors (i.e. “independent variables”) driving
social investment reform strategies, while the present Volume II engages more
with the differences between the world regions we have selected and between coun-
tries within those world regions and provides comparative analyses of social in-
vestment politics for and within each region.
1.2. THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT

ACROSS WORLD REGIONS
Our project also proposes a theoretical framework to explain social invest-

ment proposals and programs, as well as resulting social investment strategies
5
Ideational dynamics Dynamics of politicization Dynamics of coalition-formation and

decision-making
Social policy Supply:
paradigms parties, unions,
employers,
experts, Antagonists
bureaucrats (Non-)social
Structural dynamics Social
investment Protagonists investment
proposals reform
Changing Demand: strategies
capitalisms Public opinion, Consenters
new classes,
Changing skill changing,
demands preferences,
new divides
Socio-
demographic
changes Institutional
(Welfare) legacies preconditions Political institutions
Figure 1.1 Theoretical framework of the World Politics of Social Investment project.
and reforms. It is presented and described in detail by Häusermann et al. (see

Chapter 2 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]). We shortly recap this the-
oretical framework here (graphically summarized in Figure 1.1) in order to
point to those aspects that explain why we expect regional variation to matter
and because this framework orients the analyses presented in all chapters of
this volume.1
We contextualize social investment politics in an encompassing macro-
level account of ideational paradigmatic change and economic-structural
transformations—the ideational and structural transition to a knowledge
economy, a changing valuation of and demand for skills, and sociodemographic
changes—which shape the politics of social investment. We also emphasize
the role of institutional legacies and structure not only as (constraining)
context conditions but as factors that interact with, and thereby shape,
both actor preferences and political supply and demand. Against this back-
ground, our research focuses on politics and agency and more specifically
on the interaction of public demand (e.g., public opinion, new cleavages,
and societal groups) and sociopolitical supply (by parties, social partners,
bureaucrats, and specific interest groups) and on how this interaction shapes
different kinds of reform coalitions, resulting in countries’ different social in-
vestment strategies.
1. The concluding chapter of Volume I (Garritzmann et al. 2022) presents the same graph as in
Figure 1.1 while summarizing the main findings of the overall project regarding the relevant
factors supporting the adoption of social investment reforms.
6
1.2.1. Why we expect regional variation to matter: Structural

context conditions and institutional legacies
The key structural and institutional explanatory factors highlighted in Figure 1.1
do not vary randomly across countries. Rather they broadly cluster within re-
gions, and they further vary systematically by subregions (e.g., within Europe be-
tween Nordic Europe, Continental Europe, Southern Europe, the Baltics, and the
Visegrád countries). Ideational influences, structural changes, and institutional
legacies matter in all regions and countries; but there is a distinctive substantive
and configurational manifestation of these context conditions that is relevant for
understanding the specific analytical added value a region brings to the develop-
ment and study of our theoretical framework.
Identifying these distinctive manifestations is what we do in this section of
the chapter. For each region we briefly introduce the structural social and eco-
nomic context characteristics, the institutional legacies, and the configuration of
democratic politics needed to derive the specific analytical foci that emerge as
most relevant for the study of the respective (sub)regions.
There is one particular aspect of the theoretical framework that is likely to
matter particularly strongly in driving the politics of social investment across re-
gions: institutional legacies. As explained by Häusermann et al. (see Chapter 2 in
Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]), we suggest that the prevailing institutional
legacies in a country shape the social investment functions that are most likely to
prevail on the broader welfare reform agenda. A country’s policy legacies reflect
the economic production strategy (Hassel & Palier, 2020) and related welfare
state policies a country has pursued in the past (Pierson, 2001; Skocpol, 1992).
They entail mechanisms of path dependency, but through interaction with struc-
tural economic, demographic, and social developments they also shape the type
and prevalence of social risks and economic needs in a particular context. We
conceptualize these legacies in terms of the ratio of welfare resources that are
bound in policies entailing immediate (consumptive) versus future (investive)
distributive effects (Beramendi et al., 2015a; Heidenheimer, 1981). This legacy
in terms of an investment/compensation ratio structures the specific challenges
that the welfare state is confronted with. Figure 1.2 stylizes the profiles of such
legacies in an ideal-typical two-dimensional space (loosely based on Häusermann
& Palier, 2017).
None of the four world regions we study in this volume fits neatly in a single
quadrant, of course; and the theorization proposed in Figure 1.2 applies to the
ratio of preexisting legacies rather than the absolute level of expenditures or the
exact types of existing legacies. But we can certainly identify typical configurations
(developed in more detail later in the next section): Certain Southern European
countries and several less developed Latin American countries, for example, ex-
hibit both weak compensatory and weak investive legacies within their region.
The opposite pole relates to the inclusive welfare regimes of Nordic countries,
7
Investment +
Strong focus on human
capital and employment
HC creation,
mobilization, and HC creation
preservation
Compensation + (sustainability) Compensation –
Strong and encompassing Weak and fragmented
social security social security
HC mobilization None or targeted
and preservation HC creation
Investment –
Weak focus on human
capital and employment
Figure 1.2 Institutional legacies and prevailing social investment functions in the political debate.
Note: HC stands for “human capital, skills and capabilities”.
where both investment and compensation have developed in tandem for many
decades. North East Asian countries tend to exhibit investment-heavy legacies
of the productivist welfare paradigm when it comes to education and labor
market policies, as well as (stratified) compensation—and insurance-oriented
policies when it comes to pensions and families. Within the Central and Eastern
European region, countries’ legacies diverge, with the Visegrád countries being
more compensation-oriented and the Baltics more investment-heavy in their
legacies. And finally, we find a similar duality between the “mature” welfare
states in Continental Europe, which are typically predominantly compensation-
oriented, and liberal Anglo-Saxon welfare regimes that attribute relatively higher
weight to investment as compared to consumption. This is only a brief charac-
terization to illustrate the thrust and heuristic ambition of Figure 1.2, and we
will address the specific legacies in somewhat more detail when addressing the
specific configurations by region. To reiterate, our main point here is that policy
legacies vary systematically across world regions, resulting in different kinds of
social investment politics, as we describe in detail in the next section.
1.2.2. Social investment in different world

