Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00014
D. Béland, Alex Waddan
In rich democracies, especially in Europe, austerity and populism are two major political phenomena that have drawn much scholarly attention since the 2008 financial crisis. Because of the contemporary prominence of these two concepts and their importance for ongoing social policy debates, working on the relationship between austerity and populism is a useful endeavour that could improve our understanding of these debates. To shed light on these concepts, it is necessary to define them before exploring their potential relationship. In this chapter, we do this using an ideational perspective that stresses the role of framing processes in the politics of social policy, with a focus on the politics of blame. Then, we use the example of the U.K. before and during the 2016 Brexit referendum to illustrate our claims.
{"title":"Austerity, populism, and the politics of blame: an ideational perspective","authors":"D. Béland, Alex Waddan","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00014","url":null,"abstract":"In rich democracies, especially in Europe, austerity and populism are two major political phenomena that have drawn much scholarly attention since the 2008 financial crisis. Because of the contemporary prominence of these two concepts and their importance for ongoing social policy debates, working on the relationship between austerity and populism is a useful endeavour that could improve our understanding of these debates. To shed light on these concepts, it is necessary to define them before exploring their potential relationship. In this chapter, we do this using an ideational perspective that stresses the role of framing processes in the politics of social policy, with a focus on the politics of blame. Then, we use the example of the U.K. before and during the 2016 Brexit referendum to illustrate our claims.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126148478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00013
S. Blum, Johanna Kuhlmann
While the historical origins of the Western welfare state can be traced back to the late 19th century and industrialisation, its rise is particularly connected to the 20th century, when the provision of welfare became a genuine function of governmental activity. This chapter starts by discussing definitions and common denominators of the 20th century’s traditional welfare state, and main features in the provision of social rights particularly against ‘old social risks’. Around the turn to the 21st century, however, significant changes of traditional welfare state features have been identified, and new actors have entered the stage. Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on ‘the welfare state’ under the austerity-populism nexus that is put at the centre of this Handbook and highlights different relationships between the two phenomena. Based on extant literature, three contemporary faces of the austerity-populism nexus are highlighted: a welfare-hostile, a welfare-friendly, as well as a welfare-ambiguous face. To conclude, populist parties today have largely disbanded a welfare-hostile austerity face, but neither are they welfare-friendly per se: The dominating welfare-ambiguous face – including welfare-chauvinism and selective expansion – touches upon fundamental pillars of the welfare states’ architecture.
{"title":"Understanding the welfare state in the context of austerity and populism","authors":"S. Blum, Johanna Kuhlmann","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00013","url":null,"abstract":"While the historical origins of the Western welfare state can be traced back to the late 19th century and industrialisation, its rise is particularly connected to the 20th century, when the provision of welfare became a genuine function of governmental activity. This chapter starts by discussing definitions and common denominators of the 20th century’s traditional welfare state, and main features in the provision of social rights particularly against ‘old social risks’. Around the turn to the 21st century, however, significant changes of traditional welfare state features have been identified, and new actors have entered the stage. Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on ‘the welfare state’ under the austerity-populism nexus that is put at the centre of this Handbook and highlights different relationships between the two phenomena. Based on extant literature, three contemporary faces of the austerity-populism nexus are highlighted: a welfare-hostile, a welfare-friendly, as well as a welfare-ambiguous face. To conclude, populist parties today have largely disbanded a welfare-hostile austerity face, but neither are they welfare-friendly per se: The dominating welfare-ambiguous face – including welfare-chauvinism and selective expansion – touches upon fundamental pillars of the welfare states’ architecture.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123225608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00012
M. Kına, E. Yörük
This chapter discusses whether and to what extent there is “dependent variable problem†in the most recent welfare state retrenchment literature. The problem is previously defined as the vagueness, lack of consensus and inconsistencies in the conceptualization and operationalization of welfare retrenchment. Some scholars have argued that welfare state retrenchment should be measured with expenditure levels, while some others suggest the use of right based measures (e.g. replacement rates). However, more recently, there appeared a silent consensus on the use of social rights as the best choice over expenditures. This chapter is based on a systematic literature review of empirical analyzes on welfare retrenchment that have been published after those reviewed by Green-Pedersen (2004). Despite the theoretical consensus, our analysis points out that expenditure is still the most commonly used indicator to represent and analyze welfare retrenchment. It also allows to figure out to what extent the DVP has been resolved.
