DOCSLIB.ORG

The Determinants of Foreign Aid an Inquiry Into the Consequences of Welfare State Institutions and Public Opinion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Amsterdam Political Science Department The determinants of foreign aid An inquiry into the consequences of welfare state institutions and public opinion August 2007 Robert A. Zimmerman Draft version – Comments welcome Contact: [email protected] About the author: Robert A. Zimmerman was born in the Netherlands in 1978. He worked for the Universities of Nottingham, Leiden and Amsterdam. He studied at Sciences Po in Paris and the University of Amsterdam and holds a Master of Science degree in Political Science with a minor in French studies. He is currently employed as a policy analyst at the OECD Development Centre in Paris. The author of this paper is solely responsible for the views expressed in it. The Determinants of Foreign Aid 2 Table of contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Theoretical section .............................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 The influence of ideas and values on foreign policy ...................................................... 7 Welfare states and their influence on foreign aid ........................................................... 7 The influence of welfare state institutions on public perceptions about foreign aid .... 10 The influence of public perceptions on foreign aid levels ............................................ 11 Empirical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 13 Research design ............................................................................................................ 13 Welfare States and Foreign Aid (Model 0) - Cross-Sectional analysis ........................ 14 Welfare States and Foreign Aid (Model 0) - Time-Series analysis .............................. 24 Welfare States and Public Opinion (Model 1) - Time-Series analysis ......................... 36 Public Opinion and Foreign Aid (Model 2) - Time-Series analysis ............................. 42 Final Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 44 Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 49 Inequality, an alternative explanation? ......................................................................... 49 ODA definition ............................................................................................................. 54 Summary Statistics ........................................................................................................ 55 Prais-Winsten regression results for model 0 ............................................................... 56 List of Countries ........................................................................................................... 58 Eurobarometer questions .............................................................................................. 59 Stata ado file for -durbinm- ........................................................................................... 62 References ......................................................................................................................... 63 The Determinants of Foreign Aid 3 What are the determinants of foreign aid? ―The ongoing debate over the foreign aid regime remains trapped in something of an intellectual vacuum given the lack of scholarly understanding of the determinants of foreign aid programs.‖ (Schraeder, Taylor et al. 1998) Introduction This is a study of comparative politics. It looks at the determinants of foreign aid in a cross-national perspective. It covers the second half of the post World War II era, from roughly 1970-1980 to 2005. It joins insights from the study of international relations, socio-economics, democratic theory and the study of public opinion. The main question in this study is this: what determines a country‘s foreign aid level and why do some countries give more aid than others? Knowledge about the determinants of foreign aid levels is important in the light of persisting, deep, global poverty. More than half of the global citizens live on less than 2$ per day or less, purchasing power parity. Many of them do not have access to clean drinking water, good healthcare or schools for their children, let alone gaming consoles and haute couture fashion. Whatever one‘s opinion about the practices and results of foreign aid (insofar they are known), I believe the majority of foreign aid attempts to do good for those living in poverty. Hundreds of thousands of people dedicate their lives to help poor people get better lives. It to those people living in poverty and the people helping them that I dedicate this study. From a scholarly perspective, the main question of this paper is interesting and compelling. In an abundant foreign aid literature, the question of the determinants of foreign aid is only sparsely addressed. To my knowledge, no good answer exists to this question. I endeavour to find one. This study builds further on the existing literature with the revision and elaboration of theory and the analysis of a large dataset with previously unavailable data. In the theoretical section I review literature on this subject and look at existing explanations for The Determinants of Foreign Aid 4 the variation in foreign aid levels. Based on this literature, I formulate two hypotheses about the causes of foreign aid. The first hypothesis is that universalist welfare state institutions create public support for foreign aid. The second hypothesis is that strong support for foreign aid increases foreign aid levels. When hypothesis one and two are true, a third hypothesis can be derived, linking universalist welfare states to higher foreign aid. In the empirical section of this paper, these hypotheses are tested with a large, multi-year dataset for approximately 18 countries. Theoretical section Introduction The literature on foreign aid can be divided into three fields. The first looks at the effects of aid. The second looks at the allocation of aid. The third looks at the determinants of aid. I will first discuss the first two fields literature that only treat the central topic of this paper marginally. I then proceed to the third field that forms the core theory in this paper. The first field in the literature on foreign aid looks at the effects or results of foreign aid. Most research in this field is done by scholars in unilateral and multilateral donor agencies. A vast literature exists (see for example Masud and Yontcheva 2005; Rajan and Subramanian 2005), but a simple answer to the question: ―does aid work?‖ seems hard to give. Part of the reason for this has been a severe lack of focus on development results. Both governments, multilateral institutions and NGOs have failed to account for the results of their aid efforts. Much is known on inputs, but little is known on outcomes. As a result, those responsible for communication in government development agencies face huge problems when asked to communicate the results of aid policy. Recent pressure for a more results oriented policy from aid opponents, civil society, donors and recipients alike has led to a formal process that resulted in the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.1 Implementation of the Paris agenda is forcing both donors and recipients to look better and more systematically at the concrete results of development 1 March 2005, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf The Determinants of Foreign Aid 5 efforts. Although a long way has to be gone, the Paris declaration is an important step in the right direction. The second field in the literature on foreign aid looks at the allocation or distribution of foreign aid budgets. Paraphrasing the title of a recent study (Alesina and Dollar 2000), the following question is asked: ―who gives foreign aid to whom and why?‖ The object of inquiry in these studies is how donors distribute their funds. Do former colonies, the poorest countries, strategic allies or others receive the largest piece of the pie? The independent variables in these models are aspects of recipient states. Recent studies assessed whether recipient needs (Trumbull and Wall 1994; Alesina and Dollar 2000; Berthélemy 2006; Nunnenkamp and Thiele 2006) or recipients‘ respect for human rights and democracy (Alesina and Weder 2002; Neumayer 2003; Gates and Hoeffler 2004) are the main determinants for aid allocation. Other studies have compared French (Quinn and Simon 2006), or Japanese aid allocation (Hook and Zhang 1998; Tuman and Ayoub 2004). Most of these studies also seek to answer the question whether foreign aid is motivated by self-interest or humanitarian concerns (see also Hook 1995; Schraeder, Taylor et al. 1998). Pratt (1989) calls this opposition ―international realism‖ versus ―humane internationalism‖. In an international political realist perspective, states are primarily driven by the desire for military and economic power. This theoretical position leaves little room for control over foreign policy by domestic powers. In the neo-realist framework, foreign policy is not the result of internal power struggle and policy formulation, but a reaction to systemic features of
Recommended publications
  • The Origins and Evolution of Progressive Economics Part Seven of the Progressive Tradition Series

    The Origins and Evolution of Progressive Economics Part Seven of the Progressive Tradition Series

    AP PHOTO/FILE AP This January 1935 photo shows a mural depicting phases of the New Deal The Origins and Evolution of Progressive Economics Part Seven of the Progressive Tradition Series Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin March 2011 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG The Origins and Evolution of Progressive Economics Part Seven of the Progressive Tradition Series Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin March 2011 With the rise of the contemporary progressive movement and the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, there is extensive public interest in better understanding the ori- gins, values, and intellectual strands of progressivism. Who were the original progressive thinkers and activists? Where did their ideas come from and what motivated their beliefs and actions? What were their main goals for society and government? How did their ideas influence or diverge from alternative social doctrines? How do their ideas and beliefs relate to contemporary progressivism? The Progressive Tradition Series from the Center for American Progress traces the devel- opment of progressivism as a social and political tradition stretching from the late 19th century reform efforts to the current day. The series is designed primarily for educational and leadership development purposes to help students and activists better understand the foundations of progressive thought and its relationship to politics and social movements. Although the Progressive Studies Program has its own views about the relative merit of the various values, ideas, and actors discussed within the progressive tradition, the essays included in the series are descriptive and analytical rather than opinion based. We envision the essays serving as primers for exploring progressivism and liberalism in more depth through core texts—and in contrast to the conservative intellectual tradition and canon.
  • Workfare, Neoliberalism and the Welfare State

