Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T12:00:42.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exit Bismarck, Enter Dualism? Assessing Contemporary German Labour Market Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2011

JOCHEN CLASEN  and
ALEXANDER GOERNE
JOCHEN CLASEN
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh email: Jochen.clasen@ed.ac.uk
ALEXANDER GOERNE
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh email: alexander.goerne@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Between 2003 and 2005, German labour market policy was subjected to the most far-reaching reform since the 1960s. Some commentators have interpreted the changes introduced as signalling a departure from the traditional ‘Bismarckian’ paradigm in German social policy. For others, the new legislation has contributed and consolidated an ever-more pervasive trend of dualisation within the German welfare state. In this article, we contest both interpretations. First, we demonstrate that traditional social insurance principles remain a dominant element within unemployment protection. Second, we show that German labour market policy is less rather than more segmented today than it was a decade ago.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 795 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Arntz, M., Clauss, M., Kraus, M., Schnabel, R., Spermann, A. and Wiemers, J. (2007), ‘Arbeitsangebotseffekte und Verteilungswirkungen der Hartz-IV-Reform’, IAB-Forschungsbericht, 2007, 10, Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung.Google Scholar
Becker, I. and Hauser, R. (2006), Verteilungseffekte der Hartz-IV-Reform Ergebnisse von Simulationsanalysen, Berlin: Sigma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blien, U., Walwei, U. and Werner, H. (2002), Labour Market Policy in Germany: Job Placement, Unemployment Insurance and Active Labour Market Policy in Germany, Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB).Google Scholar
Bruckmeier, K. and Schnitzlein, D. D. (2009), ‘Der Übergang von Arbeitslosenhilfeempfängern in das SGB II: Eine empirische Analyse anhand von Befragungsdaten’, Sozialer Fortschritt, 58: 1, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2010a), Analytikreport der Statistik: Arbeitslosigkeit nach Rechtskreisen im Vergleich, December 2009, Nürnberg: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Statistik.Google Scholar
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2010b), Ausgewählte arbeitsmarktpolitische Instrumente – für Personen im Rechtskreis SGB II – mit Förderinformationen der zkT, January 2010, Nürnberg: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Statistik.Google Scholar
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2001), Amtliche Nachrichten der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit. Arbeitsmarkt, Nürnberg: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (2005), Reforming European Welfare States: Germany and the United Kingdom Compared, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (eds.) (2011), Regulating the Risk of Unemployment: National Adaptations to Post-Industrial Labour Markets in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, J. and Goerne, A. (2011), ‘Germany: ambivalent activation’, in Lødemel, I. and Moreira, A. (eds.), Workfare Revisited, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clasen, J., Gold, A. and Vincent, J. (1998), Voices from Within and Without: Responses to Long-Term Unemployment in Germany, Sweden and Britain, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Czommer, L., Knuth, M. and Schweer, O. (2005), ‘ARGE “Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt”: Eine Baustelle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Hans Boeckler Stiftung Arbeitspapier (104).Google Scholar
De Luca, C. (2010), ‘Mittelschicht von Hartz IV kaum betroffen’, Financial Times Deutschland, 17 February 2010.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2010), DWP Statistical Summary, First release, 20 January 2010, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2011), ‘Germany: partial integration and dualisation’, in Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (eds.), Regulating the Risk of Unemployment: National Adaptations to Post-Industrial Labour Markets in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doeringer, P. B. and Piore, M. J. (1975), ‘Unemployment and the “Dual Labor Market”’, The Public Interests, 38: 67–79.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. and Eichhorst, W. (2007), ‘Distribution of responsibility for social security and labour market policy: country report, Germany’, Working Papers of the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, 07: 52.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W., Grienberger-Zingerle, M. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2008), ‘Activation policies in Germany: from status protection to basic income support’, in Eichhorst, W., Kaufmann, O. and Konle-Seidl, R. (eds.), Bringing the Jobless into Work? Experiences with Activation Schemes in Europe and the US, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Marx, P. (2011), ‘Reforming German labour market institutions: a dual path to flexibility’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21: 1 (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlinghagen, M. and Knuth, M. (2010), ‘Unemployment as an institutional construct? Structural differences in non-employment between selected European countries and the United States’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. (2008), ‘Restructuring welfare for the unemployed: the Hartz legislation in Germany’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18: 2, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanesch, W. and Balzter, N. (2002), Integrated Approaches to Active Welfare and Employment Policies: Germany, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
Hennock, E.P. (2007), The Origin of the Welfare State in England and Germany, 1850–1914: Social Policies Compared, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. (2010), ‘A social insurance state withers away: welfare state reform in Germany – or: attempts to turn around in a cul-de-sac’, in Palier, B. (ed.), A Long Goodbye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reform in Continental Europe, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerling, A. and Bruttel, O. (2006), ‘“New Politics” in German labour market policy? The implications of the recent Hartz reforms for the German welfare state’, West European Politics, 29: 1, 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konle-Seidl, R. (2009), ‘Erfassung von Arbeitslosigkeit im internationalen Vergleich. Notwendige Anpassung oder unzulässige Tricks?’, IAB-Kurzbericht, 4: 1–7.Google Scholar
Konle-Seidl, R., Eichhorst, W. and Grienberger-Zingerle, M. (2007), ‘Activation policies in Germany: from status protection to basic income support’, IAB-Discussion Paper, 6: 1–76.Google Scholar
Mohr, K. (2008), ‘Creeping convergence – Wandel der Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Großbritannien und Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 2: 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oschmiansky, F., Mauer, A. and Schulze Buschoff, K. (2007), ‘Arbeitsmarktreformen in Deutschland: Zwischen Pfadabhängigkeit und Paradigmenwechsel’, WSI Mitteilungen, 6: 291–8.Google Scholar
Oschmiansky, F. and Ebach, M. (2009), ‘Vom AFG 1969 zur Instrumentenreform 2009: Der Wandel des arbeitsmarktpolitischen Instrumentariums’, in Bothfeld, S., Sesselmeier, W. and Bogedan, C. (eds.), Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft: Vom Arbeitsfőrderungsgesetz Zum Sozialgesetzbuch II und III, Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft, pp. 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palier, B. and Martin, C. (2007), ‘From “a frozen landscape” to structural reforms: the sequential transformation of Bismarckian welfare systems’, Social Policy and Administration, 41: 6, 535–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palier, B. and Thelen, K. (2010), ‘Institutionalizing dualism: complementarities and change in France and Germany’, Politics and Society, 38: 1, 119–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reissert, B. (2004), Unemployment protection in Germany: the system and its changes in the 1990s’, unpublished manuscript, Berlin School of Economics, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schmid, J., Hörrmann, U., Maier, D. and Steffen, C. (2004) Wer macht was in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik? Maßnahmen und Mitteleinsatz in den westdeutschen Bundesländern. Eine integrierte und vergleichende Analyse, Berlin–Hamburg–Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. and Fleckenstein, T. (2007), ‘Discourse, learning and welfare state change: the case of German labour market reforms’, Social Policy and Administration, 41: 5, 427–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, J. (2009), Sozialpolitische Chronik: Die wesentlichen Änderungen in der Arbeitslosen-, Renten-, Kranken- und Pflegeversicherung sowie bei der Sozialhilfe (HLU) und der Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende – von den siebziger Jahren bis heute, Bremen: Arbeitnehmerkamnmer.Google Scholar
Timmins, N. (2001), The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State (2nd edn), London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Voges, W., Jacobs, H. and Trickey, H. (2001), ‘Uneven development: local authorities and workfare in Germany’, in Lødemel, I. and Trickey, H. (eds.), ‘An Offer You Can't Refuse’: Workfare in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, F. (1981), The Dynamics of Labour Market Segmentation, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar