Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:46:58.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What about family in European old-age security systems? The complexity of institutional individualisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

PATRICIA FRERICKS  and
JULIA HÖPPNER
PATRICIA FRERICKS*
Affiliation:
Centre for Globalisation and Governance, Hamburg University, Germany. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland.
JULIA HÖPPNER
Affiliation:
Centre for Globalisation and Governance, Hamburg University, Germany.
*
Address for correspondence: Patricia Frericks, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Snellmaninkatu 10, FI - 00014 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: patricia.frericks@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

European welfare states used to be based on the principle of the family. Since the 1990s, however, ‘individual responsibility’ has been promoted, which fundamentally alters the traditional welfare-institutional framing of the family and the corresponding construction of the social citizen. One policy field that has been heavily influenced by this development is old-age security. The literature assumes a convergence towards institutional individualisation. We show this however to be incorrect. We empirically analyse and classify welfare-institutional change in old-age security with regard to individualisation. An innovative methodological approach for institutional analysis allows a nuanced identification of the welfare-institutional trends towards individualisation of the social citizen above pension age both within and between welfare states. We conclude that there has been no general and no partial convergence towards individualisation. Instead, on average, family elements in old-age security have either increased or persisted. Also, our analysis suggests that welfare-institutional change with regard to family is far from being a linear process and in part even displays contradictions.

Keywords

old-age pensionspoverty preventionwelfare state changeindividualisationsocial rightsEurope
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 594 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Anderson, K. and Meyer, T. 2006. New social risks and pension reform in Germany and Sweden – the politics of pension rights for childcare. In Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (eds), The Politics of Post-industrial Welfare States – Adapting Post-war Social Policies to New Social Risks. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 171–91.Google Scholar
Bálint, M., Szabó, Z. and Horn, D. 2011. Hungary. In Bahle, T., Hubl, V. and Pfeifer, M. (eds), The Last Safety Net – A Handbook of Minimum Income Protection in Europe. The Policy Press, Bristol, UK, 94–9.Google Scholar
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Blair, C. 2014. Securing Pension Provision: The Challenge of Reforming the Age of Entitlement. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozio, A., Crawford, R. and Tetlow, G. 2010. The history of state pensions in the UK: 1948 to 2010. IFS Briefing Note BN105, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
Daly, M. 2011. What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics, 18, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Gough, I., Whiteford, P. 1996. Social assistance in OECD countries, volume II: country reports. Research Report 47, Department of Social Security, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Erbenova, M., Sorm, V. and Terrell, K. 1998. Work incentive and other effects of social assistance and unemployment benefit policy in the Czech Republic. Empirical Economics, 23, 1–2, 87–120.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ferragina, E. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. 2011. Thematic review: Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures? Policy & Politics, 39, 4, 583–611.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 1997. After the family wage. A postindustrial thought experiment. In Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. Routledge, New York, 41–66.Google Scholar
Frericks, P. 2010. Capitalist welfare societies’ trade-off between economic efficiency and social solidarity. European Societies, 13, 5, 719–41.Google Scholar
Frericks, P. 2011. Marketising social protection in Europe: two distinct paths and their impact on social inequalities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31, 5/6, 319–34.Google Scholar
Frericks, P. 2013. Strengthening market principles in welfare institutions: how hybrid pension systems impact on social-risk spreading. Journal of Social Policy, 42, 4, 665–83.Google Scholar
Frericks, P., Jensen, P. H. and Pfau-Effinger, B. 2014. Social rights and employment rights related to family care: family care regimes in Europe. Journal of Aging Studies, 29, 1, 66–77.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. and Van Voorhis, R. 2003. Changing Patterns of Social Protection. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Goedemé, T. 2012. Less is more? 20 years of changing minimum income protection for old Europe's elderly. CSB Working Paper 12/07. University of Antwerp, Antwerp.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, L. F., Jiménez-Martín, S., Vegas Sánchez, R. and Vilaplana, C. 2010. The long term care system for the elderly in Spain. ENEPRI Research Report 88. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, Brussels.Google Scholar
Heichel, S., Pape, J. and Sommerer, T. 2005. Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 5, 817–40.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. 2006. Pension reforms in Europe: convergence of old-age security systems? In Mydske, P. K. and Peters, I. (eds), The Transformation of the European Nation State. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, 71–92.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. and Knill, C. 2005. Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 5, 775–96.Google Scholar
Hyde, M., Dixon, J. and Drover, G. 2003. Welfare retrenchment or collective responsibility? The privatisation of public pensions in Europe. Social Policy and Society, 2, 3, 189–97.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. 1997. Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 4, 3, 328–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohli, M. 2007. The institutionalization of the life course: looking back to look ahead. Research in Human Development, 4, 3–4, 253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köppe, S. 2007. Mainstreamkonvergenz und Geschlechterdifferenz – Die deutsche und schwedische Rentenreform im Vergleich [Mainstream convergence and gender discrepancy – the German and the Swedish pension reform in comparison]. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 53, 2, 165–90.Google Scholar
Le Bihan, B. and Martin, C. 2011. Reforming long-term care policy in France: private–public complementarities. In Costa-Font, J. (ed.), Reforming Long-term Care in Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, 35–52.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. 1981. The Right to Welfare and Other Essays. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Monticone, C., Ruzik, A. and Skiba, J. 2008. Women's pension rights and survivors’ benefits – a comparative analysis of EU member states and candidate countries. ENEPRI Research Report 53. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, Brussels.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. 2004. Historical paths of the male breadwinner family model – explanation for cross-national differences. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 3, 177–99.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. 2005. Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34, 1, 3–20.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. and Saxonberg, S. 2015. Multi-optionale Familienpolitiken in europäischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten [Multi-operational family policy in European welfare states]. In Nadai, E. and Nollert, M. (eds), Geschlechterverhältnisse im Post-Wohlfahrtsstaat (Gender relations in the post welfare state). Beltz Juventa, Weinheim, Germany, 94–109.Google Scholar
Schnell, R., Hill, P. and Esser, E. 2005. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung [Methods of Empirical Social Research] . Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Schroeder, W., Futh, S. K. and Jantz, B. 2015. Change Through Convergence? Reform Measures of European Welfare States in Comparison. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. 1999. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 1, 369–404.Google Scholar
Walker, R. 2005. Social Security and Welfare. Concepts and Comparisons. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1973. Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [Objectivity in social science and social policy]. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen, Germany, 146–214.Google Scholar