Search results

Immigration represents one of the most contentious and complicated issues for social democracy in many national contexts. In Scandinavia, the social democratic parties have been particularly tormented, being split internally on central concerns related to immigration policy. Social democratic parties in Scandinavia have had a basically ambiguous relationship to the issue from the initiation of the era of ‘new immigration’. This chapter argues that this can be explained by the specifically strong attachment and ‘ownership’ of these parties to the Scandinavian welfare model, with its particular claims on a strong tax base and an orderly labour market. ‘Social democracy’ is dealt with mainly as an institutional and political entity, close to what goes as ‘The Nordic Model’ in the international literature. The chapter describes and analyses similarities and differences between the three Scandinavian countries, through a historical exposé of the period after the early 1970s; on the one hand, the institutional and normative prerequisites for social democracies in handling migration, and on the other hand, the way in which recent flows of migrants have influenced the very same social democracies. Theoretically, the chapter is drawing on conceptual tools from political economy, citizenship discourse and institutional theory.

Technology access, digital skills, and digital services are increasingly prerequisites for public life and accessing public services. The digital divide in contemporary societies matters for efforts to digitalize the welfare state. Research has already mapped individual determinants of digital exclusion and the existence of an age-related digital divide. However, far less attention has been paid to variations in digital inclusion between countries and to their potential explanations related to political systems. This study explores the influence of variations in welfare regimes on the digital divide among seniors (aged 65+) in Europe.

This article presents time-series cross-sectional analyses of the relationship between welfare state regimes and digital inclusion among seniors in European countries. The analyses are based on data from Eurostat, the World Bank, and the UN E-Government Survey.

The authors find extensive variation in the digital inclusion of citizens between welfare regimes and argue that considering regime differences improves the understanding of these variations. The findings indicate that the age-related digital divide seems to be least evident in countries with more universalistic welfare regimes and most evident in countries where seniors rely more on their families.

This is the first comparative study of the association between welfare state regimes and digital inclusion among seniors.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the inequalities between three countries – England, The Netherlands and Taiwan – in relation to the welfare and long‐term care of older people. It compares the positive and negative distinctions between the respective countries and their systems.

This paper discusses and analyses data from public sources and literature and measures the similarities and differences between demographic and social issues, the cultural and political differences shaping policy objectives, economic constraints and long‐term care services.

All three countries face similar pressure in long‐term care provision of ageing populations, funding limitations and shrinking numbers of carers. None of the countries studied completely conforms to Esping‐Andersen's ideal types; instead they seem to constitute hybrids. The care system in the Dutch social democratic‐conservative welfare regime seems to provide wider support for older people who need care, the English liberal‐social democratic welfare regime comes second and Taiwanese conservative‐liberal welfare regime comes third. Overall, some converse trends of the long‐term care systems indicate a narrowing of the gap in responsibility between state, family and individuals in the East and the West.

The paper contributes suggestions to further research in the area of elements and structures of care systems support and the failure to provide ongoing quality of long‐term care and reflects on the implications for the global market of care‐workers and the extensive use of migrant workers in the field.

The paper provides a detailed consideration of the wide‐ranging issues that impact on older people's care provision in England, The Netherlands and Taiwan.

European Union (EU) member states are dedicated to a set of sustainable development goals, among them to: (1) promote well-being for all at all the ages and (2) achieve gender equality. This chapter uses the National Transfer Accounts (NTA) methodology that enables comprehensive measurement of intergenerational transfers, both public and private, and differences in the gender equality promotion among the countries. Our analysis is based on the fully comparable NTA results for 25 EU countries from 2010. The authors perform cluster analysis based on five indicators, measuring the importance of different types of age reallocations and the differences in gender equality promotion among the EU countries. Since the economic life cycle (showing the level of dependency) and its financing strongly depend on country-specific institutional and cultural settings, the authors link their results with the typical welfare regimes’ typology. The authors end up with three different groups of countries showing a clear north–south division of countries.

Contemporary categorizations of western-style welfare states distinguish a particular pattern of organizing social security mainly found in Scandinavian countries, and sometimes labeled as a “social democratic welfare regime.” This is characterized by general access of the population to a social security system organized and administered by public authorities. This categorization is widely acknowledged, but the Scandinavian “social democratic” model is rarely ever analyzed in detail.

While most health services are provided by public actors, it is often overlooked that health services in Scandinavian countries in certain fields are delivered to a substantial part by private actors. In Norwegian rehabilitation specialist health care, these private actors stand for more than 30% of all service delivery.

Based on a content analysis of publications of the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services we look into the relation between public and private actors in rehabilitation and relate our findings to classifications of Scandinavian welfare states into an institutional, social democratic model.

This study aims to analyse how top-level policymakers across the political left-right spectrum in a social-democratic welfare state understand social enterprise (SE), its relation to existing welfare institutions and their intentions of policymaking towards SE.

This study conducted in-depth interviews explicitly focused on SE with policymakers at the national level in Norway. The informants collectively represented most political parties in Norway’s Parliament in 2017–2021. Data were analysed using a historical institutional perspective.

Centre-right wing policymakers predominantly consider SE as commercial enterprises not requiring specific policies. Left wing policymakers prefer that SEs operate like voluntary organizations and advocate policies preventing extraction of profit and competition with public service providers. Hence, policymakers positioned SE within an overarching political debate on the privatization of welfare services. They expressed little interest in developing policies aimed at strengthening SE opportunity structures.

