| 13
Suszycki |
Karolewski (Eds.)
Studien zur Politischen Soziologie Studies on Political Sociology
Citizenship and Identity in the Welfare State
Suszycki | Karolewski (Eds.)
ISBN 978-3-8329-7061-1
BUC_Suszycki_7061-1.indd 1
13
Citizenship and Identity
in the Welfare State
Nomos
30.11.12 09:07
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Schriftenreihe „Studien zur Politischen Soziologie“
The series „Studies on Political Sociology“
herausgegeben von
is edited by
Prof. Dr. Andrew Arato,
The New School for Social Research, New York
Prof. Dr. Hauke Brunkhorst, Universität Flensburg
Prof. Dr. Regina Kreide,
Justus Liebig Universität Gießen
Band 13
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat
Amy Allen (Dartmouth College, USA)
Gurminder Bhambra K. (University of Warwick, GB)
Craig Calhoun (Social Science Research Council an der New
York University, USA)
Sergio Costa (Freie Universität Berlin)
Robert Fine (University of Warwick, GB)
Gerd Grözinger (Universität Flensburg)
Christian Joerges (Universität Bremen)
Ina Kerner (Humboldt Universität Berlin)
Christoph Möllers (Freie Universität Berlin)
Marcelo Neves (Universität São Paulo, Brasilien)
Patrizia Nanz (Universität Bremen)
Uta Ruppert (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main)
Rainer Schmalz-Bruns (Leibniz Universität Hannover)
BUT_Suszycki_7061-1.indd 2
30.11.12 09:07
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Andrzej Marcin Suszycki |
Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski (Eds.)
Citizenship and Identity
in the Welfare State
Nomos
BUT_Suszycki_7061-1.indd 3
30.11.12 09:07
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in
der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische
Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available
in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de .
ISBN 978-3-8329-7061-1
1. Auflage 2013
© Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2013. Printed in Germany. Alle Rechte,
auch die des Nachdrucks von Auszügen, der fotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der
Übersetzung, vorbehalten. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of
illus­trations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means,
and storage in data banks. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are
made for other than private use a fee is payable to »Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort«,
Munich.
BUT_Suszycki_7061-1.indd 4
30.11.12 09:07
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Table of Contents
Introduction
Citizenship and Identity in the Welfare State
Andrzej Marcin Suszycki and Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski
7
Part I: Welfare Citizenship: Concept, theory and practice
Chapter 1
Citizenship and welfare
Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski
19
Chapter 2
Globalization, the European Welfare State, and Protection of the Poor
Wim van Oorschot
37
Chapter 3
Security Governance and the promotion of Welfare Ethnic Nepotism in the
Republic of Ireland
Bryan Fanning
Chapter 4
Multilevel Citizens, New Social Risks, and Regional Welfare
Luis Moreno
51
67
Part II: Identity and Welfare
Chapter 5
Welfare identity – conceptual and theoretical considerations
Andrzej Marcin Suszycki
Chapter 6
National Identity and Support for the Welfare State
Richard Johnston, Keith Banting, Will Kymlicka, Stuart Soroka
89
109
5
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Chapter 7
Keeping Them Out! Migration and Social Policies in the ‘Reluctant
Countries of Immigration’
Romana Careja and Patrick Emmenegger
Chapter 8
From a “Social Problem” to a “Cultural Challenge” to the National Welfare
State: Immigration and Integration Debates in Denmark 1970–2011
Heidi Vad Jønsson and Klaus Petersen
Biographical notes
6
139
165
189
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Introduction
Citizenship and Identity in the Welfare State
Andrzej Marcin Suszycki and Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski
This volume deals with citizenship and identity in the context of the welfare state.
