EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE Department of Political and Social Sciences SOCIAL CAPITALISM A STUDY OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY AND THE POST-WAR SETTLEMENT OF THE WELFARE STATE Kees van Kersbergen Thesis submitted for assessment with a view of obtaining the Degree of the European University Institute Department of Political and Social Sciences Examining_jury : Prof. G0sta ESPING-ANDERSEN (EUI)(supervisor) Prof. Franz-Xaver KAUFMANN (Universität Bielefeld) Prof. Hans KEMAN (Free University, Amsterdam) Prof. Roger MORGAN (EUI) Prof. John D. STEPHENS (Northwestern University, USA) December 1991 Florence European University Library 3 0001 0012 3356 0 SZOS'SJXP^ THESES 320 5312094 SOCIAL CAPITALISM KER A STUDY OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY AND THE POST-WAR SETTLEMENT OF THE WELFARE STATE Kees van Kersbergen European University Institute Florence, Italy i Christian Democracy and Social Capitalism: an Introduction 1 Objections, Theories and Developments Christian Democracy and Distinctiveness: Possible Objections 16 From Charity to Social Justice: On the Spirit of Social Capitalism 43 On the Origins of Christian Democracy and Social Capitalism 81 Cross-National Comparisons An Interlude in Five Propositions 119 The Welfare State 125 Social Capitalism as a Welfare State Regime 155 National Experiences The Constitution of Societies: Christian Democracy and Social Capitalism in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands 208 Germany 212 Italy 252 The Netherlands 290 Conclusion 322 328 PREFACE Christian Democracy has attracted surprisingly little scholarly attention. Whereas studies of Social Democracy could easily fill a small library, monographs on the Christian inspired movements of Western Europe would probably scarcily stuff an entire book-shelf. Given the political importance of Christian Democracy such lack of concern with the phenomenon is quite perplexing. In the course of my studies I have noticed that occupying oneself with Christian Democracy out of intellectual curiosity tends to titillate skepticism on the side of those who never seriously thought about the topic. One has frequently doubted my ’real’ motives. Every time I presented my work somebody felt obliged to ask whether I was perhaps religious myself. Apparently, it is difficult to imagine that Christian Democracy can be an intriguing object of study in itself. One does not have to believe in the Christian Democratic project in order to study it, just as one does not have to be a fool to study madness. The most cordial reaction I ever got was when someone praised my courage to tackle the topic, probably contending that masochism is a prerequisite for martyrdom. One can envisage that explaining my thesis as one relating Christian Democracy and the welfare state has not been an easy matter either. The possibility of the connection seems to be excluded. Christian Democracy inhibits a happy life for all, that is common wisdom. But how do we know? Let us wait with value judgements until knowledge permits us tc assess the movement’s shortcomings properly. Fortunately, the academic entourage of the European University Institute has provided me with an intellectual environment where my attempt to make sense of Christian Democracy and the welfare state was more than encouraged. Here I have come across very little prejudice. The Institute’s openness and its international character have given me a unique opportunity for carrying out this study. I am grateful to the Dutch Ministry of Education and the European Community for providing me with the grants that allowed me to write this dissertation and survive financially. If altruism and generosity have lost much of their content in contemporary personal relationships, my supervisor and friend, Gosta Esping-Andersen, has certainly made a great effort to refresh the genuine meaning of the concepts (and note that - unlike charity- altruism does not imply the submission of the recipient to the benefactor). His influence on this study is unmistakable and I do not regret it for a moment. It is certainly not a ’bad idea’ to ask under what conditions some do and some don’t. I thoroughly disagree with him on only one minor detail. The first rule of sociology is ’everything took longer’. The initial idea for this study was conceived when I was at the political science department of the University of Amsterdam. I wish to thank Uwe Becker for making me aware of the fact that Dutch exceptionalism may be as much due to the peculiarities of this nation as to the hidden assumptions of theories of the welfare state. He taught me the importance of a critical spirit. The collaboration with Dietmar Braun has contributed much to my understanding of Christian Democracy and the original research proposal was a direct result of a seminar on Christian Democracy that we held in 1986-1987. During my stay in Florence, I participated in several seminars where I was given the opportunity to