{"title":"The dependent variable problem revisited: methods, concepts, and scope in the welfare retrenchment literature","authors":"M. Kına, E. Yörük","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00012","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses whether and to what extent there is “dependent variable problem†in the most recent welfare state retrenchment literature. The problem is previously defined as the vagueness, lack of consensus and inconsistencies in the conceptualization and operationalization of welfare retrenchment. Some scholars have argued that welfare state retrenchment should be measured with expenditure levels, while some others suggest the use of right based measures (e.g. replacement rates). However, more recently, there appeared a silent consensus on the use of social rights as the best choice over expenditures. This chapter is based on a systematic literature review of empirical analyzes on welfare retrenchment that have been published after those reviewed by Green-Pedersen (2004). Despite the theoretical consensus, our analysis points out that expenditure is still the most commonly used indicator to represent and analyze welfare retrenchment. It also allows to figure out to what extent the DVP has been resolved.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120962733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00010
C. Kaltwasser, Lisa Zanotti
Populism should be defined as a set of ideas that not only portrays society as divided between ‘the corrupt elite’ and ‘the pure people’ but also defends popular sovereignty at any cost. Conceived in this way, there is no straightforward relationship between populism and the welfare state. In this contribution we explore this relationship in detail. In the first part of our contribution we explain that, at a theoretical level, populism is prone to putting the welfare state under stress. Given that populist forces seek to (re)define who belongs to the political community, they challenge the existing interpretations about who should have social rights and who should pay for them. However, as we will argue in the second part of this contribution, populism practically never arises in its pure form, since it usually appears attached to other ideologies, which are crucial for developing political projects that are attractive to larger sections of the electorate. This is why, then, we focus on analysing two paradigmatic instances of populism in the contemporary world – inclusionary populism and exclusionary populism – in order to show the different approaches towards the welfare state that each of these subtypes of populism tend to support. Finally, we close our contribution by advancing some ideas about the future of the welfare state, which is under threat not only because of austerity and welfare retrenchment, but also due to the rise of populist forces of different kinds that seek to transform existing democratic institutions and procedures
{"title":"Populism and the welfare state","authors":"C. Kaltwasser, Lisa Zanotti","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00010","url":null,"abstract":"Populism should be defined as a set of ideas that not only portrays society as divided between ‘the corrupt elite’ and ‘the pure people’ but also defends popular sovereignty at any cost. Conceived in this way, there is no straightforward relationship between populism and the welfare state. In this contribution we explore this relationship in detail. In the first part of our contribution we explain that, at a theoretical level, populism is prone to putting the welfare state under stress. Given that populist forces seek to (re)define who belongs to the political community, they challenge the existing interpretations about who should have social rights and who should pay for them. However, as we will argue in the second part of this contribution, populism practically never arises in its pure form, since it usually appears attached to other ideologies, which are crucial for developing political projects that are attractive to larger sections of the electorate. This is why, then, we focus on analysing two paradigmatic instances of populism in the contemporary world – inclusionary populism and exclusionary populism – in order to show the different approaches towards the welfare state that each of these subtypes of populism tend to support. Finally, we close our contribution by advancing some ideas about the future of the welfare state, which is under threat not only because of austerity and welfare retrenchment, but also due to the rise of populist forces of different kinds that seek to transform existing democratic institutions and procedures","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127865080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00008
K. Farnsworth, Zoë Irving
There is nothing new about austerity, an idea and set of policies that have come to define government approaches to public and social policies over the past decade. Austerity is first a descriptor for an ‘essential’ but temporary adjustment in welfare spending, and second, more importantly, a political project aimed at transforming the welfare state and realizing ambitions with much longer roots. Twenty-first century austerity – or neo-austerity - represents the latest iteration of the ongoing struggle between politics and markets. Austerity is also a slippery idea, reflecting and shaping approaches to the economy, public finance and public services so that welfare states no longer appear tenable. Austerity is also about power and how it is wielded by powerful individuals, national and international institutions and governments. Thus, while it is often portrayed as simply describing spending cuts, it is far more complex and impactful in reality. Much of the debate about austerity therefore reflects disagreement about what it is, how the concept (or conceptions) of austerity can be defined and how it can then be identified, measured, compared and evaluated. This chapter explores these issues and presents the argument that austerity has delegitimised the welfare state and undermined its positive economic effects and will leave societal scars that will last even if public spending commitments are restored.
