Social Risks: From Risks to Social Risks; From Old to New - PDF

Inhoudsopgave {#inhoudsopgave.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ============= [Lecture 1 Social risks: from risks to social risks; from old to new 2](#lecture-1-social-risks-from-risks-to-social-risks-from-old-to-new) [Lecture 2: Globalization: defining and measuring 5](#lecture-2-globalization-defining-and-me...

Inhoudsopgave {#inhoudsopgave.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ============= [Lecture 1 Social risks: from risks to social risks; from old to new 2](#lecture-1-social-risks-from-risks-to-social-risks-from-old-to-new) [Lecture 2: Globalization: defining and measuring 5](#lecture-2-globalization-defining-and-measuring) [Lecture 3: Global poverty and inequality. Globalization and the uneven transformation of social risks. 12](#lecture-3-global-poverty-and-inequality.-globalization-and-the-uneven-transformation-of-social-risks.) [Lecture 4: Globalization and the welfare state. Labour market flexibility, social investment & dualization 24](#lecture-4-globalization-and-the-welfare-state.-labour-market-flexibility-social-investment-dualization) [Lecture 5: The politicization of globalization. The case of welfare chauvinism 34](#lecture-5-the-politicization-of-globalization.-the-case-of-welfare-chauvinism) ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### Lecture 1 Social risks: from risks to social risks; from old to new [Risk ] [What is risk?] Riscare: "to dare" - The courage to enter the unknown Probabilistic: about odds (kansen, waarschijnlijkheid) - The chance that something will happen Normative: adverse (nadelig), undesirable - The probability of a [dangerous] event... multiplied by the amount of expected [damage] connected this event [What are social risks?] A lack of basic security = insecure circumstances + vulnerability to harm - Risk: prospect that something undesirable happens - Vulnerability: lack of recourses to protect oneself from harm when something undesirable happens - High risk, low vulnerability (Elon Musk) - Low risk, high vulnerability (single mother sick) Socioeconomic circumstances associated with a significant loss of income and an increased poverty risk Examples? - Unemplemented; sickness; (occupational) disability, old age... These risks were not always considered "social" - Risk = because of [individual] failure/choice - Social risk = risk produces by the [system] - collective response required Social risks = building blocks of the welfare state - Welfare state = system of social risk management... -... by means of public systems of social insurance, health care, education, housing,... [Form risk to social risks] [Before industrial capitalism] - Many risks (war, famine,...) - Not or only weakly recognized as public responsibility - Markets, but no labor markets; states, but no welfare states - *Informal security regime*: "welfare" provided by extended families and communities, landowners,... - Poverty is the product of "indolence and vice", individual failure - "Poor relief" for beggars, vagabonds, landless workers,.. religious (catholic charity; moral duty to help; protestant, stronger focus on "work"); local administration; !=state (punishing vagabonds) - Poor relief is conditional: 'deserving" and "under deserving" poor (unreliable/ means-tested) [Workhouses and poor houses (almshouses)] - Institutions in the past that were created to provide relief for the poor. Providing shelter and work [Industrial capitalism: the emergence of "life-course" risks] - Industrial mode of production (factories) - Commodification of labor, mass migration, concentration of urban poverty, slum dwelling, low wages - Unravelling informal welfare arrangements - Elites come to recognize mass poverty as "socially produces" risk - Caused by economic system, rather than "unwillingness" to work - Wages are too low to live a decent life (child labor) - Poverty of wage-earners is related to family cycle =\> life-course risks - Deprived living conditions compromise social stability and form hindrance to further economic development - New "class" of indusial workers =\> friendly societies (privately organized self-help and unions [From "informal" to "formal" security regime] - Nation-state building and rise of democracy - Nation-state coordinates efforts of unions and employers to build programs of social insurance (The government works together with unions and employers to create social insurance programs.) - "Formal security regime" = state takes responsibility for managing risks that stop people from working - WELFARE CAPITALISM =\> synergy between social policy and economic growth. (A system where social policies and economic growth support and strengthen each other.) - 1850 onwards: regulation, centralization and subsidization of 'friendly societies'; - first social insurance programs for 'male breadwinners'; Industrial accidents; Sickness - WW I - Disability and old-age insurance; Family allowances; Primary education - WW II: extension of social rights to all nation state citizens =\> 'universalism' - Unemployment insurance; Social assistance (modern 'left-over' of old poor relief systems) from 'informal' to 'formal' security regime [The social insurance approach to social risk management] - Lord Beveridge, 1942 (social insurance and allies services): - 'Social surveys in a number of principal towns in Britain showed that want was due either to interruption [or loss of earning power] or to [large families]. The Plan for Social Security is a plan for dealing with these two causes of want, by a double redistribution of income -- between [times of earning and not earning] (by **social insurance**) and between times of large and small family responsibilities (by **family allowances**)' Poverty could be abolished by redistribution **within** the working classes" - Intrapersonal 'horizontal redistribution' over the life course, 'from cradle to grave' =\> 'piggy-bank' function of welfare state via contributions and taxes Five 'giants' that threatened well-being five pillars of welfare - Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, nummer Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Underlying "social contract"] - 'We're all in the same boat' =\> we all contribute at some times and collect at other times - All welfare states: gigantic machines of horizontal redistribution of\ contributions and taxes - How do we deal with free-riders? - Compulsory by law, collective system of risk pooling at the level of\ nation-state - Means-tested lower social assistance benefits and control/discipline\ Underlying 'social contract'? [Types of risks] [Life-course risks] - Unequal distribution of risks across the life-course - Trajectories (education, employment, parenthood, retirement) & transitions - WS structures life: youth (education); mid-life (working); old age (retirement) - IR: "passive" tails of life: childhood (family allowance) & old age (pensions) - PIR: shift to young adult & prime age (entering labour market, stable job, dual earner) - Rowentree (1901) -- Poverty: a study of town life: life-cycle of poverty -  [Class risks] - Unequal distribution of risks across social classes (occupational groups) - Structural inequalities tied to socioeconomic status - Exp: occupational injury (miner vs college professor) - Exp: unstable job & job loss (low-skilled vs high skilled) - Exp: health (low socioeconomic class lives in more polluted eras; fast food) - Unequal coverage of class risks across welfare systems (Seminar 1) - Residual, corporativist, universalistic - Class risks are partly created/amplified by welfare state (especially in cons-corp) [Intergenerational risks ] - Transmission of social risks due to inheritance - (dis)advantages that are passed down from one generation to the next - Exp: housing (with a little help from your parents) - Exp: education (Pygmalion effect) (The fact that teachers perceive their classroom and stimulate people with high class outcome more) - Cycles of poverty and inequality - The extent of social mobility - Achievement and [ascription] ["Old & "New" Social risks] +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Old Risks | New risks | +===================================+===================================+ | Industrial economy | Post-industrial economy | | | | | - Golden age 1950s-70s; high | - 80s onwards; low growth | | growth | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Standard Employment Relationship | Non-Standard Employment | | | | | - Full-time, stable, lifelong, | - Part-time, flex, struct. | | full | unempl | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Stable families | Less stable families | | | | | - Male breadwinner | - Single parenthood, women, | | | elderly | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Little individual variation: | More individual variation: hetero | | homog. | | | | - Predictability -- low skills; | | - Unpredictability of risk; | solidarity? | | solidarity | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | WS = protective, passive income | WS = preventive, social | | replacement | investment and activation | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ [Examples] +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Old risks | New risks | +===================================+===================================+ | Focus = male breadwinner | Focus = women, young, low-skill | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Unable to extract income from LM | Social transformations | | | | | | - Women in labour market | | | | | | - Increase elderly (care + | | | pensions) | | | | | | - Global competition: skills, | | | technology, inequality, | | | efficiency of WS | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Examples: | Examples: | | | | | - Sickness | - Work-life balance (childcare; | | | singleparenthood; frail | | - Invalidity | relative) | | | | | - Unemployment | - Low skills, low pay, | | | precarious work | | - Old age | | | | - Retrenching WS | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ [Conclusion ] - What is risk? What are social risks? - How did risks become social risks? - Are there different types of risks? - Class, life course, intergenerational risks - Old & new risks ### Lecture 2: Globalization: defining and measuring How to unpack, understand, operationalize, and research impacts of (economic) globalization on risks related to 'inequality' and a 'lack of welfare' across different types of welfare states [1.Defining globalization ] [What is globalization? ] - "A process fueled by, and resulting in, increasing cross-border flows of goods, services, money, people, information, and culture" (Held et al., 1999: 16) - "A compression of space and time, a shrinking of the world" (Harvey, 1989) - "A process of greater interdependence and mutual awareness (reflexivity) among economic, political, and social units in the world" (Guillén, 2001: 236) - "The integration of a global (capitalist) market economy" (Turner & Holton, 2015) - *A lot of theory, but not particularly empirical* [Contested concept ] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, document, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - A review article from years ago with basic questions. Some say there is not globalization and others say there is. Maybe it is just the west. [Ritzer & Dean ] - "*A [transplanetary] process or set of processes involving increased [liquidity] and the growing multidirectional [flows] of people, objects, places and information as well as the [structures] they encounter and create that are [barriers] to, or [expedite], those flows.*" - Examples of hindering and facilitating structures? - Social media. You can reach everyone and allows one to connect - European Union, movement of capital. Barring immigrants, making deals. - Start after WWII: USA, MNC, USSR - qualitatively different compared to previous times - Extensive; Intensive; Velocity; Impact propensity - Solidity becomes liquid (quicker) becomes gaseousness (instantaneous) - heavy becomes light becomes weightless; all flows but the world is not flat (inequalities, barriers, dangers) - example: impact of 9/11, Al-Qaida. Evergreen boat that blocked. Ukraine war and gas prices. Financial crisis in the US. Covid. [Processes of globalization ] - [Economic] globalization = globalization - [Political] globalization: enabling or restricting 'flows' by e.g. (de)regulation, global & regional structures and organizations (e.g. IMF, Worldbank, UN, EU), NGO's (e.g. Oxfam) - Mostly facilitate, but also resistance -- barriers, recently: - Donald Trump and his protectionist reflexes... =\> new barriers, reduced integration - Brexit - Russian invasion of Ukraine - EU tariffs on Chinese electric cars - Cultural globalization, religion, education and science, sports, health & medicine, \... (Netflix, spotify) - The definition just not stresses about how the different parts of the world are connected but also explains the challenges and problems that come with globalization [Measuring globalization ] [KOF-globalization index] - Economic, social and political globalization - - *De facto* globalization: variables that represent *actual* flows and activities. (measuring actual flows) (what really is occurring such as trade, people movement and investments, so what is really happening in the world right now) - *De jure* globalization: variables that represent institutions, policies and conditions that *enable* or restrict flows and activities (for instance the trait tariff, regulations that can hinder the actual flow) (it refers to the laws, rules and agreements that affect how things can flow in and out of countries. Including things like trade policies, regulations and international agreements. So, in simple terms, the rules and laws that influence how countries interact with each other) - NEW: trade and financial globalization (new stage of economic globalization) -  [Criticism]**:** - It is very much aimed at measuring aspects of the western world, such as IKEA and McDonalds - Small villages - Unit of analyses, it puts a number on a country. But the globalization might be driven by certain cities like New York or San Francisco. Other villages may not be globalized. - How it is measured gives an advantage to small European countries Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, geel, Parallel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [3.Development of (economic) globalization ]  - 1990 end of USSR. Afbeelding met lijn, Perceel, diagram, tekst Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving  [Development of economic globalization: trade openness ] Afbeelding met tekst, ontvangst, diagram, lijn Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - What's interesting is that you can see 3 waves of globalization - 70s oil - 90s [A Previous epoch of globalization and its fall] - 1896-1914: emergence of global capitalist system: - Technological advancements (railroad; steamship, telegraph) (These innovations allowed people to connect) - Law of comparative advantage (nations should specialize in what they do best. When they specialize, they can innovate and specialize and take advantage) (by specializing you can be more voordelig ) - free trade & elimination of trade barriers =\> large-scale unregulated flows of capital - 'Unfair' competition between countries through manipulation of currency values, tariffs,...: 'race to the bottom' (countries tend to outsmart each other) - WWI -- Great Depression -- WWII - Negative effects on (almost) all major economies - Europe: war, rebuilding & isolationism (Nazi-Germany; Fascist Italy: self-sufficiency) - US: 'roaring 20s' to stock market crash to Great Depression (protectionist reflex) - The consequence of this crises; the world became much more closed instead of open. [The Bretton Wood system (]the rules) **WAVE 1: REGULATION** - Post WWII - Fear of new 'Depression'; blame on protectionism and lack of cooperation - Solution: Bretton Woods System (New Hampshire 1944) - system of rules safeguarding financial stability, fair cooperation and trust between nation states =\> economic growth - How? gold-standard & fixed exchange rates all linked to US Dollar (1oz gold = 35\$) + establishment of IMF and Worldbank, trade agreements, etc. - expansion of welfare state: safety net to help citizens 'deal' with problems of capitalism; in a similar way in all countries (e.g. unemployment =\> benefits =\> consumption); - Integration of global economy, e.g. emergence of Multi-National Corporations (MNC's) - Opening own plants/investing in firms in other countries Rise in globalization *The Bretton Woods System was established after WWII to promote international economic stability and cooperation, preventing the protectionist policies that contributed to the Great Depression. Key features included a gold-backed dollar, fixed exchange rates, and the creation of the IMF and World Bank. Countries expanded their welfare states to support citizens, leading to economic stability. This system facilitated the rise of multinational corporations and globalization, integrating economies and increasing international trade and investment.