regions: Varying contexts and legacies
World regions differ in systematic ways on the key context conditions found in
our theoretical framework: state capacity and democratic development (as scope
conditions), level of economic and social development, as well as institutional
legacies. Hence, we briefly highlight the key characteristics that are specific to
8
each region, to identify the research questions and analytical foci that are partic-
ularly relevant for each of them.
1.2.2.1. Western Europe and North America

Admittedly, Western Europe and North America hardly represent a homoge-
nous region in terms of institutional legacies: Innumerable studies have been
devoted to the institutional differences in welfare state policies within this group
of countries. However, all belong to the set of advanced (post-)industrialized
democracies with relatively mature welfare states, for which the emergence of
the knowledge economy has become a joint reference point, amplified by the
policy discourse of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) and the European Union (see Chapters 3 and 4 in Volume I
[Garritzmann et al., 2022]). In this sense, they can be regarded as one world re-
gion as these countries share many similarities from a global perspective.
The most prominent structural difference within this region, however, which
is highly relevant to our study and seems to become increasingly important in
explaining policy development within this world region is the (empirical and
politically deliberate) development of a knowledge economy in North-Western
Europe and North America, contrasting with the weaker advancement of know-
ledge economy structures in Southern Europe (Baccaro & Pontusson, 2016;
Beramendi et al., 2015b; Hassel & Palier, 2020; Manow et al., 2018; Walter et al.,
2020; and see Chapter 8 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]). This structural
difference is both the product and the reinforcing mechanism of a range of polit-
ical correlates: In the countries of Nordic and Continental Europe, as well as in
the Anglo-Saxon countries of Europe and North America, political choices are
being made in a context of rather stable programmatic politics and comparatively
high and persistent state capacity and trust, even through periods of economic
crisis (Hutter & Kriesi, 2019). In this environment, the emergence of a predom-
inantly service-and knowledge-based production regime since the 1990s has
affected political demands by both capitalist producer groups (e.g., employers
becoming more interested in skill development) and social (electoral) groups, in
particular through the expansion of the educated middle class, the massive entry
of women in the labor market, and the emergence of a strong, socioculturally
progressive “new left” (Gingrich & Häusermann, 2015). Hence, policy choices at
the intersection of labor markets and welfare are made against the background
of the structural rise of the knowledge economy.
In Southern Europe, this shift is decidedly less clear. In a context of weaker
state capacity, more particularistic party competition that entrenches the interests
of core constituencies (especially small business owners), and fiscal austerity,
the development of knowledge economy production structures is impeded.
Therefore, there is not only weaker economic demand for high skills but increas-
ingly an oversupply of skills the labor market cannot absorb (Ansell & Gingrich,
2018; see Chapter 8 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]) and a much smaller
9
educated middle class (see Chapter 12 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]).

Hence, the structural context within which the politics of social investment take
place is very different and much less favorable to social investment policy de-
velopment. Precisely for this reason, Southern Europe represents an analytically
very important and telling subregion for our research as these countries allow
us to identify obstacles and difficulties, as well as windows of opportunity for
social investment. Therefore, the study of Southern Europe is given considerably
more in-depth attention in our project than the study of the other subregions of
Western Europe and North America.
The structural divide between the Southern European countries and the rest
of the countries of this broad world region is extremely important; yet, though
crucial, it is not the only subregional distinction. Indeed, structural changes in-
teract with quite different institutional legacies within this region, producing at
least four regional patterns of context conditions, each entailing its own political
challenges for the development of social investment.
The Nordic countries of Scandinavia present a legacy of both strong and
universalistic investment and consumption policies (Gingrich & Ansell, 2015;
Nelson & Stephens, 2012). It is precisely this encompassing and universal nature
of policy legacies, which, in interaction with the rise of the knowledge economy,
raises questions of sustainability, fiscal leeway, and contested eligibility. Hence,
all social investment functions (creation, mobilization, and preservation) are
at stake in political discussions but now in terms of the degree of their inclu-
siveness, a debate furthered in particular by right-wing nationalist parties (Van
Kersbergen & Kraft, 2017; see Chapter 2 in this volume).
The liberal welfare states of the Anglo-Saxon world are generally less gen-
erous when it comes to social compensation policies and present a legacy of a
stronger focus on investment (as in the upper right quadrant of Figure 1.2; see
Heidenheimer, 1981). In particular, they focused on education and skill develop-
ment early in the development of their welfare states (Busemeyer & Nikolai, 2010;
Iversen, 2005). Since the late 1990s, this agenda has been broadened in some lib-
eral welfare states to include early childhood education and care policies, but
from a comparative perspective the resulting policies remain modest at best (see
Chapter 6 in this volume). Moreover, these countries are generally low spenders
on active labor market policies (Bonoli, 2013). This legacy of human capital cre-
ation in interaction with structural shifts toward knowledge economies is likely
to bolster the focus on the “creation” aspect of social investment, placing less
emphasis on skill preservation and skill mobilization.
The situation is very different when it comes to the countries of Continental
Europe, where the legacy of compensation-oriented social insurance and (strat-
ified) familialistic male- breadwinner policies in interaction with economic
modernization has put “new social risks” (Bonoli, 2005) front and center on the
agenda of welfare policies since the early 2000s. In combination with the histor-
ically rather weak employment rates of these countries (Iversen & Wren, 1998),
10
we expect social investment politics in this subregion to focus on female employ-

ment (i.e., the mobilization aspect of social investment). And since this concern
about mobilization occurs in a context of skill-oriented knowledge economy de-
velopment, it is no wonder that it is precisely in this subregion that the middle-
class orientation of social policies and potentially regressive (stratified) Matthew
effects are most prominent empirically (Bonoli & Liechti, 2018; Cantillon, 2011).
Finally, the combination of weak investment legacies and patchy, dualized
compensatory policy coverage in Southern Europe, in combination with curbed
economic modernization (as explained in the above discussion of knowledge
economy development), does not bode well for any consistent and sizable social
investment turn (Kazepov & Ranci, 2017; León & Pavolini, 2014). In addition,
there is a mismatch between the overall relatively well-developed educational
system, on the one hand, and the dualized and rigid labor market, on the other
hand, which is ill-suited to absorb the supply of (young) skilled labor (see
Chapter 8 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]). Thus, human capital and
skill mobilization should be more prominent on the agenda than its creation.
However, given the dualized labor market and the ensuing power asymmetries
between labor market insiders and outsiders, the most likely scenario is political
stalemate or, at best, selective, targeted, outsider-oriented mobilization policies
involving activation.
In sum, despite generally similar contexts, the differences within Western
Europe and North America make this the one world region that allows us to study
most fruitfully the effects of differential shifts toward the knowledge economy. In
particular, this region allows us to highlight how structural change, as it interacts
with various welfare legacies, affects societal demand (through the different size
and importance of social classes) and thereby electoral politics (through the
emergence of new parties on the left and right) (Beramendi et al., 2015a). These
processes of electoral realignment, which are specific to the highly advanced and
institutionalized context of programmatic-democratic politics in this region,
transform the meaning of left–right politics and the actor configurations that
are relevant for social investment politics (Häusermann et al., 2020). They thus
also complicate the relationship between parties and organized interests (trade
unions and employers) and the respective roles and coalitions of these actors in
the politics of social investment.
1.2.2.2. Central and Eastern Europe