    Workfare, Neoliberalism and the Welfare State

    Workfare, neoliberalism and the welfare state Towards a historical materialist analysis of Australian workfare Daisy Farnham Honours Thesis Submitted as partial requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Political Economy, University of Sydney, 24 October 2013. 1 Supervised by Damien Cahill 2 University of Sydney This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of another degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. 3 Acknowledgements First of all thanks go to my excellent supervisor Damien, who dedicated hours to providing me with detailed, thoughtful and challenging feedback, which was invaluable in developing my ideas. Thank you to my parents, Trish and Robert, for always encouraging me to write and for teaching me to stand up for the underdog. My wonderful friends, thank you all for your support, encouragement, advice and feedback on my work, particularly Jean, Portia, Claire, Feiyi, Jessie, Emma, Amir, Nay, Amy, Gareth, Dave, Nellie and Erin. A special thank you goes to Freya and Erima, whose company and constant support made days on end in Fisher Library as enjoyable as possible! This thesis is inspired by the political perspective and practice of the members of Solidarity. It is dedicated to all those familiar with the indignity and frustration of life on Centrelink. 4 CONTENTS List of figures....................................................................................................................7
  • Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series

    Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series

    Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 529 How Can the Decommodified Security Ratio Assess Social Protection Systems? Georges Menahem January 2010 Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), asbl 1 ECONOMIC WELL‐BEING AND SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTHERN EUROPE: CHANGING POLICIES AND TRENDS 15‐16 November 2007, Madrid How can the decommodified security ratio assess social protection systems? Georges Menahem 1 Director of research at CNRS-CEPN, Paris 13 University and IRDES With a view to better assessment of the roles played by social security and social policy in determining well‐being, this presentation introduces the ”decommodified security ratio“ (DSR), an instrument for evaluating an important duty of the social State, namely to maintain and improve peopleʹs economic security. To that end we describe the conventions for its use and analyse its main components in 24 countries in 1999‐2001, by using the wave V of Luxembourg Income Survey database. From an analysis of the sources of economic security we then distinguish five different rationales. What will tomorrowʹs social protection look like? What tools can assist us in shaping it? We may have to rethink social security when we consider the social shifts which we are currently experiencing: changing patterns of work, breakdown in the wage structure, developments associated with unemployment, precarious employment and exclusion, family instability and countless other factors which jeopardize the individualʹs security. In such context, we are more and more allowed to refer to Articles 22 and 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizing the need for the individual within a society to have ”economic security”, ”social security” and, very specifically (Article 25), ”security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”.
  • THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World

    THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World

    Policy Essay THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World Samuel Hammond1 Poverty and Welfare Policy Analyst Niskanen Center May 2018 INTRODUCTION welfare state” directly depresses the vote for reac- tionary political parties.3 Conversely, I argue that he perennial gale of creative destruc- the contemporary rise of anti-market populism in tion…” wrote the economist Joseph America should be taken as an indictment of our in- 4 Schumpeter, “…is the essential fact of adequate social-insurance system, and a refutation “T of the prevailing “small government” view that reg- capitalism.” For new industries to rise and flourish, old industries must fail. Yet creative destruction is ulation and social spending are equally corrosive to a process that is rarely—if ever—politically neu- economic freedom. The universal welfare state, far tral; even one-off economic shocks can have lasting from being at odds with innovation and economic political-economic consequences. From his vantage freedom, may end up being their ultimate guaran- point in 1942, Schumpeter believed that capitalism tor. would become the ultimate victim of its own suc- The fallout from China’s entry to the World Trade cess, inspiring reactionary and populist movements Organization (WTO) in 2001 is a clear case in against its destructive side that would inadvertently point. Cheaper imports benefited millions of Amer- strangle any potential for future creativity.2 icans through lower consumer prices. At the same This paper argues that the countries that have time, Chinese import competition destroyed nearly eluded Schumpeter’s dreary prediction have done two million jobs in manufacturing and associated 5 so by combining free-markets with robust systems services—a classic case of creative destruction.
  • Incomplete Decommodification: Art, State Subsidy and Welfare Economics