{"title":"What is austerity?","authors":"K. Farnsworth, Zoë Irving","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00008","url":null,"abstract":"There is nothing new about austerity, an idea and set of policies that have come to define government approaches to public and social policies over the past decade. Austerity is first a descriptor for an ‘essential’ but temporary adjustment in welfare spending, and second, more importantly, a political project aimed at transforming the welfare state and realizing ambitions with much longer roots. Twenty-first century austerity – or neo-austerity - represents the latest iteration of the ongoing struggle between politics and markets. Austerity is also a slippery idea, reflecting and shaping approaches to the economy, public finance and public services so that welfare states no longer appear tenable. Austerity is also about power and how it is wielded by powerful individuals, national and international institutions and governments. Thus, while it is often portrayed as simply describing spending cuts, it is far more complex and impactful in reality. Much of the debate about austerity therefore reflects disagreement about what it is, how the concept (or conceptions) of austerity can be defined and how it can then be identified, measured, compared and evaluated. This chapter explores these issues and presents the argument that austerity has delegitimised the welfare state and undermined its positive economic effects and will leave societal scars that will last even if public spending commitments are restored.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125208952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00018
B. Greve, J. Kvist
Known for their encompassing welfare model and low levels of inequality the Nordic countries also faced great economic and demographic challenges in the 2000s and 2010s. To varying degrees the financial crisis hit the Nordic countries just as migration was massive, especially in 2015-16 in Sweden. How did the countries respond in terms of reforming their welfare policies? Can the Nordic countries still be said to have distinct universal and generous welfare policies financed by progressive taxes resulting in low levels of inequality? This chapter provides answers to these two main questions through an analysis of policy changes and of inequality. First, the chapter provide core information about the development. Secondly, the chapter describes policy changes for unemployment benefits and social assistance and in personal income taxation, i.e. tax and benefits that are susceptible to change public expenditure and that might increase inequality, and link these changes to debates on austerity and migration. The next section of the chapter compares the trends across the Nordic countries. Hence, the comparative study identifies if changes are mainly driven by austerity or migration and what the similarities and differences are across the policy areas (unemployment, minimum income, and taxation). The chapter also looks into what has been labelled the “necessary politics†and that labour supply reforms were argued to be effective by that “it should pay to work†. The analysis includes the four Nordic countries as far as possible: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden .
{"title":"Nordic welfare state changes especially in the light of migration and the financial crisis","authors":"B. Greve, J. Kvist","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00018","url":null,"abstract":"Known for their encompassing welfare model and low levels of inequality the Nordic countries also faced great economic and demographic challenges in the 2000s and 2010s. To varying degrees the financial crisis hit the Nordic countries just as migration was massive, especially in 2015-16 in Sweden. How did the countries respond in terms of reforming their welfare policies? Can the Nordic countries still be said to have distinct universal and generous welfare policies financed by progressive taxes resulting in low levels of inequality? This chapter provides answers to these two main questions through an analysis of policy changes and of inequality. First, the chapter provide core information about the development. Secondly, the chapter describes policy changes for unemployment benefits and social assistance and in personal income taxation, i.e. tax and benefits that are susceptible to change public expenditure and that might increase inequality, and link these changes to debates on austerity and migration. The next section of the chapter compares the trends across the Nordic countries. Hence, the comparative study identifies if changes are mainly driven by austerity or migration and what the similarities and differences are across the policy areas (unemployment, minimum income, and taxation). The chapter also looks into what has been labelled the “necessary politics†and that labour supply reforms were argued to be effective by that “it should pay to work†. The analysis includes the four Nordic countries as far as possible: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden .","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121669248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00006
B. Greve
This chapter sets the scene for the book, including the reasons for the choice of concepts and how and why the link between these are important elements in order to understand societal development in welfare states. It also argues that the presentation and discussion of the development in a variety of different welfare states regimes can be important in order to understand the impact of ideas, ideologies and variations in policies and decisions in a range of countries. Furthermore, that the analysis of countries and groups of countries gives one kind of information, but analysis across a number of different sub-sections of the welfare states aims at making it possible to understand in a broader way why there might have been austerity/retrenchment in certain parts of the welfare states, but not necessarily in others. This also includes why populism can have had an impact in certain social policy areas, although not in all of them, as some welfare areas also have, from time to time, strong support from populist parties. Lastly, there is a short overview of the individual chapters.