The institutional context in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is, of
course, very different from that in Western Europe and North America, both in
terms of the electoral-democratic aspects and in terms of welfare legacies. The
history of authoritarianism and Soviet influence and the relatively recent democ-
ratization have left various imprints on the structure and configuration of demo-
cratic politics and welfare states alike. In terms of electoral politics, party systems
in Central and Eastern European countries are much less institutionalized and
1
electorally entrenched, more volatile, and more prone to clientelist practices; and
the progressive-traditionalist divide of party competition correlates with econom-
ically left–right positions in very different ways than it does in the Western Europe
and North America regions (Engler, 2016; Enyedi, 2006, Kitschelt et al., 2012).
Accordingly, the partisan influences on social policies in Central and Eastern
Europe differ in important ways from those in Western democracies (Aidukaite,
2009; Lipsmeyer, 2000), not least because left parties were often associated with
the authoritarian past (Orenstein, 1998). While parties (re-)constituted them-
selves newly after the transition to democracy, crucial bureaucrats remained
largely in place and influential (Inglot, 2008). Moreover, the role of trade unions
differed in Central and Eastern European contexts as trade union membership
was often obligatory during the Soviet period, so membership declined drasti-
cally and unions had to reinvent themselves rather independently from the party
system after 1990 (Aidukaite, 2009). The implication of this electoral-democratic
context is that the links between collective actors, in particular parties, and social
groups of voters are less tight and stable, and thus governments, together with
bureaucrats and technocrats, tend to have more political and ideological leeway
for agency (Haggard & Kaufmann, 2008; Kriesi et al., 2020).
The break with the communist past in the early 1990s also had massive
implications for the welfare legacies that continue to structure the politics of
social investment. Central and Eastern European welfare regimes developed in
a “layered” fashion (Inglot, 2008), with Soviet-style welfare policies first being
layered upon preexisting Bismarckian and corporatist social policies (espe-
cially in the Visegrád countries) and the new post-Soviet elites then adding so-
cial insurance policies on top, punctuated by severe economic crises (Haggard
& Kaufmann, 2008). The implication of this non-linear, rather cyclical welfare
development is a more volatile context, with policy strategies shifting over time
between more liberal and more conservative approaches, resulting in more com-
plex policy feedback effects and more difficult reform trajectories than in Western
Europe. Overall, however, the welfare legacies in Central and Eastern European
countries remained rather strongly focused on social insurance (Cerami, 2006;
Kuitto, 2016) and passive welfare benefits, used by elites to “divide and pacify”
potential protests amid acute economic crises (Vanhuysse, 2006). This focus
on insurance and compensation as opposed to investment in the post-transi-
tion period also needs to be understood against the delegitimization of the
employment-oriented welfare policies of the communist period. While activa-
tion, in particular for women, has always had a connotation of independence and
progressivity in the West, universal “forced” commodification of both men and
women in the Central and Eastern European countries had a much more neg-
ative, oppressive connotation (Szelewa & Polakowski, 2008; Vanhuysse, 2006).
With these ideational and institutional legacies in place, the context for so-
cial investment development certainly looked rather dire at the end of the 1990s
in this region. However, the different subregions have subsequently embarked
12
on distinctive paths, notably linked to different economic development and

growth strategies (Adam et al., 2009; Bohle & Greskovits, 2012; Feldmann, 2006;
Hassel et al., 2020). In this volume, we focus on the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania) and the Visegrád countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,
and Slovakia) as two distinct subregions, leaving aside the former Yugoslavian
countries, Bulgaria, and Romania.
The Baltic countries—particularly in the wake of the financial crisis and re-
cession in 2008–2009 which hit them harshly (e.g., Kriesi et al., 2020; Walter,
2016)—over time developed a more investment-oriented strategy of policy
development, shifting the policy context toward a ratio tilted more toward in-
vestment (more toward the upper right quadrant in Figure 1.2) or, as Toots and
Lauri (see Chapter 7 in this volume) call it, an “Anglo-Saxon plus” model. The
Visegrád countries, by contrast, stuck much more strongly and forcefully to a
compensation-oriented policy strategy (i.e., toward the lower left quadrant of
Figure 1.2).
In the framework of our theoretical model, these intra-regional differences
are related to the structural economic development in these subregions and the
socioeconomic strategies of the respective elites and their reform coalitions.
For one, while sharing a Soviet legacy, the strength of this legacy in the Baltics
and the Visegrád countries differed considerably. In the Baltics, which had been
under direct (oppressive) Soviet rule, elites favored a fundamental break from
the Soviet model, opening the economy radically and embarking on a (neo)lib-
eral strategy of knowledge-based growth, strongly linked to foreign investments.
Hence, they started to focus social policy on human capital creation through
education and skill development. In the Visegrád countries, by contrast, elites
steered toward a model of export- reliant “dependent market economies,”
embracing a (complex) manufacturing-oriented strategy and strong social con-
servatism (Bohle & Greskovits, 2012; Nölke & Vliegenthart, 2009) while turning
toward refamilialization (see Chapter 8 in this volume). Hence, they continued
to privilege social insurance and passive transfers over any kind of human cap-
ital and skill investment. Avlijaš (see Chapter 9 in this volume) and Hassel et al.
(2020) relate this disparity to the different reference points for the national elites’
growth strategies. While the Nordic countries served as key reference points
for the Baltics, the economic strategy in the Visegrád region was defined more
strongly in reference to and dependent on Continental Europe, and Germany in
particular.
For our project, the Central and Eastern European region is an extremely in-
structive one. It allows us to study agency and government choice in a context
that is politically less constrained by partisan and representational legacies. It is
this specific context that highlights how much the structural economic develop-
ment of capitalism is as much a context factor as a result of political choice: Both
partisan and technocratic elites make choices in a context that reflects the inter-
action of institutional legacies and production structures.
13
1.2.2.3. North East Asia