    Incomplete Decommodification: Art, State Subsidy and Welfare Economics

    15 Incomplete Decommodification: Art, State Subsidy and Welfare Economics DAVE BEECH Dave Beech is PARSE Professor of Art at Valand Academy, University of London. He is the author of Art and Value: Art’s Economic Exceptionalism in Gothenburg. He is an artist in the collective Freee (with Andy Hewitt and Classical, Neoclassical and Marxist Economics, (2015). He has written widely Mel Jordan), as well as a writer and curator. His work has been exhibited at on the politics of art, including The Philistine Controversy (2002, co-authored the Istanbul Biennial; the Liverpool Biennial; BAK, Utrecht; Wysing Arts, with John Roberts) and Art and Text (2011). He is a founding co-editor of the Cambridge; SMART Project Space, Amsterdam; the ICA, London; Centro journal Art and the Public Sphere (2011-). He also curated the exhibition We Are Cultural, Montehermoso, Vitoria, Spain; the Collective Gallery, Edinburgh; Grammar at the Pratt Institute, New York 2011 (co-curator Paul O’Neill) and International Project Space, Birmingham; and at 1000000mph Gallery, edited a special edition of Third Text on “Art, Politics, Resistance?” (2010). 16 PARSE JOURNAL HE DEVELOPMENT OF WELFARE ECONOMICS socialist movement by guaranteeing national health between 19121 and 19592 not only propelled insurance, a pension, a minimum wage, workplace T unrivalled social reforms that had been regulation, vacation and unemployment insurance, sporadically underway since the 1880s, and not together comprise the historical origin of the welfare only reimagined the state as an economic
  • The Politics of Reforms in Bismarckian Welfare Systems

    The Politics of Reforms in Bismarckian Welfare Systems

    The politics of reforms in Bismarckian welfare systems Bruno Palier Summary : Countries that share a particular social protection system, of Bismarckian inspiration and based on social insurance, seem to encounter similar and particularly awkward difficulties. They also seem to be following parallel trends in reforms, with respect to both their timing and their content and process. This paper is an attempt to compare the development of Bismarckian welfare systems during the last 25 years, showing the common pattern of reform. ‘Welfare States in Transition’ (Esping-Andersen, 1996), ‘Recasting European Welfare States’ (Ferrera and Rhodes, 2000), ‘Welfare State Futures’ (Leibfried, 2000), ‘The Survival of the European Welfare State’ (Kuhnle, 2000), ‘From vulnerabilities to competitiveness’ (subtitle of Scharpf and Schmidt (eds.) 2000), ‘The New Politics of the Welfare State’ (Pierson 2001a), ‘Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States’, (Swank, 2002) - these are among the most important recent publications on the welfare state. Their titles indicate that the focus of the academic agenda has now moved beyond the crisis of the welfare state, and towards an analysis of actual social policy changes that have occurred during the last 20 to 25 years. While during the 1980s, attention centred firstly (following the OECD, the new right or Marxist authors) on analysing welfare state crisis, and then (following Titmuss and Esping-Andersen’s work) on understanding the differences between welfare states, the key preoccupation is now the analysis and understanding of welfare reforms. In pursuit of this objective, recent comparisons of welfare state reforms have either analysed all types of welfare regimes, or instead focused on the liberal or Nordic regimes specifically.
  • American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: an Appraisal of Alexis De Tocqueville’S Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D