Citizenship and identity have long been regarded as the central concepts to describe
the development of the welfare state and to explain why states vary with regard to their
emphasis on welfare (Esping-Andersen 1990, Arts/Gelissen 2001, Van Voorhis 2002,
Hvinden/Johansson 2007). Despite this, two research deficits persist with regard to
these concepts. The first deficit refers to the fact that scholars have seldom transcended
the classical notion of social citizenship and seldom dealt with the conceptual and
theoretical aspects of the term welfare citizenship, which has a broader meaning and
allows for a consideration of a multiplicity of aspects linked to welfare. The same
observation refers to the term welfare identity, which has not been scrutinised as an
autonomous concept. The second deficit of the conventional thinking on citizenship
and identity in the welfare state pertains to the fact that the increasingly relevant phenomena of transnational migration, globalisation and regional integration (for instance
European integration) as well as the multi-ethnic character of several welfare states
have been relatively under-researched. In the conventional understanding citizenship
and identity are bounded by the borders of the national welfare state. Scholars typically
acknowledge that the collective identity of citizens in welfare states is based on civic
commitments linked to common national welfare (Miller 1995 and 2000, Banting and
Kymlicka 2006, Hibbert 2008). Citizens are supposed to continuously reassure themselves that they belong naturally together, that they have common interests, a common
history of rights and duties with regard to the welfare state, and that they can trust one
another (Kymlicka 1999). In this perspective, also the entitlements resulting from the
citizens’ welfare rights can and should be realised in the realm of unitary and mostly
centralised administrative structures of the nation-state. As a consequence, citizens are
expected to have strong reasons to remain members of a political community based on
an intergenerational contract and to create a solid resistance to the retrenchment of the
welfare system (Pierson 1996, Anderson 2001, Swank 2002, Bay/Pedersen 2006,
Bergh/Erlingsson 2009, Goerres/Tepe 2010, Lamping/Rüb 2010). However, this dominant perspective neglects the intersection of transformations and conflicts around both
diversity and welfare state restructuring. This intersection can be regarded as a contemporary simultaneous crisis of the welfare state and the nation as, under the pressure
of globalisation, regional integration, or transnational migrations, both social citizen-
7
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
ship and national identities have increasingly been contested (Castles and Schierup
2012: 290). Certainly, studies on the influence of transnational migration, globalisation
and regional integration on the welfare state have been conducted for, at least, three
decades (see, among others Zald 1985, McKenzie/Lee 1981, Leibfried/Pierson 1995,
Bommes/Geddes 2000, Engelen 2003, Guillen/Alvarez 2004, Kus 2006, SeguraUbiergo 2007,van Oorschot 2006, van Oorschot/Opielka/Pfau-Effinger 2008, Castles/
Miller 2009, Corrigan 2010, Galgoczi/Leschke/Watt 2012). Still, scholars have focused on empirical macroeconomic and technical sociopolitical aspects and seldom
examined the phenomena in question from the perspective of political theory, political
philosophy, social psychology, and sociology in a more systematic manner.
Against this background, the editors of this volume have asked prominent scholars
in the field of welfare state studies, first, to scrutinise the conceptual and theoretical
aspects of the terms welfare citizenship and welfare identity; second, to analyse the
relationship between the different forms of citizenship and the outcomes in welfare
rights; and third, to examine the meaning and significance of a national or other identity
for the development and maintenance of the welfare state in view of the processes of
globalisation, European integration and migration, and in the context of multi-ethnical
statehood.
Accordingly, the volume has two parts. Part I includes Chapters 1–4. They deal with
conceptual, normative and empirical aspects of the relationship between citizenship
and welfare. Chapter 1 by Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski elucidates the nexus between
citizenship and welfare, for example by elucidating the concept of welfare citizenship.
One of the advantages of this perspective is that it transcends the often discussed notion
of social citizenship and allows a comparison of different conceptions of welfare citizenship. Karolewski introduces three models of citizenship – the republican, the liberal and the caesarean citizenship – to which he ascribes different types of welfare
citizenship. Within the republican model of citizenship we can observe a shift towards
deliberation, which emphasises the welfare obligations of the community as an underpinning for the deliberative ethics of the citizens. Conversely, the citizens are
obliged to take the welfare of the collective into account, rather than their individual
welfare. In this sense, republican welfare citizenship can exist only against the background of a strong community. In contrast, the liberal model of citizenship spawns a
rights-orientated welfare citizenship, in which there is a focus on the liberal rights
equality among citizens. In the social version of liberal welfare citizenship, individual
social rights are viewed as a necessary component of citizenship in addition to civil
and political rights, whereas the libertarian version wants to defend the individual
citizens against welfare collectivism, which is associated with transgressions of the
individual freedoms. Thus, libertarian welfare is mainly based on charity. In contrast,
the communal version of liberal welfare citizenship highlights decentralised gover8
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
nance of common pool resources. Caesarean welfare citizenship is associated with the
securitisation of welfare, where, for instance, migration and organised crime are regarded as a threat to the welfare of a community. Even though these different types of
welfare citizenship are still sketchy, as the author presented only a preliminary attempt
to systematise the notion of welfare citizenship, it can be fruitful to pursue further
research on this subject.