The democratic countries of the North East Asian region (namely Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan) share a distinctive legacy in terms of capitalism and the wel-
fare state. They all exhibit strong state capacity and institutional stability. Yet, their
welfare legacy has remained fragmentary and weak on social compensation in
particular. This weakness is the result of the “productivist” model of the welfare
state (Holliday, 2000; Kim, 2016), which is tightly connected with the company-
and firm-based production regime of the East Asian model of “meso-corporatist”
capitalism (Amable, 2003; Boyer & Yamada, 2000). In this model, social policy
is chiefly provided by the firm (and subsidiarily by the household) via long-term
employment relationships (Estévez-Abe, 2008). In a nutshell, (especially large)
companies substitute for the welfare state, leading to a dualization in terms of wel-
fare rights between (traditionally mostly male) insiders who enjoy stable employ-
ment within these firms and (mostly female) outsiders who do not. Miura (2012)
characterizes this model as “welfare through work,” which denotes the underlying
logic that social policy is instrumental to the economic production regime and
linked to a generalized reluctance toward public social spending. In line with this,
social investments have long been meager at best, with the exception of public pri-
mary and secondary (but not post-secondary) education, which has been a core
priority in the region and has been perceived as contributing to its productivist
agenda. Yet, school investments have been rarely complemented with other so-
cial investments like public childcare, active labor market policies, or leave policies
aiming at dual-earner, dual-carer families. Rather than an overall strongly devel-
oped social investment legacy, it is this ideological-institutional legacy and the
weakness of encompassing compensation policies which places the countries of
North East Asia rather in the upper right quadrant of Figure 1.2 (i.e., among the
more investment-oriented countries).
It is in the continuity of this welfare legacy that the countries of North East
Asia deal with the massive structural challenges they are confronted with.
Economic growth is one challenge, of course, with the recessions of the 1990s se-
verely hitting the countries of the region; but even more massively and certainly
more distinctively, it is the demographic challenge that characterizes the polit-
ical context of this region. Both the increase in life expectancy and low fertility
rates mark the extremes in cross-national comparisons; thereby, they exacerbate
the demographic challenges to the welfare state (health and pension costs and
low employment rates related to high gender inequality). These demographic
problems are themselves to some extent endogenous in the familialistic social
and institutional structures that have prevailed in these countries (Estévez-Abe
& Kim, 2014). Miura (2012) notes that the productivist model of welfare pro-
vision is underpinned by a gendered dual system, with women facing adverse
conditions in labor markets and through familialism. Social rights and wage
premiums are tied to long-term employment that is incompatible with the pre-
dominant familialistic norms of childrearing. This combination implies that the
14
demographic problem entails massively increased demands in terms of both

compensation (pensions, healthcare) and investment (human capital and skill
mobilization and preservation) at the same time. Seen through the lens of social
investment policies, these countries particularly face the challenge of mobilizing
the female workforce in a context of highly adverse social, cultural, and institu-
tional conditions.
Hence, when identifying the structural challenges that define the context of
the politics of social investment development in the North East Asia region in
the early decades of the 2000s, the demographic challenge must be emphasized
to the same extent as capitalist development. One analytical focus thus relates to
the effect of demographic pressure on social investment strategies: Does the de-
mand for compensation crowd out social investments? Or are both policy logics
developed in tandem?
It would be an exaggeration to speak about subregions in democratic North
East Asia given that the area in our definition consists of only three countries, but
the difference between the South Korean and Japanese trajectories exemplifies
the important role of political agency—and partisanship in particular—in this
region. South Korea is a more recent democracy, influenced economically by
both heavy dependence on foreign direct investment and the shadow of its com-
munist twin state. Policy development in South Korea after 2000 has shown an
explicit and rather vigorous effort at investing in human capital and skill creation
and mobilization (Estévez-Abe & Kim, 2014). In contrast, Japan had remained
much more familialist and consumption-oriented than South Korea until the
2010s (An & Peng, 2016). This distinction partly reflects a difference in the coun-
tries’ growth strategies, with South Korea embracing a more post-industrial,
knowledge-based economy and Japan focusing more on industrial production.
However, this difference in economic strategies also reflects political-electoral
differences: While Japan has been dominated politically by the main right-wing
conservative party (Liberal Democratic Party [LDP]) for decades, South Korea
has experienced intermittent periods of left-wing government rule, with left-
wing parties explicitly targeting younger and female voters (Lee, 2016).
Consequently, beyond the question of how these countries tackle the demo-
graphic challenge in a context of economic modernization, North East Asia also
presents a fruitful ground to study the impact of different party–political power
relations and electoral strategies.
1.2.2.4. Latin America

