Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:54:18.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare user roles in a conservative welfare state. Are Germans citizens, consumers or co-producers?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Stephan Köppe Open the ORCID record for Stephan Köppe [Opens in a new window] ,
Benjamin Ewert  and
Florian Blank
Stephan Köppe*
Affiliation:
School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, D04 E8N8, Ireland School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, UCD Geary Institute of Public Policy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, D04 E8N8, Ireland
Benjamin Ewert
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127Bonn, Germany Heidelberg School of Education, Heidelberg University of Education, Voßstraße 2, 69115Heidelberg, Germany
Florian Blank
Affiliation:
Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Straße 39, 40476Düsseldorf, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many welfare states have embraced choice and market mechanisms since the 1990s. With respect to welfare users, it has been argued that this led to a change from citizens to consumers. This paper challenges this observation and discusses changes of welfare user roles in the German welfare state. The main argument rests on the assumption that user roles are much more complex and include claimants and co-producers in addition to citizens and consumers. Based on this heuristic model of multiple user roles, empirical evidence for user roles in pension insurance, health care and schools is presented. Indeed, we observe a shift towards consumers in many fields of welfare provision, but German users are still largely addressed as claimants and citizens. Moreover, they are acting as active co-producers, entitled claimants, subversive consumers and needy patients.

Keywords

citizen–consumerchoiceuser rolesGermanyco-productionwelfare markets
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Advisory Council. (2003). Health care finance, user orientation and quality. Report summary. Bonn: SVR Gesundheit.Google Scholar
Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandelow, N., Eckert, F., & Rüsenberg, R. (2012). Wie möchten die Wähler verarztet werden? Gesundheitspolitische Entscheidungsprozesse im Urteil der Bevölkerung. In Böcken, J., Braun, B., & Repschläger, U. (Eds.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2012. Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen (pp. 14–27). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Barnes, M., & Prior, D. (2009). Subversive citizens. Power, agency and resistance in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Berner, F. (2008). Steuerungsprobleme im regulierenden Wohlfahrtsstaat. Die Vermarktlichung und Individualisierung der betrieblichen Altersversorgung. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 54(4), 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berner, F. (2009). Der hybride Sozialstaat. Die Neuordnung von öffentlich und privat in der sozialen Sicherung. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
Blank, F. (2009). When “choice” and “choice” are not the same: Institutional frameworks of choice in the German welfare system. Social Policy & Administration, 43(6), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, F. (2011). Die Riester-Rente – Überblick zum Stand der Forschung und sozialpolitische Bewertung nach zehn Jahren. Sozialer Fortschritt, 60(6), 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, F., & Wiecek, S. (2012). Die betriebliche Altersversorgung in Deutschland: Verbreitung, Durchführungswege und Finanzierung, Auswertung von Daten der WSI-Betriebsrätebefragung 2010, WSI-Diskussionspapier Nr. 181. Düsseldorf: WSI.Google Scholar
Blomqvist, P. (2004). The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., Klenk, T., Kluth, W., Nullmeier, F., & Welti, F. (2009). Die Modernisierung der Sozialversicherungswahlen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Braun, B., & Marstedt, G. (2010). Gesundheitspolitik auf dem Prüfstand. In Böcken, J., Braun, B., & Landmann, J. (Eds.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2010. Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen (pp. 119–352). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Apothekerverbände. (2011). Die Apotheke: Zahlen, Daten, Fakten, Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.abda.de/fileadmin/assets/ZDF/ZDF_2011/ABDA_ZDF_2011_Brosch.pdfGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., & Westmarland, L. (2007). Creating citizen-consumers. Changing publics and changing public services. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clegg, D., & Clasen, J. (2007). Levels and levers of conditionality: Measuring change within welfare states. In Clasen, J. & Siegel, N. A. (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change. The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis (pp. 166–197). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Destatis. (2012). Niedriglohn und Beschäftigung 2010. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
Destatis. (2014). Bildung und Kultur, Fachserie 11, Reihe 1.1, Private Schulen, Schuljahr 2013/14. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
Ditton, H., & Krüsken, J. (2009). Bildungslaufbahnen im differenzierten Schulsystem – Entwicklungsverläufe von Laufbahnempfehlungen und Bildungsaspirationen in der Grundschulzeit. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12(Sonderheft), 74–102.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. (2011). The varieties of pension governance. Pension privatization in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewert, B. (2009). Economization and marketization in the German healthcare system: How do users respond? German Policy Studies, 5(1), 21–44.Google Scholar
Ewert, B. (2011). When choice becomes a duty and voice is limited. Healthcare consumerism in Germany. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 5(1), 52–74.Google Scholar
Ewert, B. (2013). Vom Patienten zum Konsumenten? Nutzerbeteiligung und Nutzeridentitäten im Gesundheitswesen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewert, B. (2015). Change agents and service providers? User organizations in the German health care system. European Policy Analysis, 1(1), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenger, M. (2009). Challenging solidarity? An analysis of exit options in social policies. Social Policy & Administration, 43(6), 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingrich, J. R. (2011). Making markets in the welfare state. The politics of varying market reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greß, S., Höppner, K., Marstedt, G., Rothgang, H., Tamm, M., & Wasem, J. (2008). Kassenwechsel als Mechanismus zur Durchsetzung von Versicherteninteressen. In Braun, B., Greß, S., Rothgang, H., & Wasem, J. (Eds.), Einfluss nehmen oder aussteigen. Theorie und Praxis von Kassenwechsel und Selbstverwaltung in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (pp. 19–89). Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