Chapter 2 by Wim van Oorschot combines theoretical and empirical aspects regarding welfare and citizenship against the background of globalisation. It is based on
sociological theories of solidarity and redistributive justice and deals with the question
of what is happening to the social legitimacy of redistribution to the poor under the
conditions of strong welfare retrenchment. Van Oorschot shows that one important
line in the debate is the view that globalisation urges comprehensive welfare states to
cut back and retrench in order to sustain the social protection for the neediest members
of society. At the same time, substantial retrenchment is believed to be necessary to
compete on labour costs, and to inhibit the „welfare magnetism“ effects of generous
and easy accessible social rights, which would put a halt to the inflow of welfaredependent economic migrants. However, van Oorschot stresses the role of solidarity
and self-interest in the legitimacy of welfare arrangements and claims that in a comprehensive welfare state the contribution of ‘the rich’ to the protection of the rights of
social citizenship of ‘the poor’ is to a certain degree a spin-off of the solidaristic redistribution ‘the rich’ organise for and among themselves. Without the latter, the larger
middle class will lose its actual and perceived self-interest in the welfare system and
the deservingness of the neediest members of society will – like in the residual American welfare state - constantly be at gunpoint, with a downward trend in their social
protection as a most probable outcome in the longer term. Consequently, Van Oorschot
argues that substantial retrenchment of comprehensive European welfare states, as an
answer to globalisation, does not safeguard the protection of welfare citizenship rights
of the poor members of society.
The empirical Chapter 3 by Bryan Fanning explores ethnic nepotism in the context
of the Irish welfare state and suggests a differentiated understanding of the consequences of this phenomenon. Fanning argues that ethnic nepotism has proven more
influential in the case of immigration and naturalisation policy than in the case of social
policy responses to immigration. For instance, ethnic nepotism was used to accentuate
cognitive distinctions between ‘nationals’ and non-nationals’ before the Referendum
on Irish Citizenship in 2004 in which an overwhelming majority of the Irish citizens
endorsed an amendment to the constitution that removed ius soli entitlements to Irish
citizenship. According to Fanning, the administration of the naturalisation process after
2004 can also be described as a manifestation of welfare ethnic nepotism as the rates
of refusal of applications for naturalisation are extremely high by international stan9
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
dards. On the other hand, Fanning claims that the decision to limit welfare entitlements
of new immigrants in 2004 was not a manifestation of archetypical welfare ethnic
nepotism since the new welfare settlement also covered returning ethnic-Irish migrants. In effect, this legislation institutionalised entitlements on the basis of residency
rather than on the basis of citizenship. Against this background, Fanning maintains that
the welfare stratification policy was clearly influenced by neo-liberal perspectives on
migrants as flexible human capital. In a similar vein, Fanning assumes that the decision
to permit the free movement of labour force from the new EU member states in 2004
was mainly influenced by preoccupations with economic growth.
Chapter 4 by Luis Moreno examines the increasingly significant question of the
multi-level character of welfare citizenship in a number of European states. The dominant perspective so far has been that the entitlements resulting from the citizens’ welfare rights ought to be provided in a unitary – and generally centralised – administration
of public services. Moreno shows that in recent times the centrality of the nation-state
as the champion for the development of the modern systems of social protection has
given way to a situation where both the supra-state and the sub-state welfare inputs are
increasingly important in welfare development. Transnationalisation has caused the
gradual decline of the role of the nation-state as sovereign actor in social policy. At
the same time, sub-state political communities have reinforced their claims for subsidiarisation in welfare provision. Both the processes of transnationalisation and subsidiarisation have questioned the centralised „command-and-control“ action of nationstates by putting forward the idea of territorially differentiated welfare policies. Thus,
this chapter elaborates on the idea of multilevel citizenship as a compound of collective
attachments, which favours supranational legitimacy and sub-state democratic accountability in the implementation of social policies. Likewise, Moreno pays attention
to the aspirations of regions and sub-state layers of governance to advance social citizenship and also analyses the impact of the so-called “new social risks” (NSR) associated with the transition to a post-industrial society. Moreno states that, due to the
very nature of multilevel governance, there is little impediment to prevent regions from
developing programs promoting differentiated welfare policies. Finally, Moreno puts
forward the idea that the advancement of welfare citizenship in the European Union
may be best achieved if the virtuous circle of emulation is encouraged among and
within member states (policy learning and transfer, “soft” regulation, “benchmarking”
or “best practices”).