* [Profit Squeeze and the role of oil since the 1970s] **WAVE 2: DEREGULATION** - Oil crisis = OPEC's reaction to US-reaction on 1973 Yom Kippur-war: - oil production cut, shortage (permanent) price increase (thus profit squeeze) - Solution = deregulation - Quest to reduce cost of (industrial) labour =\> export of industrial (low-skilled) work to low-wage countries ('off-shore outsourcing'), transition to high-skilled 'post-industrial service-economy' in the West = global division of labour - Economic deregulation makes import of off-shore goods possible - End of Bretton Woods - trade openness enables countries to exploit comparative advantages = gain from specialization, more efficient production, foster innovation,... - Rise in globalization wave 2 (deregulation) [Profit-squeezes since the 1990s] **WAVE 3: DEREGULATION** - Increased living standards in newly, industrializing countries: - From 'race to the bottom' to 'industrial upgrading' - Improvements in education in global south: technological advancement, (offshore) outsourcing & export out of the West of non-industrial and more skilled jobs (e.g. call centers, copy-editing, etc., also because of ICT-revolution) - production for own consumers - Increased global competition for commodities (oil, steel, gas,..., corn, wheat, soy) - Solution: From economic to financial deregulation; increase competition and efficiency by deregulating capital flows - loosen capital controls - economic growth by offering cheap credits to people - rise in globalization - Wave 3: deregulation (financial) [Profit-squeeze of the 1990: deregulation of global capital flows (financialization of the global economy)]  [Development of economic globalization ] Afbeelding met tekst, Lettertype, lijn, ontvangst Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Post 2008: the Great recession; the pandamic ]  [Russia-Ukrain war: a new profit squeeze] Afbeelding met tekst, persoon, kaart, schermopname Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - The history continues [4.Welfare state as a structure & barrier to globalization] [How (economic) globalization affects welfare states] Theoretically: - Expansion/ Retrenchment/ Convergence of WS /No effects Empirically : 17 affluent democracies, 1975-2001 - Mixed picture - all theoretical perspectives get some confirmation by some indicators - Bold, Grand-sweeping statements are overdue - Impact of globalization outweighed by domestic factors (aging population, right wing) Why do welfare states extend? - Globalization brings along social risks and people want to skip these - It will be convergence *The relationship between economic globalization and welfare states is complex, with theoretical perspectives suggesting possibilities of expansion, retrenchment, convergence, or no effects. Empirical studies of affluent democracies from 1975 to 2001 reveal a mixed picture, with various indicators supporting different theories. Domestic factors, such as an aging population and political changes, often play a more significant role than globalization itself. Welfare states may extend in response to the social risks brought on by globalization, as citizens seek stronger safety nets, leading to a trend towards policy convergence among countries addressing similar challenges.* [Globalization and social risks ]  ### Lecture 3: Global poverty and inequality. Globalization and the uneven transformation of social risks. [Theoretical foundation ] ["The Washington Consensus"] - "Unimpeded free market forces are the key engines of economic growth" (unrestricted market is the most important contributor of economic growth) - Most are located in Washington - Free market is the solution to create economic growth - Neoliberalism - Belief in private market -- opposition to state intervention & social spending -- privatization of industry - Increase efficiency & competition -- facilitate trade - Globalization = deregulation - (Globalization is a rule of deregulation) - Law of comparative advantage - (we associate this with) 1980s-90s heyday - World Bank/IMF: Structural adjustment plans - Reagonomics in the US - Tatcherism in the UK [The distribution of economic growth] **"A rising tide lifts all boats"** - **Trickle down theory** - Support rich Top to bottom - Afbeelding met tekst, diagram, lijn, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - **Trickle-down theory** suggests that when the wealthy and businesses get tax cuts or financial benefits, they will invest more in the economy. This investment is expected to create jobs and help everyone else, as the benefits \"trickle down\" to lower-income people. - **The Kuznets Curve (1955)** - Inverted U-shape -  - The Kuznets Curve illustrates the relationship between economic growth and income inequality. It suggests that as a country develops, income inequality initially increases because the benefits of growth often favor a small group. However, over time, as the economy matures and becomes more industrialized, inequality tends to decrease, leading to a more even distribution of wealth. This creates a U-shaped curve on a graph, indicating that while inequality may rise in the early stages of growth, it usually falls in the later stages. - **Convergence theory** - The idea that as countries develop economically, they will become more similar in terms of income levels and living standards. It suggests that poorer countries will catch up to wealthier countries over time because they can adopt existing technologies and practices, which allows them to grow faster. Essentially, the theory argues that differences in economic performance will decrease as countries become more interconnected through trade, investment, and globalization. In simple terms, it means that over time, rich and poor countries will become more alike in terms of wealth and quality of life. "A rising tide does not lift all boats" - Within Country factors: Four traps theory (Paul Collier) - Conflict trap, natural resources trap, landlocked trap, bad government trap - Between Country factors: World Systems theory (Immanuel Wallerstein) - Afbeelding met tekst, logo, grafische vormgeving, Graphics Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - An inequal treatment of countries. The origin of the inequality is from the 50s. Slavery made the US prosper but ruined it for generation. Hence, the inequality The **Four Traps Theory** explains why some countries struggle to escape poverty despite having potential for growth. He identifies four main traps that can keep a country poor: - - 1\. Conflict Trap: Countries affected by civil wars or violence often find it hard to develop because instability disrupts economic activities. - 2\. Natural Resource Trap: Countries rich in natural resources might rely too heavily on them, leading to poor economic management and corruption, which can prevent broader development. - 3\. Landlocked Trap: Countries without access to the sea can face challenges in trade, making it harder to grow their economies. - 4\. Bad Governance Trap: Poor leadership and corruption can hinder economic progress, as resources may not be used effectively for the benefit of the population. - In simple terms, these traps are obstacles that keep some countries stuck in poverty, making it difficult for them to grow and improve the lives of their citizens. **World Systems Theory** explains how the global economy is structured and how countries interact within it. The theory divides the world into three main categories: 1. **Core Countries**: These are wealthy, developed nations that dominate global trade and have strong economies. 2. **Semi-Periphery Countries**: These are nations that are in between; they are developing but still have some influence and economic power. 3. **Periphery Countries**: These are poorer, less developed countries that rely heavily on exporting raw materials and are often exploited by the core countries. Wallerstein argues that this system creates inequalities and keeps poorer countries dependent on wealthier ones, making it difficult for them to develop. In simple terms, World Systems Theory shows how global economic relationships create a hierarchy where some countries benefit more than others. "A rising tide does not lift all boats" - Trickle down theory does not work - Too high inequality slows down economic growth - Support poor and middle classes instead - Via redistribution of growth - Taxing capital profit & income - Divergence theory - The idea that, instead of becoming more similar, rich and poor countries may grow further apart over time. This theory suggests that as some countries develop and become wealthier, they can create advantages like better technology, education, and infrastructure, which helps them continue to grow even faster. Meanwhile, poorer countries may struggle with issues like political instability, lack of resources, or poor governance, preventing them from catching up. In simple terms, divergence theory argues that economic inequality can increase between nations, leading to a wider gap between the rich and the poor. -  [Globalization and economic