Abstract
The public-private dichotomy is a controversial analytical device used by experts and policymakers to designate responsibilities for social policy. It is prominently referred to in debates over the futures of both health care and pension policies. This volume shows that lines separating public from private social provisions can be hard to draw, not only in the United States but in other countries as well. The volume calls into question the utility of a strict analytical separation between public and private policies while suggesting that its application to health and pension policies is problematic. This is true largely because, due to major institutional and political variations, the public-private dichotomy takes a different meaning from one country to another—or even from one policy area to another within the same country. Adopting a simplistic understanding of the public-private dichotomy is inappropriate because it may thwart democratic efforts to reform and improve existing social policy systems by obscuring their inherent complexity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Béland, Daniel. 2007. “Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security: Conversion, Layering, and Policy Drift.” Social Science Quarterly 88(1): 20–38.
Brooks, Sarah M. 2002. “Social Protection and Economic Integration: The Politics of Pension Reform in an Era of Capital Mobility.” Comparative Political Studies 35(5): 491–525.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1999. Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gran, Brian. 2003. “A Second Opinion.” International Journal of Health Services 33(2): 283–313.
Hacker, Jacob S. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 243–60.
Howard, Christopher. 1997. The Hidden Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jacobs, Alan M. and Steven M. Teles. 2007. “The Perils of Market Making: The Case of British Pension Reform.” In Marc Landy, Martin Levin, and Martin Shapiro (eds), Creating Competitive Markets: 157–83. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Klein, Jennifer. 2003. For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America’s Public-Private Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Myles, John and Paul Pierson. 1997. “Friedman’s Revenge.” Politics and Society 25(4): 443–72.
Palier, Bruno and Giuliano Bonoli. 2000. “La montée en puissance des fonds de pension.” L’Année de la régulation 4: 71–112.
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Andrew. 2005. “Pension Privatization in Eastern Europe and Beyond.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Research Committee 19 of the International Sociological Association.—September 8–10, 2005 (Chicago).
Steinmo, Sven and Jon Watts. 1995. “It’s the Institutions, Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Insurance Always Fails in America.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 20(2): 329–72.
Streeck, Wolfgang and Kathleen Thelen. (eds). 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Titmuss, Richard M. 1974. Social Policy: An Introduction. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Trampusch, Christine. 2007. “Industrial Relations as a Source of Social Policy: A Typology of the Institutional Conditions for Industrial Agreements on Social Benefits.” Social Policy & Administration 41(3): 251–70.
Trampusch, Christine. 2008. The Privatization of Welfare States: Industrial Relations as a Source of Social Benefits (Project Description). Berne: University of Berne. Retreived on August 2, 2008 from http://www.ipw.unibe.ch/content/forschungsgruppen/prof_trampusch/index_eng.html
Weyland, Kurt. 2007. Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
White House. 2005. “Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century.” February 2005.
World Bank. 1994. Averting the Old Age Crisis: Policies to Protect the Old and Promote Growth. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Brian Gran and Daniel Béland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gran, B., Béland, D. (2008). Conclusion: Revisiting the Public-Private Dichotomy. In: Béland, D., Gran, B. (eds) Public and Private Social Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230228771_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230228771_13
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35808-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-22877-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)