Policy inaction impedes recognition of SEs as different from commercial and voluntary organizations, as well as their ability to compete for tenders. Thus, SE will likely remain a rather marginal phenomenon in Norway. Further research is needed to establish whether and how Norway’s universal welfare state inhibits social entrepreneurship on the society-wide level.

This article details how SE is understood within a social democratic welfare regime and the likely consequences thereof for SEs. It contributes with new knowledge of why policymakers may be reluctant to develop policy dedicated to further SE, across different political party affiliations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in Norway to analyse how existing institutions and political controversies influence how policymakers at the national level approach SE.

This paper aims to examine the distinctiveness of South Korean social enterprises from a historical institutionalism perspective. From this perspective, the author focuses on the proactive roles played by the government in the process of emergence and formulation of social enterprises in South Korea. The author roots this paper in the concept of the developmental state and examines how this concept applies to newly emerging social enterprises in South Korea.

This paper first introduces the process of South Korean social enterprises’ emergence as an independent phenomenon. The author explains the process with a link to governmental actions, such as the introduction of public programs and government acts. Second, this paper introduces the concept of developmental state which captures the proactive role of the state in social, economic and political development in South Korea. Third, this paper applies the institutional framework proposed by Kerlin (2013) to see how the South Korean social enterprise model can be located from a comparative perspective and how the South Korean model can contribute to the expansion of the existing framework.

This paper finds that the state involvement in South Korea is a reflection of the historical path of the developmental state. The cross-comparison of South Korean social enterprises from a historical institutionalist approach finds that the South Korean case may contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate by suggesting taking a Weberian ideal type of an interventionist state into account for an extension of the proposed framework. This paper also uncovered the strategic approach of the South Korean Government in utilizing this public policy tool by adopting and combining existing social enterprise models.

This paper demonstrates the state’s intents to mobilize economic and societal resources as public policy intervention tools, which can be understood from a developmental state context. This role would be distinct when compared to those in Europe and the USA. This paper has a limitation to restrict its analytical scope to formally recognized social enterprises because it focuses on the role of the state in utilizing social enterprises for public policy agenda: social development and social welfare provision.

As a practical implication, this study might provide an insightful framework for South Korean public policy makers, outlining the contributions and limitations of state-led public policies associated with social enterprises. As seen in the historical path of governmental interventions, governmental public policies do not necessarily guarantee their sustainable community impacts without the consideration of private or nonprofit actors’ spontaneous involvements. The flip side of state-led interventions requires policy makers to become more cautious, as they address social problems with public policy intents.

The majority of current studies on social enterprises in South Korea mainly focus on reporting the quantitative increase in the number of registered social enterprises. Beyond this quantitative description of its achievement, this paper also provides a historical narration and philosophical background of this phenomenon. Additionally, it shows how this artificial government intervention in social enterprises could be accepted from a historical perspective and brought remarkable responses from the private and civil society sectors in South Korea.

This study focuses on ad hoc policy advisory committees that bring together experts and stakeholders to propose public policies on the basis of consensus. These kinds of committees are often considered to be a typical governance mechanism of the social democratic model of regulation and policy-making known from the Nordic countries. We challenge this view by comparing the Norwegian system of committee governance with those of Germany and the European Union and point out the central role of coordination and consensus in all three systems. Relying on existing and original research, and contrary to the assumption of a distinct Nordic regime, we find significant similarities between the three committee governance systems when it comes to organisational features, the kind of expertise produced and the committees' governance functions. Most remarkable is the prevalence of hybrid, tripartite committees that draw together interest groups, civil servants and researchers in all three systems. We show that these kinds of ad hoc advisory committees tend to generate a kind of coordinated, negotiated expertise where notions of validity and objectivity are connected not only to cognitive quality but also to the breadth of viewpoints that are integrated. Moreover, the Nordic committee system of Norway stands out with only few distinctive qualities, and it is not obvious how the notion of ‘social democracy’ helps illuminating these features. To help shed light on the striking resemblances we find across systems, we develop a notion of consensus-oriented political and epistemological systems, which may be a useful complement to the notion of Nordic social democracy.

The Indonesian healthcare system has been reformed in tune with economic and political changes. The reform was pursued by encouraging growing reliance on individual contributions. Consolidating citizens' support has become increasingly important for the long-term sustainability of the programme. This study explores individual views and experiences in negotiating solutions for health security under the situation where pre-industrial modes of informal network remain intact, while private healthcare continues to be in demand by population segments targeted by the system.

Individual attitudes toward the current healthcare system were explored using online interviews (N = 75) in the cities of Jakarta and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The qualitative exploratory approach resorted to personal views on the importance of the state, family and market in health risk management. Perceptions on who should be responsible for healthcare, and the political legitimacy of the welfare-state approach to healthcare were also observed. A thematic coding strategy was used for the data analysis.

Those interviewed value and support the formal system (either state and market), yet place reliance on informal support (family and relatives). Intertwining views of religious teaching, filial piety, moral obligation were the most common reasons for individuals to support such dual welfare systems. The findings reflect the common attitudes toward welfare in the context of changing realities of individualised society at the early stage.

This article represents a valuable contribution at the empirical level because it provides an assessment of individuals' attitudes toward Indonesia's recent health arrangements. Such individuals are those belonging to the targeted population of the contributory system. This study also offers an alternative framework for understanding the nature of the healthcare regime generated from the perspectives of individuals.