Analysing Social Policy Concepts and Language

Comparative and Transnational Perspectives

Daniel Béland, Klaus Petersen, Béland, Daniel, Petersen, Klaus, Daniel Béland, Klaus Petersen

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781447320937
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Social policy scholars and practitioners work with concepts such as "welfare state" and "social security" but where do these concepts come from and how has their meaning changed over time? Which are the dominant social policy concepts and how are they contested? What characterises social policy language in specific countries and regions of the world and how do social concepts travel between countries?

Addressing such questions in a systematic manner for the first time, this edited collection, written by a cross-disciplinary group of leading social policy researchers, analyses the concepts and language used to make sense of contemporary social policy. The volume focuses on OECD countries located on four different continents: Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. Combining detailed chapters on particular countries with broader comparative chapters, the book strikes a rare balance between case studies and transnational perspectives. It will be of interest to academics and students in social policy, social work, political science, sociology, history, and public administration, as well as practitioners and policy makers.

FOUR

The OECD’s search for a new social policy language: from welfare state to active society

Rianne Mahon²⁷

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was the first international organisation with an explicit social mandate, but by the 1960s it had been joined by a plethora of UN related and other international organisations, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Although the OECD’s primary mission was to promote economic cooperation among advanced capitalist economies, it has also become an important node in transnational social policy networks, working alongside other key international organisations and in close cooperation with the European Commission.²⁸ Some see the OECD as an important contributor to the neoliberal assault on the welfare state (Armingeon and Beyeler, 2004). Yet it – or, more precisely, its Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs (DELSA)²⁹ – has also been seen as one of the early (1990s) promoters of the idea of ‘social investment’ as an alternative to the neoliberal conception of the welfare state as a barrier to the efficient operation of labour markets (Jenson, 2010).

These two views need not be at odds with one another: just as there were varied conceptions of the welfare state in the Keynesian era, so too is social investment understood in different ways (Mahon, 2010a). What this paper shows is that already in the twilight of the Keynesian era, the OECD had begun to talk about the need for a shift towards a more ‘positive’ and ‘preventive’ conception, while the two oil shocks and stagflation helped to open the way for the break with Keynesian ideas. By the end of the 1970s, the OECD was set to host the conference often seen as promoting the adoption of the ‘welfare state as burden’ language. It is argued here, however, that while the conference did stress the need to curb social expenditure, it also accelerated the search for a new conception of social policy, but it was not until the first meeting of social policy ministers (1988) that the new understanding got its name – ‘active society.’ Although the active society was initially translated into terms that fit with the organisation’s neoliberal Jobs Strategy,³⁰ resistance to the Strategy within the Social Policy Directorate and among certain member states opened the way for a more equity oriented interpretation.

From ‘quality of life’ to ‘welfare state in crisis’

The OECD was formed in 1961, built on the foundations laid by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).³¹ Initially it understood the world through Keynesian ideas and in the 1960s it became an important source for the transmission of ‘Keynes plus’ conceptions such as ‘active labour market policy’(Hansen, 1986). One of the first of the OECD’s famous peer reviews in fact focused on labour market and social policies, beginning with Sweden, which was a pioneer in the field of active labour market policies, and the United States, where there was a very active debate on the need for ‘manpower’ policies to improve the employment prospects of ‘disadvantaged’ groups (Gordon, 1964). In the early 1970s, the OECD’s growing interest in human capital formation led to the creation of the new Directorate of Social Affairs, Manpower and Education (SAME). At this juncture, its conception of social policy was influenced by the social mobilisations of the1960s – from the student revolts and the emergence of second wave feminism to the wave of strikes that had swept across Western Europe. The concern thus sparked in ‘quality of life’ issues and de-bureaucratisation that marked SAME’s initial projects, however, came to share space with pessimistic assessments of prospects for stable growth and increasingly vociferous claims that the welfare state was inhibiting economic adjustment.

The social unrest of the 1960s inspired then Secretary General, Thorkil Kristensen, and others within the organisation to address `quality of life’ issues. The importance attached to quality of life issues was reflected in SAME’s social indicators project. Social indicators were needed because `growth is not an end in itself but rather an instrument for creating better conditions of life. Increasing attention must be given to the quality aspects of growth, and to the formulation of policies with respect to broad economic and social choices in the allocation of growing resources`.³² The list of common concerns compiled testifies to the breadth of the organisation’s conception of the quality of life and social policy’s role in enhancing this: a healthy life through all stages of the life cycle; individual development through learning, from childhood through to self-development in adulthood; attention to the quality of working life, with its promise of greater industrial democracy, as well as to the quantity of jobs; the quality, range of choice and accessibility of public and private goods and services; and ‘the extent of opportunities for participation in community life, institutions and decision-making.’³³

At the same time the organisation was beginning to grapple with inflation and unemployment. A new internal study – Expenditure Trends in OECD Countries 1960-1980 (1972) – had revealed a ‘surprising leap’ in government transfer payments, which were seen to fuel inflation as workers sought wage increases to compensate for the tax hikes introduced to pay for the new social programmes.³⁴ In addition, there was growing acceptance of the view that social policies were contributing to unemployment. Thus Working Party 4 (Social Aspects of Income Transfer Policies) was tasked with assessing the effect of social transfers on work incentives. At this time, however, the country representatives on the working party had still to be convinced that unemployment compensation contributed significantly to unemployment.³⁵