Finally, Latin America represents a particularly insightful and fascinating con-
text in which to study the determinants of social investment development be-
cause of the heterogeneity of its countries in terms of institutional structures and
because of the still predominant problem of mass poverty and inequality in most
countries. Both create a distinctive challenge and baseline for welfare state devel-
opment in general and social investment development in particular.
15
Latin America is distinguished from the other regions by its structural-ec-

onomic context, its institutional and political welfare legacy, and the (lasting)
impact of international organizations. Economically, Schneider (2009) qualifies
the capitalist economies of the region as “hierarchical capitalism,” characterized
in particular by the strong impact of multinational corporations (MNCs) and
domestic family conglomerates, a prevalence of low-skilled labor, and atom-
istic labor relations. Importantly for an analysis of social investment policies,
Schneider conceptualizes the situation as a “low-skill trap,” stabilized by the mu-
tually reinforcing effects of low state investment in skills and research and devel-
opment, low employer demand for skilled workers (by both the MNCs and the
domestic conglomerates), and low incentives for individual, private investments
in high skills (except for a small part of the workforce in high-skilled MNC em-
ployment). The generally low level of human capital development correlates with
the massive size of the informal sector in the labor market, which segments the
workforce politically and institutionally (Perry et al., 2007; Rueda et al., 2015).
With regard to institutional structures, the situation is heterogeneous, but,
in contrast to the Western European and North American region, and North
East Asia in particular, state capacity is much weaker; and political-electoral
institutions are still strongly ridden with problems of clientelism in many coun-
tries, which creates a difficult ground for social investment policies that tend
to rely on strong services and long-term investments. The weaker state ca-
pacity and the labor market dualization resonate with what has been called the
“truncated” welfare institutions prevalent in the region (Holland, 2018; see also
Segura-Ubiergo, 2007). In most countries, welfare policies and social spending
are dominated by social insurance for the formal workforce, further amplifying
the divide between insiders (recipients) and outsiders, perpetuating problems
of poverty, and demobilizing support for existing welfare policies among the
lower-income classes. These welfare legacies in turn shape representational
patterns, with trade unions in particular being fragmented in many countries
and defending insider interests over universalistic claims.
The third regional specificity relates to the strong influence of international
organizations in the region, especially during the extremely severe economic and
debt crises of the 1980s, when (in some contexts, authoritarian) governments
implemented neoliberal structural reforms that significantly curbed social
spending (Haggard & Kaufman, 2008). This period of neoliberal conditionality
created, however, a political and ideological backlash from the 1990s onward
(Barrientos et al., 2008), putting social policy front and center on the political
agendas of these countries and the (newly inclusiveness-focused) discourse of the
relevant international organizations (see Chapter 3 in Volume 1 [Garritzmann
et al., 2022]). It also fed the renewed effort among the organized left-leaning
political parties and social movements to reconstruct the welfare state, extend
eligibility, and address poverty (Anria & Niedzwiecki, 2016; Huber & Stephens,
2012; Pribble, 2013).
16
This interaction of the “truncated” welfare legacies (strongly dominated by

compensation policies) with the structural context of informality, poverty, and
low skill development puts the Latin American countries in general as a world
region in the lower right quadrant of Figure 1.2, for which we expect develop-
ment of social investment policies, if any, focused on targeted human, skills and
capabilities capital creation. As has been shown, and will be analyzed in detail
in this volume, alongside educational reforms, conditional cash transfer (CCT)
programs have become the key instrument in this regard throughout the region
(Cecchini & Madariaga, 2011), increasing cash transfer payments, while linking
them to services intended to sustain and create human capital and capability
(mostly health and education). These policies thus can be used—and have been
used effectively in some countries—as a way out of the “low-skill trap.”
When studying the politics of social investment in Latin America, however,
one needs to distinguish between two groups of countries that form politically
and economically relevant subregions, depending on the level of development
and stability of the economy, democratic-representative institutions, and welfare
states (Haggard & Kaufman, 2008; Huber & Stephens, 2012; Segura-Ubiergo,
2007). These preconditions are relevant to the politics of social investment since
they are necessary for an actual strengthening of the quality of social services
and for the effective inclusion of lower-income classes into the welfare state. In
the group of “more developed” countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica,
Mexico, and Uruguay), state capacity and programmatic politics are sufficiently
present to allow for effective investment in both transfers and welfare services.
This is the context in which we expect targeted human capital creation to make
it onto the political agendas of welfare reform. In the second, larger group of
countries (including, for example, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Peru), developing ef-
fective CCTs that indeed go beyond mere transfers and create human capital and
capabilities is likely to be much more difficult.
The Latin American context presents an ideal analytical ground to investigate
a range of specific research questions. First, the spread of CCT programs in the
region might at first glance be attributed to diffusion and ideational influence be-
cause of their reach, but only more detailed analyses will allow us to separate do-
mestic political factors from diffusion and to explain why different countries have
established very distinct types of CCTs, some with much clearer social investment
aspects than others. Second, the prevalence of poverty problems in this world
region provides a particularly interesting ground—similar to the prevalent demo-
graphic pressures in North East Asia—to study under what conditions investment
and compensation policies crowd each other out or develop in complementarity.
More specifically, it will allow the study of which political forces consider social
investment in terms of human capital and capabilities-oriented public services as
a complement to cash transfers and which political forces use social investment as
an alternative to decommodification. Third, the highly segmented nature of Latin
American labor markets expands the variance of organizational and representative
17
forms of trade unions, increasing our leverage for studying under what conditions
trade unions are protagonists, consenters, or even antagonists to social investment.
Fourth, the differences in the development of programmatic party competition
allow us to investigate the relative power of partisan governments and bureaucrats
under different democratic conditions. Finally, Latin America provides a “hard”
test to study the extent to which left-wing governments develop inclusive social
investment policies that benefit the lower classes or whether they favor stratified
policies to mobilize the middle classes.
1.3. COMPARATIVE LOGIC AND ADDED VALUE OF THE