Part II includes Chapters 5–8. They focus on the significance of identity in national
and international contexts. Chapter 5 by Andrzej Marcin Suszycki seeks to systemise
and further develop the research on the phenomenon of welfare identity. It, first, conceptualises welfare identity along the discursive narratives of membership norms, social goals and relational cognitive comparisons. Second, it typecasts the main welfare
10
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
identities and distinguishes between republican, liberal and securitised type of welfare
identity. Third, it proposes three levels of analysis of welfare identity: micro level,
meso level and macro level. This conceptualisation of welfare identity at three levels
makes it possible to regard this phenomenon in different contexts (local, regional,
national or supranational). Fourth, it deals with contestation which points to the
strength and coherence of a welfare identity. Here, this chapter makes four main assumptions. It maintains that the meso level is essential to understand the discursive
social construction and transformations of welfare identity and suggests that the
stronger the contestation at the meso level is, the less legitimate and endurable the
redistributive politics are. It also claims that republican welfare identity is more resilient to contestation than the liberal or securitised one. Further, it states that in democratic systems securitised welfare identity mostly coexists with the republican and
liberal. Finally, it suggests that securitised welfare identity is a short-lived identity.
Suszycki illustrates the degree of contestation in practice in several welfare states such
as Belgium, Denmark, Great Britain, Italy and Sweden.
The role of national identity in sustaining support for the welfare state is examined
in Chapter 6 by Richard Johnston, Keith Banting, Will Kymlicka and Stuart Soroka.
Referring to the Canadian welfare state, the authors seek to answer two significant
questions. First, they ask if national identity mitigates the opposition to the welfare
state and redistribution among high-income Canadians. Second, they deal with the
question of whether national identity mitigates corrosive effects that the ethnic diversity flowing from new patterns of immigration may have on the support for redistribution. The chapter answers these questions in the affirmative. As far as the first question is concerned the authors find that national identity increases general support for
the welfare state among affluent voters. However, this effect is clearest for the sector
of health care, and is barely noticeable for other parts of the welfare state, including
universal programs such as pensions and targeted programs of redistribution to the
poor. The authors suggest that the evidence for uneven impact across sub-domains of
the Canadian welfare state reflects distinctive features of the nation-building projects
and national narratives, given that for many English-speaking Canadians, the nationwide reach and universal coverage of the health system have become part of the very
definition of the country, gaining an iconic status. Second, the findings show that respondents who believe that immigrants do not want to accept the obligations that go
with the privileges of membership show markedly lower support for the redistributive
dimensions of the welfare state. However, the authors argue that national identity itself
may also promote pro-immigrant sentiments as the respondents with the strongest
sense of national identity demonstrate more positive attitudes towards immigrants than
their less nationalist fellow-countrymen. Those with a strong national identity are more
likely to give immigrants „the benefit of the doubt“. Hence, the general conclusion is
11
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
that national identity contributes to a sense of belonging and solidarity that transcends
economic interest and cultural difference. These findings are not always consistent
with the mechanisms suggested by leading theorists of liberal nationalism.
The evidence from Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 argues for caution in generalising results
from Canada. Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 do not suggest any systematic tendency for
strength of national identity to correlate with positive attitudes towards immigrants.
