On the Road to Welfare Markets: Institutional, Organizational, and Cultural Dynamics of a New European Welfare State Settlement

  • Ingo Bode

Accounts of the development of welfare states in what is widely referred to as the post-industrial era often place an emphasis on changes in the needs of the citizenry, in the character of social risks, or in the institutional foundations (e.g., the resourcing) of public welfare provision, with all this laying the ground for, or materializing in, ‘new politics’ (see Pierson 2001 or Armingeon & Bonoli 2006). Granted, given a shrinking role of ‘true’ industrial work in advanced Western societies, a marked growth of female employment alongside novel ways of ensuring social reproduction, and, not least, the intensification of information- and science-based economic agency, many typical features of the postwar settlement have disappeared. Yet major classical social divisions persist or even grow; moreover, there is an intriguing resemblance between past patterns of social deprivation and those affecting, inter alia, senior citizens, the working poor, or lone mothers today; and, concerning the political economy of capitalism, different modes of resourcing welfare provision (taxes versus social security contributions) have, after all, exhibited a limited impact on how welfare regimes evolve. Hence the scope of the aforementioned changes appears at times overstated in the analysis of what actually happens to Western welfare states (on this, see Bode 2008a). By the same token, looking at developments in the post-industrial era, much less attention has been awarded to the far-reaching transformation of the institutional, organizational, and cultural infrastructure social welfare provision is based on, including the material consequences of this transformation.