present the preliminary results of my research. I wish to thank all the participants for their efforts to read and comment upon my usually too wordy papers. If you read this work carefully you will certainly recognize bits and pieces of your own remarks. My friend Zina Assimakopoulou deserves special mention. Together we found out how tedious empirical research can be. Bep and Corry, my parents, have contributed to this work in their own peculiar manner. I’ll show my gratitude on one of the few occasions that we will all be back in the Netherlands. Of course I should also thank my wife, Inger Stokkink, but I already did that yesterday and today, and I will do so again tomorrow. CHAPTER 1 CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL CAPITALISM: AN INTRODUCTION 2 "In order to overcome today’s widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care which the different generations give to one another" (Centesimus Annus) Christian Democracy fosters a distinctive welfare state regime. This is perhaps the shortest way of summarizing the central thesis of this dissertation. The aim of the study is to contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenon of Christian Democracy as well as to our understanding of the manner in which this movement has shaped the societal configuration of market, state and family. This double object of the study is a consequence of trying to clarify a relationship. Yet, there is a more substantial reason for it, too. What I claim is that what is distinctive about Christian Democracy is distinctive about the Christian Democratic welfare state regime. It is the theory and practice of social capitalism that not only distinguishes this movement from other political actors (notably Social Democracy), but also to a large extent explains the specific character of the welfare state regime of nations such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Parallel to the Social Democratization of capitalism in the Nordic countries, one might disclose a form of ’Christian Democratization’ of capitalism in nations on the European continent. I use the term ’social capitalism’ to denote Christian Democracy’s project and practice of social reform. As with the notion ’welfare capitalism’ it refers to a specific institutional arrangement of social intervention. In this sense it is my idiosyncratic adaptation of Hartwich’s (1970) and Schmidt’s (1985) use of the term0. Social capitalism synthesizes a basic commitment to capitalist market relations and a readiness to correct its detrimental effects. Social policy is primarily conceived of as a safety-net. It intercepts those who are in imminent danger of being crushed by the logic of the market. There exist three recognized sub-systems of society. First, the imperfect market, which can only be marginally altered and for which collective arrangements 1) Nanetti (1988) is another author who uses the term explicitly. She, however, sees social capitalism as a phase of the Italian welfare state in which public policies are formulated for the creation, support and pervasive distribution of private wealth by sub-national governments. 3 of care must be created. Secondly, the state, which is the institution through which funds are transferred to those who need assistance to help themselves. Third, the family, which is the atomic unit to which social rights are attached. Social capitalism differs from the Liberal model in that it refuses to view the individual as the elementary unit of society and in that it accords the state an extensive role as ’subsidizer’ of deficiency -both of the market and of the family. It contrasts with the Social Democratic model in that the state cannot and should not intervene (or only modestly so) in the market mechanism itself and in that it is reluctant to attach rights to citizens as citizens. Social capitalism, then, is the specific arrangement of market, state and family by which resources produced in the private economy are channeled to families that fail to secure their means of income themselves. Under what conditions and to what extent Christian Democracy explains this phenomenon is the leading question of this study. This dissertation is not on the welfare state, but on a specific type of welfare state regime. I do not simply defend the thesis that Christian Democracy is related to welfare statism as such. The use of the particle ’the’ is generally a misnomer. There are welfare states and only a few of these fundamentally comprise the aims of solidarity and universalism. Nevertheless, the idea of ’the’ welfare state is so firmly established that it seems difficult to think of a plurality of forms rather than of a variance in ’effort’. It is such a preconception that makes one argue that "the fully, generalized, comprehensive welfare state most closely embodies institutionalized solidarity" (Baldwin 1990: 29). The very vocabulary (’fully’, ’generalized’) reveals the shared fixation of so many a study in the field on the Social Democratic model.