Both chapters demonstrate that common nationality and nationalism might generate
trust and a strong feeling of solidarity and loyalty among the “old” members of the
welfare state and exclude the non-members or new members. Chapter 7 by Patrick
Emmenegger and Romana Careja argues that a number of the current reforms in the
area of migration and social policies reflect the attempt by governments to respond to
an anti-immigrant public opinion mood. Emmenegger and Careja demonstrate that in
spite of having their hands bound by international and domestic regulations concerning
the treatment of immigrants and asylum-seekers, national governments enact several
strategies which minimise the consumption of social benefits by immigrants. For instance, governments introduce entry restrictions targeted at all individuals seeking
permanent residence. Besides, governments restrict refugees’ access to social benefits
in order to separate ‚true’ from ‚bogus’ refugees and to distinguish between deserving
and undeserving recipients. Governments also retrench those social protection schemes
that provide a disproportionate amount of benefits to immigrants, in particular meanstested benefits prove to be vulnerable in this context. Domestic voters support these
policies because they regard immigrants as the group that least deserves to receive
social benefits. What is more, nationals of France, Germany, and Great Britain often
associate the very immigrant status to non-deservingness of social benefits. The authors
argue that this attitude is due to the fact that public opinion concerning the social rights
of immigrants perpetuates an image of the immigrant group constructed in terms of
identity (‚them’ and ‚us’). Immigrants are perceived as not sharing the same national
identity, hence as not being part of the national community. In more general terms,
Emmenegger and Careja claim that these strategies lead to a restoration of the old postwar social model, which reflect a philosophy of welfare that emphasises the ideas of
belonging to and contributing to the national community as clear conditions for receiving benefits. Emmenegger and Careja substantiate this claim by presenting survey
data on deservingness of different societal groups and a review of policy reforms in
the cross-section of migration and social policy in France, Germany and Great Britain.
Chapter 8 by Heidi Vad Jønsson and Klaus Petersen takes a look at the development
of Danish immigration and integration policies from the late 1960s up to the present
day. The key question is how Denmark – a prototype of the Scandinavian welfare state
with an ideology and identity based on universalism and equality – reacted when its
historically very homogenous population started to become more heterogeneous. Sur12
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
veys and statistics show that immigrants are relatively well integrated into the Danish
welfare state. Despite this, as the chapter demonstrates, immigrants have traditionally
been the group that most ethnic Danes perceive as having a different national identity
and thus as deserving the least social assistance. Especially after the change of government in 2001 – from a center-left government to a center-right one – Danish regulation of immigration and legislation on integration policies became more restrictive.
It made access to Danish citizenship more difficult, conditionalised social rights, and
significantly reduced general levels of welfare benefits for immigrants. After 2001 the
political discourse on immigrants mainly focused on the extent to which integration
and immigration were threatening the basic values of the Danish welfare model. In this
context, the authors point to an increasing culturalisation of the discourse as the popular
use of the word immigrant has been referring specifically to groups with a non-Western
background: the image of the problematic immigrant – the Danish „welfare queen“ is
today an orthodox Moslem from the Middle East. Jønsson and Petersen thus find that
an introverted form of welfare nationalism is in the process of developing, one based
on a dualised social citizenship, where the dividing lines are neither class nor gender
but ethnicity.
In sum, we acknowledge that this volume privileges parsimony over comprehensive
coverage, but our aim here is to provide a strong basis for further research and discussion. For instance, against the background of immigration and migration flows further
research should focus more on conflicts between social solidarity and ethnic diversity.
In particular, there is a need for a more thorough examination of the members’ perception of non-members’ and new members’ welfare deservingness and the members’
willingness to reduce the levels of welfare entitlements. We should also examine claims
that a strong welfare state combined with the adoption of multicultural policies leads
to the failure of immigrants integration and the growth of radical right parties. Related
to the process of globalisation, we need to explore the question whether globalisation
leads to a substantial retrenchment of the welfare state and, if this is the case, what the
patterns of distributional conflicts between domestic interest groups are. An equally
interesting, but still under-researched topic is the extent to which national or regional
identity is supportive of a mobilisation by pro-welfare state coalitions of ‘losers‘ from
globalisation. With regard to the process of European integration, there is a lack of an
assessment of the effects of the multi-layered system of governance at the European
level on the welfare entitlements and their realisation at the national or regional level;
we might think of, in particular, the problem of supranational legitimacy and national
or sub-state democratic accountability. Understanding more about the specific relationship between the free movement of labour within the European Union after the
enlargement to Eastern Europe and the pressures for welfare retrenchment in the
Western European states with strong welfare-related national identities, in particular
13
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
the recommodification of labour, is another subject worthy of further research. In relation to multi-ethnic welfare states, we need to explore more whether and to what
extent (civic) national identity can transcend socioeconomic and sociocultural cleavages between the different ethnic groups.
References
Anderson, Karen M. (2001) ‘The Politics of Retrenchment in a Social Democratic Welfare State:
Reform of Swedish Pensions and Unemployment Insurance’, Comparative Political Studies 34 (9): 1063-1091.