Welfare State Nonprofit Sector Welfare Recipient Direct Payment Welfare Provision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Armingeon, K., & Bonoli, G. (Eds.). (2006). The politics of post-industrial welfare states. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Anheier, H. K., & DiMaggio, P. (1990). “A sociological conceptualization of the nonprofit organizations and sectors”. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascoli, U., & Ranci, C. (Eds.). (2002). Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an Era of privatization. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baldock, J. (2003). “On being a welfare consumer in a consuming society.” Social Policy & Society, 2(1), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beil-Hildebrand, M. (2002). “Going to market: The german health care reform experience.” Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 3(4), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Béland, D., & Waddan, A. (2000). “From Thatcher (and Pinochet) to Clinton? Conservative think tanks, foreign models and US pension reform”. The Political Quarterly, 71(2), 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beresford, P. (2005). “Redistributing profit and loss: The new economics of the market and social welfare.” Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, P., Harden, I. et al. (1990). Government By Moonlight: The hybrid parts of the state. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  10. Bode, I. (2008a). Social citizenship in post-liberal Britain and post-corporatist Germany – curtailed, fragmented, streamlined, but still on the agenda. In: K. Clarke, T. Maltby, & P. Kennett (Eds.), Social policy review 20. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bode, I. (2008b). The Culture of welfare markets. The international recasting of pension and care systems. New York/London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Bode, I. (forthcoming). Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: The transformation of state-nonprofit relations in continental Europe. In: S. Phillips & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Bönker, F., & Wollmann, H. (2000). The rise and fall of a social service regime: Marketisation of German social services in historical perspective. In: H. Wollmann, and E. Schroeter (Eds.), Comparing public sector reform in Britain and Germany. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Brandsen, T. (2004). Quasi-market governance: An anatomy of innovation. Utrecht: Lemma Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Bredgaard, T., & Larsen, F. (2008). “Quasi-markets in employment policy: Do they deliver on promise?” Social Policy & Society, 7(3), 341–352.Google Scholar
  16. Carmel, E., & Harlock, J. (2008). “Instituting the ‘Third Sector’ as a governable terrain: Partnership, procurement and performance in the UK. Policy & Politics, 36(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman, T., Brown, J., & Crow, R. (2008). “Entering a brave new world? An assessment of third sector readiness to tender for the delivery of public services in the United Kingdom.” Policy Studies, 29(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke, J. (2004). Changing welfare, changing states: New directions in social policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., & Westmarland, L. (2007). Creating citizen-consumers: changing publics and changing public services. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Crouch, C. (2000). Employment, industrial relations and social policy. In: N. Manning, & I. Shaw (Eds.). New risks, new welfare. Signposts for social policy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Dean, J., Goodlad, R., & Rosengaard, A. (2000). “Citizenship in the new welfare market: The purposes of housing advice services.” Journal of Social Policy, 29(2), 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flinders, M. (2004). “Distributed public governance in Britain.” Public Administration, 82(4), 883–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giaimo, S. (2002). Markets and medecine: The politics of health care reform in Britain, Germany and the United States. Ann Habor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, N. (2002). Transformation of the welfare state: The silent surrender of public responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glendinning, C., Halliwell, S. et al. (2000). Buying independence: Using direct payments to integrate health and social services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gooijer, W. de (2007). Trends in EU health care systems. Berlin/New York, Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Graefe, P. (2004). “Personal Services in the Post-industrial Economy. Adding Nonprofits to the Welfare Mix.” Social Policy & Administration, 38(5), 456–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, M. D. (2004). Implementing change in health systems: Market reforms in health systems in the United Kingdom, Sweden and The Netherlands. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Hipp, L., & Warner, M. E. (2008). “Market Forces for the Unemployed? Training Vouchers in Germany and in the USA.” Social Policy & Administration, 42(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
  30. Hyde, M., & Dixon, J. (2001). Welfare ideology, the market and social security: Toward a typology of market-oriented reform. In. id (Ed.), The marketisation of social security, Westport (Conn.)/London, Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  31. James, O. (2004). Executive agencies and joined-up government in the UK. In C. Pollitt, & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, B. (2004). Personal social services. In: N. Ellison, L. Bauld, & M. Powell (Eds.), Social Policy Review 16. Bristol, Policy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Katz, M. B., & Sachße, C. (Eds.). (1996). The mixed economy of social welfare: Public/private relations in England, Germany and the United States. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  34. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). “Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences.” Voluntas, 17(3), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuttner, R. (1998). Everything for sale: The virtues and the limits of markets. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Lai, O.-K. (1994). “Farewell to welfare statism! more happiness in welfare market? Putting consumption in (Post) modern context.” International Journal of Social Economics, 21(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Le Grand, J. (2007). The other unvisible hand: Delivering public services through choice and competition. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993). The Theory of Quasi-Markets. In: id. (Ed.), Quasi-Markets and Social Policy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Leece, J., & Bornat, J. (Eds.). 2006. Developments in direct payments. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Leichsenring, K. (2004). Providing integrated health and social care for older persons – A European overview. In: Id (Ed.), Providing integrated health and social care for older persons. An European overview of issues at Stake. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Leitner, S., & Lessenich, S. (2003). “Assessing Welfare State Change: The German Social Insurance State between Reciprocity and Solidarity.” Journal of Public Policy, 23(3), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lundsgaard, J. (2006). “Choice and long-term care in OECD countries: Care outcomes, employment and fiscal sustainability.” European Societies, 8(3), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyon, A. (2005). “A systems approach to direct payments: A response to ‘Friend or foe? Towards a critical assessment of direct payments.” Critical Social Policy, 25(2), 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mann, K. (2006). “Three steps to heaven? Tensions in the management of welfare: Retirement pensions and active consumers.” Journal of Social Policy, 35(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marini, G., & Street, A. (2007). “A transaction cost analysis of changing contractual relations in the English NHS”. Health Policy, 83(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matosevic, T., M. Knapp, J. Kendall, C. Henderson, & J.-L. Fernanez (2007). “Care-home providers as professionals: Understanding the motivations of care-home providers in England”. Ageing & Society, 27, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McLaughlin, K. (2004). “Towards a ‘Modernized’ voluntary and community sector?” Public Management Review, 4(6), 555–562.Google Scholar
  48. Means, R., R. Smith & H. Morbey (2002). From community care to market care? The development of welfare services for older people. Bristol, Policy Press.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, M., (Ed.). (2005). Worlds of capitalism – Social institutions, governance, and economic change in the Era of Globalization. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives: Designing effective organisations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentcie Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Morel, N. (2007). “From Subsidiartiy to ‘Free Choice’: Child- and Elder-care policy reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.” Social Policy & Administration, 41(6), 618–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Newman, J. & Kuhlmann, E. (2007). “Consumers enter the political stage? The modernization of health care in Britain and Germany.” Journal of European Social Policy, 17(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perri6 (2003). “Giving consumer of British Public Services more choice: What can be learned from recent history?” Journal of Social Policy, 32(2), 239–270.Google Scholar
  54. Pierson, P. (2001). “Post-industrial pressures on the mature welfare states”. In: id (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pollitt, C. (2007). Convergence or divergence? What has been Happening in Europe? In: id, S. Van Thiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New public management in Europe. Adaptation and Alternatives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Powell, J. L., & Wahidin, A. (2005). “Ageing in the ‘Risk Society.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 25(8), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Powell, M. (2003). “Quasi-markets in British health policy: A longue durée perspective.” Journal of Social Policy, 37(7), 725–741.Google Scholar
  58. Powell, M., & Exworthy, M. (2002). Partnerships, Quasi-networks and Social policy. In: C. Glendinning, P. Martin, & K. Rummery (Eds.), Partnerships, New Labour and The Governance of Welfare. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rathgeb Smith, S. (2002). Privatization, devolution, and the welfare state: Rethinking the prevailing wisdom. In B. Rothstein & S. Steinmo (Eds.), Restructuring the welfare state: political institutions and political change. New York/Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Schmähl, W. (2007). “Dismantling an earnings-related social pension scheme: Germany's new pension policies.” Journal of Social Policy, 36(2), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scourfield, P. (2007). “Are there reasons to be worried about the ‘Cartelization’ of residential care?” Critical Social Policy, 27(2), 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slater, D., & Tonkiss, F. (2001). Market society: Markets and modern social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  63. Smart, B. (2003). Economy, culture and society: A sociological critique of Neo-liberalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Spulber, N. (1997). Redefining the state: Privatisation and welfare reform in industrial and transitional economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Talbot, C. (2004). The Agency Idea. Some times old, sometimes new, sometimes borrowed, sometimes untrue. In C. Pollitt, & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled Government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Taylor, M. (2002). Government, the third sector and the contract culture: UK experience so far. In U. Ascoli, & C. Ranci (Eds.), Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an era of privatization. New York etc.: Kluwer / Plenum.Google Scholar
  67. Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). “Markets and motives: Trust and egoism in welfare markets.” Journal of Social Policy, 28(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor-Gooby, P., Larsen, T., & Kananen, J. (2004). “Market means and welfare ends: The UK welfare state experiment.” Journal of Social Policy, 33(4), 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Berkel, R. & van der Aa, P. (2005). “The marketisation of activation services: A modern panacea? Some lessons from the Dutch experience.” Journal of European Social Policy, 15(4), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walker, C. (2001). The Forms of privatization of social security in Britain. In: J. Dixon, & M. Hyde (Eds.), The Marketisation of Social Security. Westport (Conn)./London: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  71. Whiteside, N. (2006). “Adapting private pensions to public purposes: Historical perspectives on the politics of reform.” Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, C. C. (2004). “The myth of marketisation: An evaluation of the persistence of non-market activities in advanced economies.” International Sociology, 19: 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wistow, G., Knapp, M., et al (1996). Social care markets: Progress and prospects. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for social policy and the organisation of social services, Department of Social WorkUniversity of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations