Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:32:54.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building the Eco-social State: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2014

MAX KOCH  and
MARTIN FRITZ
MAX KOCH
Affiliation:
Lund University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Socialhögskolan, Box 23, 22100, Lund, Sweden email: [email protected]
MARTIN FRITZ
Affiliation:
GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Data Archive for the Social Sciences, European Data Laboratory for Comparative Social Research (EUROLAB), Unter Sachsenhausen 6–8, 50667 Cologne, Germany email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Authors such as Dryzek, Gough and Meadowcroft have indicated that social-democratic welfare states could be in a better position to deal with development of the ‘green’ or ‘eco’ state, and the intersection of social and environmental policies, than conservative or liberal welfare regimes (synergy hypothesis). However, this hypothesis has as yet not been examined in comparative empirical research. Based on comparative empirical data from EUROSTAT, the World Bank, the OECD, the Global Footprint Network and the International Social Survey Programme, we are carrying out two research operations: First, by applying correspondence analysis, we contrast the macro-structural welfare and sustainability indicators of thirty countries and ask whether clusters largely follow the synergy hypothesis. Second, we raise the issue of whether differences in the institutional and organisational capabilities of combining welfare with environmental policies are reflected in people's attitudes and opinions. With regard to the first issue, our results suggest that there is no ‘automatic’ development of the ecostate based on already existing advanced welfare institutions. Representatives of all welfare regimes are spread across established, deadlocked, failing, emerging and endangered ecostates. As for the second issue, the results are mixed. While responses to the statements ‘economic growth always harms the environment’ and ‘governments should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people's rights to make their own decisions’ did not vary according to welfare regimes, people from social-democratic countries expressed more often than average their willingness to accept cuts in their standard of living in order to protect the environment.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 679 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002), ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12: 2, 137–58.Google Scholar
Blasius, J. and Graeff, P. (2009), ‘Economic freedom, wealth and corruption: analyzing their empirical connection by means of correspondence analysis’, in Graeff, P. and Mehlkop, G. (eds.), Capitalism, Democracy and the Prevention of War and Poverty, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blasius, J. and Greenacre, M. (2006), ‘Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods in practice’, in Greenacre, M. and Blasius, J. (eds.), Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M. and Galli, A. (2013), ‘Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework’, Ecological Indicators, 24: 518–33.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critque of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Büchs, M., Bardsley, N. and Duwe, S. (2012), ‘Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies’, Critical Social Policy, 31: 2, 285–307.Google Scholar
Christoff, P. and Eckersley, R. (2011), ‘Comparing state responses’, in Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, H. and Farley, J. (2009), Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J., Downes, D., Hunhold, C., Schlosberg, D. and Hernes, H. (2003), Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2008), ‘The ecological crisis of the welfare state’, in Gough, I., Meadowcroft, J., Dryzek, J., Gerhards, J., Lengfield, H., Markandya, A. and Ortiz, R. (eds.), JESP symposium: climate change and social policy', Journal of European Social Policy, 18: 325.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
EUROSTAT (2013), Online statistical databases at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (accessed between 8 and 12 of April 2013).Google Scholar
Evans, A. (2014), ‘International Social Survey Programme: Environment III – ISSP 2010 (Australia)’, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA5512 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferragina, E. and Seelaib-Kaiser, M. (2011) ‘Thematic review: welfare regime debate − past, present, futures?’, Policy and Politics, 39: 4, 583–611.Google Scholar
Ferrara, M. (1996) ‘The “Southern” model of welfare in social Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6: 1, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2011), Understanding the Environment and Social Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H. (2014), ‘International Social Survey Programme: Environment III – ISSP 2010 (Netherlands)’, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA5513 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11792.Google Scholar
Global Footprint Network (2014), ‘Country trend figures’, www.footprintnetwork.org (accessed between 16 and 17 January 2014).Google Scholar
Goodman, R. and Peng, I. (1996) ‘The East Asian welfare states: peripatetic learning, adaptive changes, and nation building’, in Esping-Andersen, G. (ed.), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Görg, C. (2003), Regulation der Naturverhältnisse: Zu einer kritischen Theorie der ökologischen Krise, Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
Gough, I. (2010), ‘Economic crisis, climate change and the future of welfare states’, 21st Century Society, 5: 1, 51–64.Google Scholar
Gough, I. (2013), ‘Carbon mitigation policies, distributional dilemmas and social policies’, Journal of Social Policy, 42: 2, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, I., Meadowcroft, J., Dryzek, J., Gerhards, J., Lengfield, H., Markandya, A. and Ortiz, R. (2008), ‘JESP symposium: climate change and social policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18: 4, 325–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, I. and Meadowcroft, J. (2011), ‘Decarbonising the welfare state’, in Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. (2007), Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 2nd edn, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Holliday and Wilding (eds) (2003), Welfare Capitalism in East Asia: Social Policy in the Tiger Economics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
ISSP Research Group (2012), ‘International Social Survey Programme: Environment III – ISSP 2010’, GESIS Dataarchive, Cologne. ZA5500 Datafile Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, T. (2009), Prosperity Without Growth? Economics for a Future Planet, London: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, M. (2012), ‘Green growth: economic theory and political discourse’, Working Paper No. 108, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (1993), ‘The Pacific challenge: Confucian welfare states’, in Jones, C. (ed.), New Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koch, M. (2012), Capitalism and Climate Change: Theoretical Analysis, Historical Development and Policy Responses, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koch, M. (2013), ‘Welfare after growth: theoretical discussion and policy implications’, International Journal of Social Quality, 3: 1, 4–20.Google Scholar
Koch, M. (2014), ‘Climate change, carbon trading and societal self-defence’, Real-World Economics Review, No. 67: 52–66.Google Scholar
Liefferink, D., Arts, B., Kamstra, J. and Ooijevaar, J. (2009), ‘Leaders and laggards in environmental policy: a quantitative analysis of domestic policy inputs’, Journal of European Public Policies, 16: 5, 677–700.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2005), ‘From welfare state to ecostate’, in Barry, J. and Eckersley, R. (eds.), The State and the Global Ecologicl Crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2008), ‘From welfare state to environmental state?’, in Gough, I., Meadowcroft, J., Dryzek, J., Gerhards, J., Lengfield, H., Markandya, A. and Ortiz, R. (eds.), JESP symposium: climate change and social policy', Journal of European Social Policy, 18: 331.Google Scholar
OECD (2014), OECD.StatExtracts and indicators on green growth, http://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed between 13 and 15 January 2014).Google Scholar
Pye, S., Skinner, I., Meyer-Ohlendorf, N., Leipprand, A., Lucas, K. and Salmons, R. (2008), Addressing the Social Dimensions of Environmental Policy, Unit E1 – Social and Demographic Analysis, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. E. (1999), ‘Institutions and environmental performance in seventeen Western democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 29: 1, 1–31.Google Scholar
Sung, S. and Pascall, G. (2014) ‘Introduction: gender and welfare states in East Asia’, in Sung, S. and Pascall, G. (eds.), Gender and Welfare States in East Asia: Confucianism or Gender Equality? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vala, J. and Ramos, A. (2014), ‘International Social Survey Programme: Environment III – ISSP 2010 (Portugal)’, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA5516 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11793.Google Scholar
Victor, P. A. (2008), Managing without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Walker, G. (2012), Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010), The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
WWF (2012), Living Planet Report 2012, Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.Google Scholar
The World Bank (2014), ‘World development indicators’, available online at http://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 13 January 2014).Google Scholar