Arts, Wil/Gelissen, John (2001) ‘Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles: Does the Type
Really Matter?’, Acta Sociologica 44 (4): 283–299.
Banting, Keith/Kymlicka, Will (eds.) (2006) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bay Ann-Helén and Pedersen, Axel West (2006) ‘The Limits of Social Solidarity: Basic Income,
Immigration and the Legitimacy of the Universal Welfare State’, Acta Sociologica 49 (4):
419–436.
Bergh, Andreas/Erlingsson, Gissur O. (2009) ‘Liberalization without Retrenchment: Understanding the Consensus on Swedish Welfare State Reforms’, Scandinavian Political Studies 32 (1): 71–93.
Bommes, Michael and Geddes, Andrew (eds.) (2000) Immigration and Welfare: Challenging
the Borders of the Welfare State, London: Routledge.
Castles, Stephen and Miller, Mark J. (2009) The Age of Migration: International Population
Movements in the Modern World, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (4th edition).
Castles, Stephen and Schierup, Carl-Ulrik (2012) ‘Migration and Ethnic Minorities‘, in: Castles,
Francis G., Leibfried, Stephan, Lewis, Jane, Obinger, Herbert, Pierson, Christopher (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 278-291.
Corrigan, Owen (2010) ‘Migrants, Welfare Systems and Social Citizenship in Ireland and
Britain: Users or Abusers?’, Journal of Social Policy 39 (3): 415–437.
Engelen, Ewald (2003) ‘How to Combine Openness and Protection? Citizenship, Migration, and
Welfare Regimes’, Politics & Society 31 (4): 503–536.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Galgoczi, Bela/Leschke, Janine/Watt, Andrew (eds.) (2012) EU Labour Migration in Troubled
Times. Skills Mismatch, Return and Policy Responses, Farnham: Ashgate.
Goerres, Achim and Tepe, Markus (2010) ‘Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity
and the welfare state: A comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public
childcare in 12 OECD countries’, European Journal of Political Research 49: 818–851.
Guillén, Ana M. and Álvarez, Santiago (2004) ‘The EU’s Impact on the Spanish Welfare State:
The Role of Cognitive Europeanization’, Journal of European Social Policy 2004 14 (3):
285–299.
14
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14174
Hibbert, Neil (2008) ‘Citizenship and the Welfare State: A Critique of David Miller’s Theory
of Nationality’, Canadian Journal of Political 41 (1): 169–186.
Hvinden, Bjørn and Johansson, Håkan (eds.) (2007) ‘Citizenship in Nordic Welfare States: Dynamics of choice, duties and participation in a changing Europe’, London: Routledge.
Kus, Basak (2006) ‘Neoliberalism, Institutional Change and the Welfare State: The Case of
Britain and France’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (6): 488–525.
Kymlicka, Will (1999) ’Education for citizenship’, in: Halstead J. Mark and McLaughlin Terence H. (eds) Education in Morality, London: Routledge, 79–102.
Lamping, Wolfram/Rüb, Friedbert W. (2010) ‘Introduction: Farewell to Bismarck or Moving
Forward back to Bismarck? Transformations of the German Welfare State’, German Policy
Studies 6 (1): 43–63.
Leibfried, Stephan and Pierson, Paul (eds.) (1995) European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
McKenzie, Richard B. and Lee, Dwight R. (1991) Quicksilver Capital: How the Rapid Movement of Wealth Has Changed the World, New York: Free Press.
Miller, David (1995) On Nationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, David (2000) Citizenship and National Identity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pierson, Paul (1996) ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics 48 (2): 143–179.
Segura-Ubiergo, Alex (2007) The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America:
Globalization, Democracy, and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swank, Duane (2002) Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed
Welfare States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Oorschot, Wim (2006) ‘Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions
among citizens of European welfare states‘, Journal of European Social Policy 16 (1): 23-42.
van Oorschot, Wim, Opielka, Michael, Pfau-Effinger, Birgit (eds.) (2008) ‘Culture and Welfare
State. Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective‘, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van Voorhis, Rebecca A. (2002) ‘Different Types of Welfare States? A Methodological Deconstruction of Comparative Research’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare XXIX (4):
3–18.
Zald, Mayer (1985), ‘Political Change, Citizenship Rights, and the Welfare State’, The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 479: 48–66.
15