Wohlfahrtsregime in den baltischen Staaten: gemeinsame Vergangenheit, unterschiedliche Zukunft

  • Anu Toots
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Aufgrund ihrer gemeinsamen historischen Vergangenheit werden die drei baltischen Staaten oft als einheitliche Gruppe von Wohlfahrtsstaaten betrachtet. In der Tat führten alle drei Staaten in der frühen Phase der Transition von einem kommunistischen System zu einer liberalen Demokratie Sozialversicherungssysteme ein, die typisch für das Bismarcksche Wohlfahrtsmodell sind. Im späteren Verlauf wurde die neoliberale Ausrichtung immer deutlicher, jedoch blieben auch korporatistische Elemente bestehen. In der Forschungsliteratur wird daher meist davon ausgegangen, dass alle baltischen Länder sowohl Elemente liberaler als auch konservativer Wohlfahrtsarrangements aufweisen, allerdings in unterschiedlicher Ausprägung (Aidukaite 2006; Cerami 2005; Potůćek 2008; Aidukaite 2009).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literartur

  1. Aidukaite, Jolanta. 2006. The Formation of Social Insurance Institutions of the Baltic States in the Post-socialist Era. Journal of European Social Policy 16/3: 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidukaite, Jolanta. 2009. The Transformation of Welfare Systems in the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In Post-Communist Welfare Pathways. Theorizing Social Policy Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe, Hrsg. Alfio Cerami und Pieter Vanhuysse, 96–111. Houndmills/Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Cerami, Alfio. 2005. Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. The Emergence of a New European Model of Solidarity? Paper to be presented at the Third ESPAnet Conference „Making Social Policy in the Post Industrial Age“ University of Fribourg, 22–24. 9. 2005, Fribourg.Google Scholar
  4. Cerami, Alfio. 2008. The New Social Risks in Central and Eastern Europe: The Need for a New Empowering Politics of the Welfare State. Czech Sociological Review 44/6: 1089–1110.Google Scholar
  5. Clegg, Daniel. 2008. „Continental Drift: On unemployment Policy Change in Bismarckian Welfare States“. In Reforming the Bismarckian Welfare Systems, Hrsg. Bruno Palier und Claude Martin, 62–81. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eamets, Raul und Jaan Masso. 2005. The Paradox of the Baltic States: Labour Market Flexibility but Protected Workers. European Journal of Industrial Relations 11/1: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ebbinghaus, Bernhard. 2006. Trade Union Movements in Post Industrial Welfare States: Opening up to New Social Interests? In The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States. Adapting Post-war Social Policies to New Social Risks, Hrsg. Klaus Armingeon und Giuliano Bonoli, 123–142. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. 2007. Employment in Europe 2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2009. Industrial Relations in Europe 2008. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. Eurostat. 2009/2010. Statistics Database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home. Zugegriffen: 11. 5. 2011.
  11. Gebel, Michael. 2008. Labour Markets in Central and Eastern Europe. In Europe Enlarged. A Handbook of Education, Labour and Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, Hrsg. Irena Kogan, Michael Gebel und Clemens Noelke, 35–62. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way: the renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hacker, Björn. 2009. Hybridization instead of Clustering: Transformation Processes of Welfare Policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Policy and Administration 43/2: 152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koppel, Agris, Kristiina Kahur, Triin Habicht, Pille Saar, Jarno Habicht und Ewant vanGinneken. 2008. Estonia: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition 10/1: 1–230.Google Scholar
  15. Masseria, Cristina, Rachel Irwin, Sarah Thomson, Marin Gemmill und Elias Mossialos. 2009. Primary Care in Europe. Policy brief. ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId = 4739&lang Id = en. Zugegriffen: 25. 10. 2010.Google Scholar
  16. Matthes, Claudia-Yvette, Monika Kačinskienė, Feliciana Rajevska und Anu Toots. 2007. „Rentenreform im Baltikum. Neue Modelle im Praxistest“ Osteuropa 57/7: 47–56.Google Scholar
  17. MISSOC. 2009. Mutual Information System on Social Protection. Comparative tables on social protection. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/missoc/db/public/compareTables.do?lang=en Zugegriffen: 2. 1. 2012.
  18. MSSL. 2009. Social Report 2008–2009. Vilnius: Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania.Google Scholar
  19. MW. 2007. Social Report for 2006. Rīga: Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia.Google Scholar
  20. Orenstein, Mitchell. 2008. Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy. Journal of Democracy 19/4: 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pascall, Gillian and Nick Manning. 2000. Gender and Social Policy: Comparing welfare States in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Journal of European Social Policy 10/3: 240–266.Google Scholar
  22. Peng, Ito. 2008. Welfare Policy Reforms in Japan and Korea: Cultural and Institutional Factors. In Culture and Welfare State. Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective, Hrsg. Wim van Oorshot, Michael Opileka und Birgit Pfau-Effinger, 162–184. Cheltenham/ Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Potůček, Martin. 2008. Metamorphoses of Welfare States in Central and Eastern Europe. In Welfare State Transformations: Comparative Perspectives, Hrsg. Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, 79–96. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Riigi Teataja. 2010. Act on Funded Pensions of the Estonian Republic. http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=13334277. Zugegriffen: 30. 10. 2010.
  25. Saar, Ellu, Marge Unt und Irena Kogan. 2008. Transition from Educational System to Labour Market in the European Union: A Comparison between the New and Old Members. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49/1: 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Toots, Anu und Janika Bachmann. 2010. Beyond the Neoliberal Transition: Adjustment of the Baltic Welfare States to the Post-modernity. Studies in Transition States and Societies No. 3 (im Erscheinen).Google Scholar
  27. Tragakes Ellie, Girts Brigis, Jauntite Karaskevica, Aiga Rurane, Artis Stuburs, Evita Zusmane, Olga Avdeeva und Marco Schäfer. 2008. Latvia: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition 10/2: 1–253.Google Scholar
  28. VSAA. 2010. Three levels of Pension System. State Social Insurance Agency of the Republic of Latvia. http://www.vsaa.lv/vsaa/content/?cat = 698. Zugegriffen: 30. 10. 2010.
  29. WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2010. Health for All Database. www.euro.who.int/en/whatwe-do/data-and-evidence/databases/european-health-for-all-database-hfa-db2. Zugegriffen: 11. 5. 2011.

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anu Toots
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität TallinnTallinnEstland

Personalised recommendations