growth] [Globalization and economic growth: evidence] Potrafke (2015): review of 100+ studies using KOF-index - 'net' positive consequences in terms of overall economic growth, human rights and women's rights - No erosion of welfare state activity - Yet: Increase in within-country inequality Gygli et al (2019): Renewed KOF-index -- 203 countries; 1970-2015 - 'positive' impact of all dimensions of globalization on economic growth - Different effects for de jure & de facto: - de jure economic and political; de facto social globalization ↑ economic growth - Especially in non-OECD countries! [Extreme poverty] [Worldbank -- absolute poverty -- below 2.15\$ a day (PPP)] - Purchasing power poverty - It equalizes between time and space differences. For example 10 years ago, you could buy 2 loafs of bread instead of 1 now. - Afbeelding met tekst, Perceel, lijn, diagram Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Conclusions: how are we doing in absolute poverty? Great. - 38% of world population lived with less dan 2 dollars a day. Now 8%. So a huge incline in absolute poverty. Due to globalization. - But you could also say it's a shame still 8% lives in poverty It can be interpreted worse:  - Sub-Saharan Africa: extreme poverty is still very high. They still live with less than 2.25 a day. - Increase in middle east and Africa - Decrease in south Asia very fast Afbeelding met tekst, kerstboom, schermopname Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving  [Global Inequality ] [Measuring inequality: the Gini coefficient ] Afbeelding met tekst, Lettertype, schermopname, ontwerp Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - For a long time, the sociologist were interested in the poor. And income inequality, because of data reasons - the Nordic countries are not equal in wealth - We measure inequality with the Gini coefficient - Invented by Gini - From least to most earning person. From left to right. - Diagonal is the line of equality; everyone earns the same - How income is distributed within the society. Surface of A divided by A+B [Ginis are mostly calculated within countries] Afbeelding met atlas, kaart, tekst Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving Draw 3 conclusions - Europe is the most equal - Sub-Saharan Africa and south America, probably corruption and colonialism, highly unequal. - US highly economic developed, however highly inequal Branko Milanovic: Global Inequality - Grew up under communism in Yugoslavia. [3 concepts of cross-country income inequality]  - GGP - We should use the GPP but we should recalculate them by population size - Refine the measurement of global inequality - GGP by country  - It can be merged by all kind of citizens. Instead of working with GGP we will work with incomes. For instance, for the calculation, the Chinese people will weigh more than the French people because they are with more. The more refined calculation is with rich and poor people. - GGP by country with country population [Global inequality: compared to countries ] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, lijn, Perceel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Sweden has a very low index. Brazil is very big and very inequal [Global inequality: over time ] - Conclusion: depending on which concept, its different  - Concept 1: Increase in inequality after the 80s - Concept 2: when you weigh these scores by population size, there is a constant decline. [Global inequality: over time -- 3 phases ] Afbeelding met tekst, diagram, lijn, Perceel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Before the industrial revolution there was a little development. When the IR kicked in you saw sky rocketing inequality - A story of divergence: the west growing due to colonisalism Phase I: IR -- 1950 - "divergence" - Rising within & between - The west exploiting the south. Phase II: 1950-2000 - "Three worlds & the peak" - Inequality in its highest - Peaking between, declining within countries - Why: in the west WOll welfare states start to develop. Education equality Phase III: 2000 - \... - "convergence" - Declining between, rising within - I mirrors III - The rise of Asia; China industrializing; decline of inequality. It explains the decline. Also China being at a very low stating point in the beginning of 2000s. - The critical question would be; what if we exclude China (and India) in the global inequality. What would we see - What is interesting. Milovanovic has the helicopter view. [Global inequality: over time -- three worlds ]  - Is this a picture of stability of change? - What do we see here? - It still has the curves. Pessimist would say, little has changes. Still have the changes in world. Periphery etc. still going on - Optimist: look how the world improved, and the distribution has shifted towards more middle class and less inequality [Global inequality: who won and who lost?] X: percentile of income distribution. Rights the richest Y: evolution in this peoples income Afbeelding met tekst, lijn, Perceel, diagram Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, informatie Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving **Analysis of the Elephant Chart** 1. **Low and Middle-Income Gains (5th to 50th Percentiles):** - The left side of the graph shows significant income gains for those in the lower and middle-income percentiles (mainly in developing countries, especially in Asia). These groups experienced substantial real income growth, often attributed to rapid economic development and industrialization in countries like China and India. 2. **Middle-Class Stagnation (50th to 70th Percentiles):** - There is a notable dip around the 50th to 70th percentiles. This represents the stagnation or minimal growth experienced by the lower-middle classes in developed countries, who have seen fewer benefits from globalization. This group includes many workers in Western countries whose jobs and wages have been affected by competition from global markets and technological changes. 3. **Top Global Income Gains (70th to 90th Percentiles):** - After the dip, the chart shows rising income gains for the upper-middle class and affluent individuals in developing countries. These gains are attributed to economic liberalization, increased trade, and investment opportunities. 4. **Global Elite (Top 1%):** - The far right of the graph shows another sharp rise, indicating substantial income growth for the global top 1%. This group includes the wealthiest individuals in both developed and developing countries who have benefited disproportionately from globalization, capital market expansions, and technological advancements. Milanovic: divided 4 groups of winners and "losers". But there is no negative, so everybody won but some more than others. Migration, population. Evolution of income, right before the economic crises. First group of winners - The super rich increased their income by more than 60% - Think of Elon Musk buying Twitter. Or Trump. Second group of winners - Shoulders of the elephant - For example, India. Increase income of more than 50% - China India Indonesia - Gained access to the global economy and gained the benefits The losers - People who gained 2% of income in the 20 years - The victims of globalization. Mostly in western Europe, suddenly seeing their jobs disappearing because of loss of industrialization - Also, eastern Europe. - Basically, the lower middle class of western European counties Losers: - ? [Global inequality: components and implications ]  Conclusion: global inequality has increased, but the composition of global inequality is very different. The factors that explain is. We used to live in a Marxian world. Back then class determines inequality and the occupation you had. Now, Milanovic, is not what you do, but where you live, determines where decide, its location. 60% is based on your location of birth. [Global inequality: components and implications ] - The graphs explain a little further - Afbeelding met tekst, lijn, diagram, Perceel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Conclusion: it makes sense for Indians to migrate. They will become better up in US instead of India. So, migration is a obvious solution.  - The poorest 10% moved up to about 40% (Chinese). So, a huge change - Italy: until the 3rd decile people lost. The richerst 73 richest people of the world. In 2018 the 53th - The rising in the west within country inequality [Conclusion ] - Extreme poverty sharply declined - Yet regional unevenness & pace of decline is slowing down - Global inequality is declining - Yet largely due to China and India (growth and populous) - Is it a trend or a (small) aberration? Will it continue? And how? ### Lecture 4: Globalization and the welfare state. Labour market flexibility, social investment & dualization So far, increase in globalization and changing global income distrubution [In the west ] [In the "Western world"] - Slow economic growth - Rising within-country income inequality (Figure 1.3) - Lower income groups struggling (Figure 1.2) - Increasing globalization: the 1% profits more than the others - In the west a little economic growth - The poor people not eating the fruits of globalization Afbeelding met tekst, lijn, diagram, Perceel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [How can we explain this rising inequality?] - *Where do people get their 'disposable income' from?* - Labour market - Labour market income (earnings) - LM changes explain rising inequality - [LM flexibility]: persuade employers to hire more people -- facilitate hiring & firing - Changes in the income market can explain the differences in the west - There is an increasing labour market flexibility. It is basically about making it more attractive for employers - Welfare state - 'Disposable income' = labour income - (taxes and contribution) + (social transfers) - Welfare state changes explain rising inequality - [Social investment & active labour market policies]: make people more employable - [Welfare conditionality]: tightening of social protection - The income you can get from the welfare state. - Both changes in the labour market and welfare state explain the changes in the west [Labour Market Flexibility ] [Impact of globalization ] = from industrial to post-industrial knowledge LMs - Offshore outsourcing of Industrial jobs - Long term, structural unemployment (especially among the low-skilled) - Everybody had a job earlier and not a thing as unemployed against their will. - This brings problems Solution: Labour market Flexibility - Allows companies to make quick decisions about their labor force in response to market changes - Reduces macro-economic risks for firms by lowering the cost of employment - Safeguards 'the West' as interesting investment region for firms - Reduces unemployment - Making it more flexible and easier for companies to hire and fire people. [Labour Market Flexibility I] Forms - Outsourcing *-- freelancers* - Functional flexibility *-- role variation* - Wage flexibility *-- wage adjustments (US, UK, companies can give employs a wage cut) (Also getting a bonus)* - Numerical flexibility *-- shrink core of workers with permanent contracts + increase numbers of workers with flexible contracts (PHILIPS in Eindhoven used to give employees a contract, now they don't have.)* - Temporal flexibility *-- working time/hours (Time management, parental leave etc.) (0 hour contract; it can also be an advantage for employers)* [Labour Market Flexibility II] [Individual level consequence] = decline of Standard Employment Relationship - From stable, full-time, full-life, (male) full employment and full-welfare entitlements - To fixed-term work, temporary/agency, part-time, 'fake' self-employment with limited welfare entitlements - Different names: non-standard, a-typical, insecure - PRO: attractive work-life balance, sense of control, \... - CON: poorer labour conditions, less protection, pays less, less training, higher unemployment risk, etc. [Labour Market Flexibility III: how extensive?]  [Labour Market Flexibility IV: where?] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, lijn, nummer Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Labour Market Flexibility IV: where?]  Skipped in class [Labour Market Flexibility V: a risk?] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, lijn, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Labour Market Flexibility V: a risk?] - 'exclusionary' vs. 'integrative': stepping stone or not? - Individual level: NSE for routine-manual labour (The Replaceables) -  - Afbeelding met tekst, Lettertype, schermopname Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Even in the Netherlands only 41% moved to precarious permanent positions - Quite some people are in the left - The replaceable, the binmans, security guards - Precarious permanent jobs: you don't earn much [Labour Market Flexibility V: a risk?] - 'exclusionary' vs. 'integrative': stepping stone or not? - Individual level: NSE for routine-manual labour (The Replacables) - System level - social-democratic welfare states: 'flexicurity', also NL; all work is more or less protected - Liberal countries: stepping stone, integrative, but: *all* work became more precarious - conservative-corporatist variations: trap, exclusionary; insider-outsider divide [Welfare State response] [Old "simplistic" debate] - 1990's, economist - The two schools: - Efficiency hypothesis - *Race to the bottom* (Ritzer & Dean, chapter 7) - Increased power of 'capital' over 'labour' - Financing problems - In order to keep attracting companies, EU countries would start a race to the bottom competition. Starbucks come to my country you'll not pay tazes - Consequence is the power of capital, power of ayman, main source of finance dries up. Logical consequence of this race is the welfare state runs into financing problems. Due to globalization, there is a decrease in a welfare state. The leaner to smaller the welfare state becomes - The Efficiency Hypothesis suggests that governments and companies will adopt the most efficient economic policies to stay competitive in a globalized market, often prioritizing profits over social or labor concerns. This can lead to a \*\***Race to the Bottom\*\*,** where countries or companies lower wages, environmental standards, and workers\' rights to attract business and investment. As a result, the \*\***Power of Capital over Labor**\*\* increases, meaning businesses and investors gain more control, while workers and unions have less influence over wages and working conditions. This can create a \*\***Financing Problem**\*\*, where governments may struggle to provide public services, since they cut taxes or regulations to attract business, leaving less money to support social programs and infrastructure. In simple terms, global competition can lead to lower standards for workers and make it harder for governments to maintain strong social protections. - Compensation hypothesis - 'automatic spending' - Political: increased demand for spending and compensation of jobloss - Early retirement -- 'exchange politics' in conservative-corporatis countries - When globalization and economic changes lead to job losses or insecurity, governments respond by increasing welfare and social spending to \"compensate\" people for these negative effects. This includes things like \*\***automatic spending**\*\*, where programs such as unemployment benefits or pensions automatically increase when more people lose jobs. Politically, there's often an **\*\*increased demand for spending**\*\* to help those affected by job loss, providing financial support or retraining. In \*\***conservative-corporatist countries**\*\*, early retirement schemes may be used as part of this compensation, allowing older workers to retire early in exchange for making room for younger workers, a system sometimes referred to as \*\***exchange politics**\*\*. In simple terms, when people lose jobs due to economic changes, governments often step in with financial support to reduce the impact. - What does the welfare state do when risks appear? Automatic spending. In another part it is political. In the voting booth they will vote for a party that supports the welfare state. - In the early 90s this was the state. -  [Why simplistic?] - You want to track it overtime - A strange coincidence; the western and more globalized countries almost cannot find that it expands the welfare state - Countries with largest / most generous welfare states tend to be small countries with very open economies scoring high on G-measures (clustering of countries that is not random and 'forces' correlations between globalization and spending into a specific direction when assessing between-country variations...) - Methodologically unsound: low N, unspecified DV, correlational, between countries (not evolution within), no test of mechanism,\... - theoretical & methodological advancements - Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, lijn, Perceel Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - The idea here is that when researchers try to track how globalization affects welfare spending over time, they notice something unusual: highly globalized, wealthy Western countries often don\'t seem to expand their welfare states as much as expected. Interestingly, the \*\*most generous welfare states\*\* are often found in \*\*small countries\*\* with open economies that rank high on globalization measures. This clustering isn't random and may force correlations between globalization and spending in certain directions when comparing different countries. - However, this approach is \*\*methodologically weak\*\* because it relies on comparisons between countries (rather than tracking changes within a country over time), uses a small number of countries (\*\*low N\*\*), doesn\'t clearly define what it\'s measuring (\*\*unspecified DV\*\*), and doesn\'t test how or why globalization might lead to more welfare spending. The researchers suggest that to improve understanding, there need to be \*\*theoretical and methodological advancements\*\* in how we study these relationships, with more focus on tracking changes within countries and better testing of how these effects work. [Busemeyer (2009) -- 21 OECD countries, 1980-2004] - Studied the impact of globalization in a much more refined proper manner. He takes is seriously. He tends to explain what the welfare state spends. - Taking 'time' seriously: - DV = state spending - Explicit focus on modelling *within-country change over time* - Separating *levels* from *changes* - Impact of globalization on welfare states does not happen overnight - Different indicators of 'spending' as dependent variable - Different indicators of 'globalization' - Impact of globalization on spending *has become negative* over time - Within countries, more globalization leads to less spending - From compensation (initially) to negative impact of globalization on welfare state spending (but not 'efficiency') [Nam (2020) -- 16 countries, 1980-2010] - Focus on 'compensation': which welfare states compensate for 'distributional consequences' of globalization (i.e. rising income inequality) - DV = 'Market income inequality' vs. 'disposable income inequality' - Glob: Trade openness (trade volume, LDC imports), financial openness, immigration - WS : Focus on 'generosity of unemployment', limiting sample to working age population - Control variables: other determinants of income inequality - Focus on *between-country* variations - LDC: less developed countries [Results ] - All globalization variables impact positively on [market income] inequality (the more globalization the more..) - Lesser and smaller positive significant effects on disposable income inequality, large negative effects of welfare generosity (the negative impact of globalization on equality is less so when the welfare states mechanics of.. are taken into account. The system works, less inequality) - Positive effect of globalization on disposable income inequality is smaller in countries with more generous unemployment insurance (interaction). (a simple interaction effect)  Conclusions: - They all look like increasing - The Nordic countries, Denmark and Sweden, Norway are low. For the US it goes up to 35 [More "efficiency" in liberal welfare states] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, diagram, lijn Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving - Smaller impact of globalization on inequality when... - The effect of trade volume on income inequality in cases of low welfare generosity is a positive effect. - The more trait in a.. the higher on income inequities - Basically, the impact of globalization on welfare states differs. [Conclusion] - Not Retrenchment/efficiency (too simplistic a mechanism) - Not Compensation: U-curve response: increase over time - Variation across Welfare States - The mechanism? Revitalized debate in terms of 'dualization' = indirect impacts of globalization on social risks via interplay between welfare states and labour markets The answer to the puzzle is dualization. - A narrative that brings together the changes in the welfare world and the labor market. You should consider them both. To truly understand the impact of globalization on inequality and social risks, we need to look at how welfare policies and labor market changes work together. Globalization affects both, and their interplay creates the varying levels of inequality and social risks seen in different countries. This dualization approach helps us see the indirect effects of globalization and provides a more comprehensive explanation than looking at welfare or labor markets alone. ["Dualization"] [Downward dualization 'drift'] - subtle, incremental process - != one big policy measure - "a 1000 cuts over time" = slow - Various factors: globalization, population aging,\... - Two related processes - A process of less inclusiveness on the labour market: - LM insiders vs outsiders - A process of less inclusiveness in terms of social insurance: - insurance in vs outsiders Both processes are related and reinforce each other - Two related processes; the lucky people who het permanent jobs because they are highly educated, the labor market insiders, they are very secure. But you also have, most of them lower educated, in an infinite cycle do not contribute to social security. Less inclusiveness in terms of securance. You have in and outsiders in a welfare state. They intersect. The winners in the labor market are also the winners in the welfare state. What has happened [How dualization came about I] Welfare state origin: case of full employment - horizontal redistribution -- (almost) everyone contributes and collects - Insurance \> assistance  [How dualization came about II] Globalization = Structural unemployment - Solution1: early retirement  financial issues - Solution2: LMF + making social protection stricter - From 'passive' compensation - To Social investment & ALMP - Result = recommodification Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, lijn Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Consequences] - Social polarization between 'losers' and 'winners' =\> 'our boats now have different sizes' - Horizontal redistribution becomes more and more restricted to insiders (winners of globalization) - Welfare states became less 'pro-poor' : decreasing solidarity - Class risks became more stratified - new risk groups are also very heterogenous - Variation across Welfare States -  [Welfare state: variation] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving [Conclusion]  1\. The impact of globalization on social risks and the welfare state is primarily indirect. 2\. Processes of globalization interact with 'local' institutionalized power structures (in particular nation-(welfare) states) and local cultures, and therefore lead to diverse outcomes in different countries and social groups. 3\. Globalization decreased global inequality (i.e. between countries), but it tends to increase within-country inequality because it intensifies existing inequalities. Social polarization results from increased differences between 'losers' and 'winners'. Such polarization undermines the 'social contract' on which welfare states are based. 4\. (Economic) globalization has had little direct impact on welfare states, but has transformed 'old' social risks and created 'new' social risks (partly through the flexibilization of labour markets). Globalization has thus a larger indirect impact on welfare states by changing the nature of social risks, which prompts further policy reform and leads to 'uncertainty', which in turn impacts on individual life courses. 5\. Globalization requires responses and policy-coordination (a new 'social contract') at a higher level (i.e. Europe, the world), but collective action of this sort can become problematic or even impossible. Global problems require coordination of actions of nation-states (e.g. the 'European Social Model', climate treaties,...), but its outcomes are more diffuse and uncertain. ### Lecture 5: The politicization of globalization. The case of welfare chauvinism - You consider the entitlement of welfare benefit to an ethnically native homogenous nation [Politicization] [What is politicization?] - "The act of transporting an issue into the sphere of politics---making previously unpolitical matters political" (Zürn, 2019) - "Politicization is the accumulation of salience through contestation (Dür, Hamilton, and De Bièvre, 2023) - This tells us more; it is about conflict. It draws a lot of attention. - Politicization = salience x (actor expansion + polarization) - Captures nice what politicization is about. It is about salience and urgent. How can we define polarization. You have a lot of actors involved, also people from the government. And if you would draw an illustration, you would get a distribution like: - - A process where you have a huge increase because of that many actors are involved [Politicization: citizen level] - Some example: protestors - occupy wall street - when the financial crisis hit in 2008 in Spain caused by risk taking from bankers. It is basically taxes from the citizens. The mistake of 1% of the rich had a huge impact on the citizens. - Blackface, Pegida, George Floyd protests. [Politicization: citizen level] - Migration - - Pegida: close the borders and no migrants. (Germany) - How should we deal with the increased liquidity of human beings - Norms are suddenly being challenged due to globalization, for example Sinterklaas. The childhood tradition was accused of being racist. - For example, black live matters. When George Floyd was being murdered it was spread around the world. For example, is it ok to have statues of colonialists. -  - The climate strikers, boeren [Politicization: international students] - The Dutch should be the main language. On the other side in Leuven they want more flexible rules for more globalization [Politicization: state level- September 2023] - EU: the Chinese cars disturbed our car market. It kills our European industry. - "Europe is open for competition not for a race to the bottom." - A year later the European decide to use tariffs -  [Politicization: key events] [Globalization and cleavage theory] - Breuklijnen [Cleavages -- Lipset & Rokkan (1967)] - You can define it as: a deep and lasting division between groups based on some kind of conflict - Socio-economic left-right cleavage - Has 3 core elements - **Structural**: large social [groups with conflicting interests] - position of class, religion, education, region, \... (region where you were born. You have in all nations a conflict like this. For example, Scotland and Catalonia, they have a different interest. Social class is also a structural determined conflict. - **Cultural**: element of [collective identity (]you demonize the other side, for example abortion is for the devils. For example, Trump telling baby's are being aborted, or standing in front of a abortion center) - Consciousness of group identities and ideological values... and willing to act on that basis - **Organizational**: [Organizational expression] in form of collective action by movements/political parties; mobilization of these identities. - Unions defending workers' interests; Labour Party - Parties institutionalize the conflict and articulate it (continuously) politically They distinguish 4 cleavages  Focus on large scale historical processes - Critical junctures National revolution ("nationalization") - Centre-periphery cleavage - **Religious cleavage** Industrial revolution ("industrialization") (due to it was a huge migration from rural to urban for example. Overtime the wish to organize themselves. - Urban-rural cleavage - **Labour-capital cleavage** Global revolution ("Globalization") - ? - Some argue what we are now experiencing is global revolution [Cleavages -- two-dimensional political space] - Socio-economic axis - Socio-cultural axis - -  - Red dots are the lower left - Flemish nationalist party: more rightwing in economic and cultural (conflict) - The 2-dimensional political space is being transformed because of the global revolution [Cleavages -- Globalization as 'critical juncture'] **Economic and cultural globalization foster a new 'integration-demarcation' cleavage** - Socio-economic division between those who (do not) benefit from globalization - Winners - employees in competitive sectors - Losers - employees in traditionally protected sectors - Cultural division of integration versus demarcation (it is also being transformed. Conflict of people who are cosmopolitans, who are a close society and dislike the things that interfere with their own culture - do we want an 'open society, integrating further into global culture and economy - do we want a 'closed society', protecting own identity, welfare, and economy **new 'integration-demarcation' cleavage is embedded in two-dimensional political space** - Socio economic dimension: pro state vs pro market position (Left right) - Degree of social redistribution and government intervention - National welfare state: solidarity issues--inclusion and exclusion - Which groups should get what and why? - Welfare conditionality and welfare chauvinism - Cultural dimension: universalism vs particularism - Libertarianism vs authoritarianism (individual autonomy vs traditional order) - Cosmopolitanism vs communitarianism/anti immigration (open vs closed society) [Welfare Chauvinism -- what is it?] - "The idea that 'welfare should be restricted to 'our own'" (Anderson &Björklund, 1990:212) - It is a believe that the welfare state should be restricted to a nationality. Only for people from your own country for example the French. - "The welfare state is a system of social protection for those who belong to the ethnically defined community" (Kitschelt & McGann, 1995, 22) - "welfare nationalism", "welfare state restrictiveness", exclusive/selective solidarity - non-natives are excluded from, or only have limited access to, welfare provisions - Conceptual & Measurement discussion (Careja & Harris, 2022) - Support for exclusion of migrants vs Support for welfare state AND support for exclusion of migrants - Plethora of operationalizations - Maybe they are also against welfare benefits and not against immigrants. - The winners of globalization have different values. For example, cargobike (children in front of the bike) people, the high educated and live in the city, open to migrants. They vote for left parties. And the losers vote for right populist parties. [Welfare chauvinism -- populist RR parties] - Populist: mythical, homogeneous and unified common people + elite + 'threat' (de hard werkende vlaming, a common man. Johnny and Anita) Winning formula evolution: - Initially, 1990s: right on both axis: monocultural & small state - Switch: left economic & right cultural: generous welfare but monocultural - For a long time the... were the right wing - Examples: - Geert Wilders - Le Pen, populist right wing - Vlaams Blok, Filips - Waar is je pensioen? In de zak van Mohammed [Welfare chauvinism -- example l ] Welfare chauvinism being measured. There are regional differences. Many of the conservative... The southern countries are extremely welfare chauvinist. There is corruption etc. and still they stand out in they should never get rights. The southern countries where after the economic crisis they became more open. The Nordic countries have the more open system and more equality, so people should het rights immediately. [Example ll ]  This study compared different electors, the percentage of people... 70% of people who voted for PVV say an immigrant should get less than Daan. [Welfare deservingness -- who deserves it?] A question of: Distributional justice: "who should get what and why?" (Van Oorschot, 2000) - How should we do this on an ethnically more... way - Deservingness criteria: CARIN - - - - - Distributional justice: "who should get what and why?" (Van Oorschot, 2000) - Overall: elderly \> sick & disabled\> (able-bodied) unemployed\> immigrants - 'The inevitable migration penalty' - Dependent on individual (egalitarian predispositions = need; more distrusting = reciprocity more authoritarian = attitude) - Immigrants cannot overcome being an immigrant [Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state] **Three Worlds of Welfare Chauvinism?** - Can we distinguish three worlds of Welfare chauvinism? - How can we explain this pattern? **Institutional theory** - Political preferences & attitudes are shaped by institutions - The structure of welfare regimes influences/frames how people perceive those in need - Welfare regimes  welfare deservingness  welfare chauvinism [Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state]  You go from a kind of welfare regime to... and this impacts your welfare chauvinism [Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state] **Welfare regimes** - Selectivity dimension: means tested vs universal - Inequality dimension: reduction of market inequality (the Scandinavian states) - Labor market trajectory dimension: opportunities for the low skilled **Deservingness criteria** - Deviance/identity - Control - Need (Remember the means tested and... test. USA vs Scandinavian 1\. Selectivity & Inequality deviance/identity - Selectivity = "not one of us"; "us-vs-them" because of on welfare vs not. - Inequality= "not one of us"; "us-vs-them" because of different lifestyle (for example having no pool so not being able to swim. The rich would hire someone) 2\. Labor market trajectory need & control - Liberal (high labour demand given low wages) and social democratic (employed in public sector) more job opportunities compared to conservative corporatist (in vs outsider), so low 'need' - Social democratic and conservative corporatist have higher employment regulation compared to liberal regimes, so more leeway to find a job/less difficulties/more control in liberal Selectivity and inequality in welfare systems can lead to social divides and identity issues. Selectivity creates an \"us vs. them\" mentality, where those receiving welfare are seen as outsiders, fostering social exclusion. Inequality, on the other hand, emphasizes lifestyle differences between the rich and poor, further deepening this divide. For example, wealthier individuals can afford luxuries like swimming pools, while the poor cannot, reinforcing perceptions of difference. In terms of labor market trajectories, liberal welfare states, with high labor demand due to low wages, offer more job opportunities and flexibility, allowing people more control over their work situations. Social democratic states provide stable public sector jobs and strong worker protections, making employment more accessible. Conservative corporatist states, however, have fewer job opportunities and stricter divisions between secure (insiders) and insecure (outsiders) employment, despite having higher employment regulations similar to social democratic states. **Data & operationalization** - ESS 2008; 10 countries, 5 socialdemocratic/3 conservative/2 liberal - Country level variables (regime dimensions + controls) - Individual level variables: - Welfare chauvinism*: "Thinking of people coming to live in \[country\] from other countries, when do you think they should obtain the same rights to social benefits and services as citizens already living here?"