    American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: an Appraisal of Alexis De Tocqueville’S Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D

    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2017 American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the Post-World War II Welfare State John P. Varacalli The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1828 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS AND THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: AN APPRAISAL OF ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE’S DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (1835- 1840) APPLIED TO FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT’S NEW DEAL AND THE POST-WORLD WAR II WELFARE STATE by JOHN P. VARACALLI A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2017 © 2017 JOHN P. VARACALLI All Rights Reserved ii American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Post World War II Welfare State by John P. Varacalli The manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts ______________________ __________________________________________ Date David Gordon Thesis Advisor ______________________ __________________________________________ Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Acting Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D.
  • The Lost and the New 'Liberal World' of Welfare Capitalism

    The Lost and the New 'Liberal World' of Welfare Capitalism

    Social Policy & Society (2017) 16:3, 405–422 C Cambridge University Press 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/S1474746415000676 The Lost and the New ‘Liberal World’ of Welfare Capitalism: A Critical Assessment of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a Quarter Century Later Christopher Deeming School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol E-mail: [email protected] Celebrating the 25th birthday of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s seminal book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), this article looks back at the old ‘liberal world’ and examines the new. In so doing, it contributes to debates and the literature on liberal welfare state development in three main ways. First, it considers the concept of ‘liberalism’ and liberal ideas about welfare provision contained within Three Worlds. Here we are also interested in how liberal thought has conceptualised the (welfare) state, and the class-mobilisation theory of welfare-state development. Second, the article elaborates on ‘neo-’liberal social reforms and current welfare arrangements in the English-speaking democracies and their welfare states. Finally, it considers the extent to which the English-speaking world of welfare capitalism is still meaningfully ‘liberal’ and coherent today. Key words: Welfare regimes, welfare state capitalism, liberalism, neoliberalism, comparative social policy. Introduction Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Three Worlds hereafter) has transformed and inspired social research for a quarter of a century.
  • A Capitalist Road to Communism,” Theory and Society 15 (5), Pp

    A Capitalist Road to Communism,” Theory and Society 15 (5), Pp

    COMMENT Basic Income as a Socialist Project Erik Olin Wright University of Wisconsin, Madison In the seminal paper that launched the contemporary discussion of basic income, “The Capitalist Road to Communism” (1986), Robert van der Veen and Philippe Van Parijs argue that socialism is an unnecessary stage between capitalism and communism. Following Marx, they defined “socialism” as …a society in which workers collectively own the means of production – and in which therefore they collectively decide what these should be used for and how the resulting product should be distributed, namely according to the principle “to each according to his labor”. Communism, in contrast, …is defined by the distribution principle “from each according to his abilities to each according to needs” – which implies at least that the social product is distributed in such a way (1) that everyone’s basic needs are adequately met, and (2) that each individual’s share is entirely independent of his or her (freely provided) labor contribution. (Van der Veen and Van Parijs, 1986, pp. 636–637). The central principles of communism, they argue, can be constructed inside of capitalism through the institution of a generous basic income grant that distributes a significant part of the social product on the basis of need, and that frees people from the obligation to perform labor in order to receive a reward. Collective ownership of the means of production is an unnecessary detour. In this paper I will explore a complementary problem: in what ways might Basic Income be seen as a structural reform of capitalism that would facilitate a movement in the direction of socialism? It may be that to a meaningful degree the distributional principles of communism could be instituted within capitalism in the form of a generous unconditional basic income, and thus socialism may not be a necessary condition for significant advance on these principles.
  • Decommodification and Self-Organization in Housing