GLOBAL COMPARISON
Before presenting the outline of the volume, we briefly come back to the compar-
ative logic and design of our research project and to what we think is the analyt-
ical value of comparing the politics of social investment across world regions and
within these regions (besides a substantive interest in each specific region). It is
indeed both very unusual and a daunting task to compare the politicization and
decision-making processes of welfare reform across and within four world re-
gions, and it is only fair to ask whether this strategy is not too strong a temptation
to lump very different empirical phenomena in too simple theoretical baskets
and to end up with a juxtaposition of country-or region-specific analyses.
We are convinced—and demonstrate with these volumes—that there in fact is
substantial analytical added value in comparing the politics of social investment
across and within world regions. First, there are two main research objectives
that we can only fulfill if we go beyond a comparative design of regionally similar
cases: the assessment of a parallel, worldwide development, on the one hand, and
an evaluation of the importance of institutional legacies and their interaction
with structural change in shaping basically all aspects of reform politics, on the
other hand.
Let us start with the parallel trend the cross-regional analysis allows us to de-
tect: A core finding of this volume and its sister volume (Garritzmann et al.,
2022) is that the paradigmatic idea of social policy as creating, mobilizing, and
preserving human skills and capabilities has gained traction in discussions of
welfare state reform since the turn of the 21st century across all regions studied.
Put differently, there are hardly any countries where social investment has not
been politicized or where reforms have not happened. Of course, there is vari-
ation in the extent and substantive types of social investments being politicized
and the resulting policies, but overall, the logic of social investment as a welfare
strategy has indeed spread across all regions. Observing and assessing this al-
most universal spread of the social investment paradigm in welfare politics of
the 21st century—irrespective of the specific political label attached to it in a
18
particular context—can only take place via a broad cross-regional comparison. It

also takes this cross-regional perspective to identify the drivers of this trend, be
they domestic or international.
The second major theoretical ambition of our project that only a cross-re-
gional research design can fulfill is to study the effect of institutional legacies and
their interaction with structural developments on the politics of welfare state re-
form. Of course, we know that institutional legacies, in particular social policy
legacies, matter for welfare reforms; but most intra-regional comparisons (for
example, only within Europe, within Latin America, or within North East Asia)
only manage to show their effect on varying power relations between actors or
social constituencies. Taking a broader, cross-regional perspective, however,
sheds light on at least four more fundamental differences that emerge from
the interaction of institutions and structure. First, in order to assess the scope
conditions for the politicization of specific types of social investment proposals,
we need substantial variation regarding state capacity and democratic devel-
opment, which is hardly possible within one region only (see Chapters 5–7 in
Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]).
The second fundamental variation that only a highly heterogeneous em-
pirical sample in terms of scope conditions and legacies allows us to assess is
the relative importance different sets of political actors have as antagonists,
protagonists, or consenters of social investment reforms. Where social in-
vestment is not salient in society and social demand, bureaucrats, experts,
and organized interest groups take on more important roles in policymaking
processes (see Chapters 3 and 15 in this volume). Where intermediary organi-
zations (such as trade unions or employer organizations) are fragmented, they
are more marginal in the politics of social investment than where they are
active and encompassing agents shaping structural change (see Chapters 9–
11 in Volume I [Garritzmann et al., 2022]). Where electoral mass politics is
curtailed by dominant parties, bureaucrats have more influence; and where
electoral realignment of voters and parties along sociocultural issues has
progressed, political parties become the key actors shaping social investment
as protagonists or antagonists.
Third, to assess the effect of legacies on the different ways in which social
investment becomes politicized (particularly regarding different functions), we
need countries that fundamentally differ in the preexisting balance of compen-
sation versus investment spending. Widening the empirical approach to different
world regions allows us to contrast the productivist welfare legacies of North
East Asia with the truncated and fragmented social insurance regimes of Latin
America, the universalistic Nordic European service-based welfare states, and
the consumption-driven, largely delegitimized social policy legacies of certain
Central and Eastern European countries.
Fourth and finally, studying the politics of social investment politicization and
reform dynamics across world regions calibrates our theoretical expectations on
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back