{"title":"Introduction to the Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","authors":"B. Greve","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter sets the scene for the book, including the reasons for the choice of concepts and how and why the link between these are important elements in order to understand societal development in welfare states. It also argues that the presentation and discussion of the development in a variety of different welfare states regimes can be important in order to understand the impact of ideas, ideologies and variations in policies and decisions in a range of countries. Furthermore, that the analysis of countries and groups of countries gives one kind of information, but analysis across a number of different sub-sections of the welfare states aims at making it possible to understand in a broader way why there might have been austerity/retrenchment in certain parts of the welfare states, but not necessarily in others. This also includes why populism can have had an impact in certain social policy areas, although not in all of them, as some welfare areas also have, from time to time, strong support from populist parties. Lastly, there is a short overview of the individual chapters.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"1978 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130258311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00019
Jan-Ocko Heuer
This chapter discusses the relationships between austerity, welfare retrenchment and political populism in countries that are commonly referred to as the ‘Continental European’ welfare regime type (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands). After outlining main characteristics of these welfare state regimes, their reform trajectories from the late 1970s until the Great Recession and in the recent past are sketched. The following main section examines relationships between welfare state change and political populism in these countries in more detail, focusing first on general characteristics of populist parties (which are primarily from the radical right) and tracing their history in individual countries, then discussing contextual conditions for their success and the (changing) composition of their voters, and finally analysing their welfare programmes and strategies as well as their policies in government (with Austria and the Netherlands serving as case studies). The chapter concludes by arguing that core characteristics of the Continental European welfare regime type may have contributed to the rise of the radical right in these countries.
{"title":"Fiscal austerity, welfare retrenchment and political populism in Continental European welfare states","authors":"Jan-Ocko Heuer","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00019","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the relationships between austerity, welfare retrenchment and political populism in countries that are commonly referred to as the ‘Continental European’ welfare regime type (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands). After outlining main characteristics of these welfare state regimes, their reform trajectories from the late 1970s until the Great Recession and in the recent past are sketched. The following main section examines relationships between welfare state change and political populism in these countries in more detail, focusing first on general characteristics of populist parties (which are primarily from the radical right) and tracing their history in individual countries, then discussing contextual conditions for their success and the (changing) composition of their voters, and finally analysing their welfare programmes and strategies as well as their policies in government (with Austria and the Netherlands serving as case studies). The chapter concludes by arguing that core characteristics of the Continental European welfare regime type may have contributed to the rise of the radical right in these countries.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125373599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00033
Sidita Kushi, Ian P. McManus
The Great Recession prompted nearly all advanced welfare states to implement austerity policies as debt and deficit levels rose, a policy choice marked by extreme gender discrepancies in its outcomes. Using the 2007 global financial crisis as a case study, we argue that while male workers were most hard-hit at the start of the economic crisis, the turn toward fiscal austerity disproportionately harmed women in labor markets in the long-run. We show that as the financial crisis hit advanced welfare states, governments initially adopted stimulus measures to bolster the hardest-hit manufacturing and construction industries and protect the labor force in these sectors which was dominated by regular, full-time male workers. As the crisis progressed to more female-dominated sectors, such as services, trade, and public employment, most countries had begun to implement harsh austerity measures. While fiscal austerity was touted by proponents as a sensible response to growing debt and deficit concerns, the negative consequences of these measures were more pronounced for women. Although the gendered effects vary across welfare regime types, on average, austerity left female workers less protected from the economic crisis, as social safety nets became a major target of budgetary cuts. In sum, austerity measures and welfare state retrenchment threaten to reverse the gender equality progress made in the years building up to the crisis. We conclude with recommendations for alternative, gender-sensitive policies in response to future crises as well a discussion on the role of gender bias across welfare regimes in the context of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.
{"title":"Gender, austerity and the welfare state","authors":"Sidita Kushi, Ian P. McManus","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00033","url":null,"abstract":"The Great Recession prompted nearly all advanced welfare states to implement austerity policies as debt and deficit levels rose, a policy choice marked by extreme gender discrepancies in its outcomes. Using the 2007 global financial crisis as a case study, we argue that while male workers were most hard-hit at the start of the economic crisis, the turn toward fiscal austerity disproportionately harmed women in labor markets in the long-run. We show that as the financial crisis hit advanced welfare states, governments initially adopted stimulus measures to bolster the hardest-hit manufacturing and construction industries and protect the labor force in these sectors which was dominated by regular, full-time male workers. As the crisis progressed to more female-dominated sectors, such as services, trade, and public employment, most countries had begun to implement harsh austerity measures. While fiscal austerity was touted by proponents as a sensible response to growing debt and deficit concerns, the negative consequences of these measures were more pronounced for women. Although the gendered effects vary across welfare regime types, on average, austerity left female workers less protected from the economic crisis, as social safety nets became a major target of budgetary cuts. In sum, austerity measures and welfare state retrenchment threaten to reverse the gender equality progress made in the years building up to the crisis. We conclude with recommendations for alternative, gender-sensitive policies in response to future crises as well a discussion on the role of gender bias across welfare regimes in the context of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115816235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4337/9781789906745.00017
{"title":"COUNTRY AND WELFARE REGIMES - ANALYSIS OF AUSTERITY/POPULISM","authors":"","doi":"10.4337/9781789906745.00017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906745.00017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":178534,"journal":{"name":"Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123779935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：