As unemployment and stagflation assumed greater importance, the Secretariat began to suggest that social policy planning needed to go beyond improved cost effectiveness to a more profound rethinking of the goals of social policy. Here we see the beginnings of what would later be named the ‘active society’. Thus the Secretariat noted that

the present dilemma in fact reinforces the need for more active social policies by changing their emphasis from mainly remedial measures to repair the damage to individuals ... in favour of positive and preventive measures to improve the access of all citizens to work, income and satisfactory working and living conditions. ³⁶

This emphasis on a ‘positive and preventive’ approach also featured in the rationale for its integrated social policies study, where it was argued that, given the centrality of employment to a ‘positive approach’ to social policy, it was important to examine the interaction of social policies with labour market and industrial relations policies. Related to the rethinking of social policy goals and language was a reassessment of the means to achieving these – away from the ‘bureaucratic welfare state’ towards a ‘welfare society’. As the Working Party preparing the ministerial meeting noted, ‘The burden on the economy of income redistribution [sic] and welfare services, involving heavy bureaucratic machinery, calls for a re-examination of the positive role of employment as a main instrument of wellbeing’.³⁷ At this point, the antibureaucratic theme reflected the Secretariat’s response to criticisms of the Keynesian welfare state from the left as well as the right. This would later change.

These ideas would be elaborated in the documents prepared for the conference on social policy in the 1980s, ‘The welfare state in crisis.’ The Secretariat’s position was that circumstances had changed and this required a rethinking of the aims and means of social policy, not its abandonment: ‘Lower growth means that we cannot avoid the need to remodel our social policies, whilst still ensuring the necessary minimum levels of protection which a modern industrialised democracy is bound to provide for its citizens. It is not the axe which is needed, but some skilful social surgery’ (OECD, 1981: 6).

While some OECD conferences are organised largely to enable the Secretariat to incorporate new ideas, others have as their primary goal the exposure of member state representatives to new language. The 1980 conference was of the latter sort: it was designed to promote new ways of thinking about social policy. This is hinted at in Angus Maddison’s³⁸ letter seeking funding for the conference. Lamenting the dearth of analytical social policy work, Maddison hoped that participation in the conference ‘would encourage Member governments to give greater funding for research and would tend to broaden the range of policy options open to consideration in individual countries, because it would gradually develop a view less constrained by national institutional experience’.³⁹ In preparing the key background document (OECD, 1981: 73–93) and constructing the questions to guide the discussion, the Secretariat played an active role in framing the debates.

The Secretariat clearly continued to be concerned with ‘quality of life’ issues such as work time and the role of the ‘third or fourth’ sector. Thus in the session on work, leisure and employment, Gass posed the following questions:

Should not discussions on the various ways of redistributing and sharing work – hitherto mainly focused on a generalised reduction of working hours – deal not only with a broader concept of the distribution of working time, with varied effects on weekly, yearly and lifetime work patterns, but also with the redistribution of income and leisure time?

Should not greater attention be given to workers’ aspirations to a higher ‘quality of working life’, particularly with more decentralised processes of collective bargaining?

Would it not be desirable for the definition of work in society and the choice of job opportunities available to the community, to be broadened ... by legitimising certain new forms of paid or unpaid work (typified by such concepts as the ‘self-service economy’, the ‘third or fourth sector’, the ‘underground economy’ and various forms of ‘community’ or ‘co-operative’ enterprises)? (OECD, 1981: 57)

Moreover, the continued concern with the original social indicators was reflected in the framing document’s reference to the desirability of a coordinated approach to social and economic policies, based on ‘a definition of well-being which also includes income distribution, leisure, the quality of working life and questions of environment, rather than simply continue with one confined solely to real output’ (OECD, 1981: 76).

At the same time, the paper emphasised SAME’s emerging conception of how to modernise social policy and administration. Here again the need...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures and tables
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction: social policy concepts and language
• one: Social policy language in Denmark and Sweden
• Two: The changing language of social policy in Hungary and Poland
• Three: Languages of ‘social policy’ at ‘the EU level’
• Four: The OECD’s search for a new social policy language: from welfare state to active society
• Five: The discursive power of international organisations: social policy language and concepts in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
• Six: Original and imitated or elusive and limited? Towards a genealogy of the welfare state idea in Britain
• Seven: Social policy concepts and language in France
• Eight: The language of social politics in Finland
• Nine: Germany: constructing the ‘win-win’ society
• Ten: Conceptual development of welfare and social policy in Japan
• Eleven: Transition to the ‘universal welfare state’: the changing meaning of ‘welfare state’ in Korea
• Twelve: The Dutch ‘caring state’
• Thirteen: Panacea, problem or perish: social policy language in New Zealand
• Fourteen: Evolving social policy languages in Spain: what did democracy and EU membership change?
• Fifteen: Social policy language in the United States
• Conclusion: Comparative perspectives on social policy language