    Decommodification and Self-Organization in Housing

    Resources Ivo Balmer, Tobias Bernet Housing as a Common Resource? Decommodification and Self-Organization in Housing – Examples from Germany and Switzerland 1 Introduction Housing is something intimate. One could say that our homes represent a ‘third skin’ after clothing. Like clothes, shelter is regarded as a basic human need. Since this does not automatically translate into universal access in a less-than-perfect | downloaded: 28.9.2021 world, the provision of such basic goods is a fundamental political issue. A wide range of answers to the housing question have been developed in different times and places depending on the economic conditions and political hegemony. Both the market and the state have been hailed as the primary provider of housing and, even though the ‘third sector’ has mostly played a rather marginal role, there are noteworthy traditions of philanthropic and especially of self-help (cooperative) ini- tiatives in housing. The latter are certainly worth discussion in the context of the current ‘rediscov- ery’ of the commons, as is the field of public housing. In this chapter, we will attempt to sketch a typology of housing tenure and provision from a ‘commons per- spective,’ examining to what extent housing can be seen as a common resource within different institutional arrangements. We will do this by analyzing a number of contemporary examples from Germany and Switzerland, two countries that are known as ‘tenants’ nations’ by virtue of having some of the lowest rates of own- https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.70441 er-occupied homes among industrialized countries,1 and which thus represent a specific arena of marked contestations within the housing sector.
  • Assessing the Complex Relation Between the Welfare State and Social Capital

    Assessing the Complex Relation Between the Welfare State and Social Capital

    LIEPP Working Paper Decembre 2015, nº43 Axe “Politiques socio-fiscales” A Matter of Size and Generosity: Assessing the Complex Relation between the Welfare State and Social Capital Emanuele Ferragina Sciences Po (OSC-CNRS et LIEPP) [email protected] www.sciencespo.fr/liepp © 2015 by the authors. All rights reserved. LIEPP Working Paper nº43 A Matter of Size and Generosity: Assessing the Complex Relation between the Welfare State and Social Capital * Emanuele Ferragina Sciences Po (OSC-CNRS et LIEPP) Abstract Using confirmatory factor analysis and several regression models, this paper assesses the relation between different welfare state configurations and social capital in 19 European countries over two decades. The results suggest that welfare state configurations characterized by high degrees of decommodification and restrained levels of social spending are associated with higher social capital scores. Moreover, the positive relation between decommodification and social capital is stronger than the negative association observed with social spending. At the theoretical level, on the one hand, the findings seem to partially confirm the concern of neoclassical and communitarian theorists for the negative correlation between large size welfare states and social capital. On the other hand, they support the contention of institutional theorists that there is a strong positive association between high degrees of welfare state generosity and social capital. * This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the ―Investissements d‘Avenir‖ program LIEPP (reference: ANR-11-LABX-0091, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02). 1 12/2015 Introduction The article investigates the association between different welfare state configurations and social capital over two decades.
  • Welfare State in the Twenty-First Century Joseph E

    Welfare State in the Twenty-First Century Joseph E

    The Welfare State in the Twenty-First Century Joseph E. Stiglitz1 Designing the twenty-first-century welfare state is part of a broader debate redefining the role of the market, the state, and “civil society”—non-state forms of collective action. One of the tenets of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution was questioning the welfare state. Some worried that the financial burdens of the welfare state would drag down growth. Some worried about the effect of the welfare state on the sense of individual responsibility, others that the welfare state provides an opportunity for the lazy and profligate to take advantage of hardworking citizens. A sense of social solidarity had united citizens around the world during World War II. Some thirty years after that global conflict, that solidarity was eroding, and economic arguments quickened its disintegration. Even two decades after the doctrines of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution of the 1980s had taken root—and long after its shortcomings had become obvious—others argued that the welfare state had contributed to the euro crisis.2 This paper argues that these arguments criticizing the welfare state are for the most part fallacious and that changes in our economy have even increased the importance of the system. The paper then describes some of the key elements of a twenty-first-century welfare state. I. Basic Precepts of the Welfare State To understand the principles and philosophy of the welfare state, it is useful to contrast it with the “neoliberal” or market-oriented state.3 The central economic doctrine of neoliberalism is that markets are efficient.