Greve, B. (2009). Editorial introduction: Special issue: choice – challenges and perspectives for the European welfare states. Social Policy & Administration, 43(6), 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidenheimer, A. J. (1981). Education and social security entitlements in Europe and America. In Flora, P. & Heidenheimer, A. J. (Eds.), The development of welfare states in Europe and America (pp. 269–304). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
Herbst, J. (2006). School choice and school governance. A historical study of the United States and Germany. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, J. (2002). Following or leading public opinion? Social security policy and public attitudes since 1997. Fiscal Studies, 23(4), 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, K. (2007). Enlarging freedom of choice: Pension reforms in the Nordic countries and Germany. In Hvinden, B. & Johansson, H. (Eds.), Citizenship in Nordic welfare states: Dynamics of choice, duties and participation in a changing Europe (pp. 200–215). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K., & Kangas, O. (2003). When is a change big enough to be a system shift? Small system-shifting changes in German and Finnish pension policies. Social Policy & Administration, 37(6), 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huke, R. (2011). Tarifliche Vereinbarungen zur betrieblichen Altersversorgung – Stand und Perspektiven. Betriebliche Altersversorgung, 66(1), 21–41.Google Scholar
Köppe, S. (2012). Wahlfreiheit und Nutzerrollen im deutschen Bildungssystem. WSI-Mitteilungen, 65(3), 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, P. (2011, April 22). Patients are not consumers. New York Times, p. A23.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, E. (2011). Citizenship and healthcare in Germany. Patchy activation and constrained choices. In Newman, J. & Hendrika Tonkens, E. (Eds.), Participation, responsibility and choice: Summoning the active citizen in Western European welfare states (pp. 29–44). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künzel, S. (2012). The local dimension of active inclusion policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(1), 3–16. doi:10.1177/0958928711425270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2006, June 22). NRW Schulgesetz verabschiedet: Ministerpräsident Jürgen Rüttgers und Ministerin Barbara Sommer bewerten das Gesetz als zukunftsweisend. Pressemitteilung vom. Düsseldorf: NRW.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1991). Quasi-markets and social policy. Economic Journal, 101(408), 1256–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1997). Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 26(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Education Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maaz, K., Baumert, J., Gresch, C., & McElvany, N. (2010). Der Übergang von der Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule. Leistungsgerechtigkeit und regionale, soziale und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1963). Citizenship and social class. In Marshall, Thomas H. (Ed.), Sociology at the crossroads and other essays (pp. 67–127). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Matusiewicz, D., Kochanczyk, M., Wasem, J., & Lux, G. (2012). Kassenpatriotismus? Eine empirische Analyse zum Wechselverhalten in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung. In Böcken, J., Braun, B., & Repschläger, U. (Eds.), Gesundheitsmonitor 2012. Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen (pp. 79–98). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (2011). Towards a social investment welfare state? Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J., & Kuhlmann, E. (2007). Consumers enter the political stage? The modernization of health care in Britain and Germany. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noreisch, K. (2007a). Choice as rule, exception and coincidence: Parents’ understandings of catchment areas in Berlin. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1307–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noreisch, K. (2007b). School catchment area evasion: The case of Berlin, Germany. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: Author.Google Scholar
OECD. (2013). Social expenditure database (SOCX 1980–2009). Paris: Author.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2011). New public governance, the third sector, and co-production. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Guth, C. (2012). Redefining German health care: Moving to a value-based system. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Riedel, A., Schneider, K., Schuchart, C., & Weishaupt, H. (2010). School choice in German primary schools: How binding are school districts? Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(1), 94–120.Google Scholar
Schmähl, W. (2007). Dismantling an earnings-related social pension scheme: Germany's new pension policy. Journal of Social Policy, 36(2), 319–40. doi:10.1017/S0047279406000626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Bildungspolitik – Perspektiven der Politikwissenschaft. In Barz, H. (Ed.), Handbuch Bildungsfinanzierung (pp. 167–175). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clardendon.Google Scholar
Shaw, I., & Aldridge, A. (2003). Consumerism, health and social order. Social Policy & Society, 2(1), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, R., Birchall, J., & Prout, A. (2012). User involvement in public services: “Choice about voice”. Public Policy and Administration, 27(1), 3–29. doi:10.1177/0952076710384903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, R., Powell, M., & Greener, I. (2009). The consumer in public services. Choice, values and difference. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, B., & Carroll, B. (2008). Re-viewing “role” in processes of identity construction. Organization, 15(1), 29–50. doi:10.1177/1350508407084484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegler, T. (2008). Home education in Deutschland. Hintergründe – Praxis – Entwicklung. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
TNS Infratest Sozialforschung. (2012). Verbreitung der Altersvorsorge 2011. Endbericht. München: TNS Infratest.Google Scholar
Vidler, E., & Clarke, J. (2005). Creating citizen-consumers: New labour and the remaking of public services. Public Policy and Administration, 20(2), 19–37. doi:10.1177/095207670502000202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, P. (2008). Freie Wahl für freie Eltern? Sollen die Schulbezirke aufgehoben werden? Grundschule, 40(2), 53.Google Scholar
Whitty, G., & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(2), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zok, K. (2009). Interesse an privaten Zusatzversicherungen. Ergebnisse aus einer Repräsentativ-Umfrage unter 3.000 GKV-Versicherten. WIdO-Monitor, 6(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
Zok, K. (2013). Private Zusatzleistungen in der Arztpraxis. Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativ-Umfrage. WIdO-Monitor, 10(1), 1–8.Google Scholar