The World Politics of Social Investment Volume Ii The Politics of Varying Social Investment Strategies International Policy Exchange Julian L Garritzmann All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The World Politics of Social Investment Volume Ii The Politics of Varying Social Investment Strategies International Policy Exchange Julian L Garritzmann All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The World Politics of Social Investment:

Volume II: The Politics of Varying Social

The World Politics of Social Investment

International Policy Exchange Series

THE WORLD POLITICS

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

For our children

PART I. WESTERN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

PART II. CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

PART III. NORTH EAST ASIA

PART IV. LATIN AMERICA

CON TEN TS O F VO LUME I

The World Politics of Social Investment (Volume I):

PART I. THE IDEATIONAL CONTEXT OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT POLITICS

xii Contents of Volume I

PART II. THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCOPE CONDITIONS

PART III. DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT:

Contents of Volume I xiii

PART IV. THE COMPARATIVE POLITICS OF

ACKN OWLEDG MENTS

T he knowledge economy is centered around the increasing productivity of

from the perspective of explanatory factors such as structural dynamics, collective

and commented on several of our chapters, correcting mistakes and improving

Frankfurt, Zurich, Paris

CON TRI BUTOR S

Florencia Antía, PhD in Political Science (Instituto de Estudos Sociais e

Sonja Avlijaš is a Marie Sklodowska-​Curie Fellow at the University of Belgrade’s

Reto Bürgisser is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political

Marius R. Busemeyer is a Professor of Political Science and Speaker of the

Germany. His research focuses on comparative political economy and welfare

Francesco Fioritto is a MSc Student in Development Studies - Applied

Julian L. Garritzmann is Professor of Political Science at the Goethe University

Eriko Hamada is Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Community

Silja Häusermann is Professor of Political Science at the University of Zurich

Ijin Hong is Associate Professor at the School of Government in Sun Yat-​sen

Alexander Horn is head of the Emmy Noether Research Group “Varieties of

the University of Konstanz. Previously, he was Assistant Professor (Comparative

Jane Jenson is a professor emerita in the political science department,

Kees van Kersbergen is Professor of Comparative Politics at the Department

Triin Lauri is Associate Professor of Public Policy in Tallinn University. In 2019–​

in comparative perspective. Currently, she is based in Boeblingen, Germany, and

Jen-​Der Lue is a Professor in Department of Social Welfare, National Chung-​

Pilar Manzi, PhD Candidate in Political Science at Northwestern University. Her

Mari Miura is Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Law, Sophia University.

Nora Nagels is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Université de

Bruno Palier is CNRS Research Director at Sciences Po, Centre d’études

in international Journals and various books. In 2021, he co-​edited with Anke

J. Salvador Peralta is a Professor of Political Science at the University of West

Michał Polakowski is Assistant Professor at Poznan University of Economics

Stefano Ronchi is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Political and

Cecilia Rossel Sociologist and PhD in Government and Public Administration

Her research focuses on citizen-​public administration relationship (state-​third

Jaemin Shim is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Government and

Dorota Szelewa is an Assistant Professor in Social Justice at University College

Patrik Vesan is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Department

Chung-​Yang Yeh is an Associate Professor in Department of Sociology, Soochow

1.1. INTRODUCTION: VARYING SOCIAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

2 Silja Häusermann et al.

Structural Constraints, Institutional Legacies 3

Sonja Avlijaš is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow at the University of Belgrade’s

Ijin Hong is Associate Professor at the School of Government in Sun Yat-sen

Triin Lauri is Associate Professor of Public Policy in Tallinn University. In 2019–

Jen-Der Lue is a Professor in Department of Social Welfare, National Chung-

in international Journals and various books. In 2021, he co-edited with Anke

Her research focuses on citizen-public administration relationship (state-third

Chung-Yang Yeh is an Associate Professor in Department of Sociology, Soochow

variation of politics and policies, the “World Politics of Social Investment”-project

Latin America is distinguished from the other regions by its structural-ec-

particular context—can only take place via a broad cross-regional comparison. It