*  *"Immediately on arrival", (2) "After living in \[country\] for a year, whether or not they have worked", (3) "Only after they have worked and paid taxes for at least a year", (4) "~~Once they have become a \[country\] citizen~~", (5) "They should never get the same rights".* - Controls (age, education, gender, unemployment) **Descriptive results**  - Migrants should never get the welfare befits it is very distinct. For liberal for example the US is 11.7 %. This is proof that welfare chauvinism exists. **Explanatory results/conclusion** - Higher educated = less chauvinism - Two instead of three 'worlds': only social-democratic less chauvinism (model2) - No effect of country-level ethnic heterogeneity - Countries with more selective welfare = more chauvinism - H1 confirmed - Countries with higher inequality = more chauvinism - H2 confirmed Labour market trajectory = non significant - H3 rejected [Conclusion ] - Globalization is not an 'inevitable progressing process' - Globalization is very much politicized and contested - Through politicization globalization can in/decrease - Globalization has reshaped the 'frozen' space of political competition - Instability, unpredictability, new parties - Winners and losers of globalization are pitted against each other - On socio-economic & socio-cultural issues  polarization threatens solidarity - Welfare state chauvinism is illustrative case of this broader dynamic & important ingredient in PRRP success. ### Summary of the learning goals -- ChatGPT Learning Goals and Explanations LG1: Basic Knowledge and Understanding of Key Concepts - Social Risks and Globalization, and Their Interrelation Social Risks: - Definition: Social risks refer to conditions that threaten the economic security and well-being of individuals or groups, often leading to significant loss of income or increased poverty risk. Examples include unemployment, sickness, disability, and old age. - Evolution: Historically, risks were seen as individual failures. Over time, with industrialization, risks became recognized as socially produced, necessitating collective responses such as the welfare state. Globalization: - Definition: Globalization is the process of increasing cross-border flows of goods, services, money, people, information, and culture. It leads to greater interdependence among global economic, political, and social units. - Measuring Globalization: Indicators include economic, social, and political dimensions, as well as actual flows (de facto) and institutional policies (de jure). Interrelation: The rise of globalization transforms and intensifies social risks by affecting economic stability and labor markets, leading to new forms of vulnerabilities. LG2: Understanding and Explaining Processes of Economic Globalization and Its Consequences, Particularly Related to Poverty and Inequality\*\* Economic Globalization: - Development: Economic globalization has evolved through stages marked by deregulation, increased trade openness, and financial liberalization. Significant periods include post-WWII regulations (Bretton Woods System), 1970s oil crises leading to deregulation, and the 1990s financial globalization. - Impacts: Economic globalization has led to increased overall economic growth but also heightened within-country inequality. It has helped reduce extreme poverty globally but has created disparities in wealth distribution. Poverty and Inequality: \- Global Poverty: Absolute poverty has significantly declined, especially in Asia, but remains high in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa. \- Inequality: Measured using the Gini coefficient, global inequality trends show that while between-country inequality has decreased (largely due to growth in China and India), within-country inequality has risen, leading to social polarization. LG3: Understanding and Explaining Topical Issues Illustrative of 'Globalization and Social Risks'\*\* Welfare State Policy Responses: \- Welfare states have adapted to globalization through mechanisms like labor market flexibility and social investment. However, these changes have often led to increased inequality and a dualization of the labor market, where some benefit while others face increased precariousness. \*Climate Change and Eco-Social Risks\*: \- Globalization has exacerbated environmental challenges, leading to climate change and associated social risks. Policy responses include international agreements and national policies aimed at mitigating these risks. \*Politicization of Globalization and Social Risks\*: \- Globalization has become a politicized issue, with debates around welfare chauvinism, where native populations resist extending welfare benefits to immigrants. This has led to the rise of populist movements and increased polarization in many countries. \*\*LG4: Relating and Arguing How Direct and Indirect Impacts of Globalization Are Institutionally Filtered\*\* \*Institutional Filtering\*: \- The impact of globalization on social risks and welfare states is mediated by local institutions and cultural factors. Welfare states in different countries respond differently to globalization pressures, influenced by their institutional setups and political dynamics. \*Dualization\*: \- Globalization contributes to a dualized labor market, where some workers enjoy stable, well-protected jobs (insiders) while others face insecure, low-paying positions (outsiders). This leads to a stratified welfare system and increased inequality. \*Policy Coordination\*: \- Addressing the challenges posed by globalization requires coordinated policy responses at higher levels, such as the European Union or global climate agreements. However, achieving such coordination is often difficult due to varying national interests and political resistance. \#\#\# Conclusion These learning goals highlight the complex interplay between globalization and social risks. Understanding these dynamics requires analyzing how economic globalization reshapes poverty and inequality, how welfare states respond to new challenges, and how institutional factors mediate these processes. ### Samenvatting Risk: The probability of a [dangerous] event... multiplied by the amount of expected [damage] connected this event Social risks: A lack of basic security = insecure circumstances + vulnerability to harm - Vulnerability: lack of recourses to protect oneself from harm when something undesirable happens - High risk, low vulnerability (Elon Musk) - Low risk, high vulnerability (single mother sick) - Socioeconomic circumstances associated with a significant loss of income and an increased poverty risk - Examples: Unemployment; sickness; (occupational) disability, old age... - Risk = because of [individual] failure/choice - Social risk = risk produces by the [system] - Social risks are building blocks of the welfare state. The welfare state is a system of social risk management. Before industrial capitalism there were many risks. States but no welfare states. Welfare was provided by families and communities. It was the responsibility of the individual. The state didn't have to interfere to solve the risks. Poor relief was very conditional- do I like you, are you deserving? Industrial capitalism: the emergence (opkomst) of life-course risks - People work in a collective in fabrics with machines instead of man/ animal power. People start working for a boss and get a wage. Everyone moves to the city which creates slums. - Commodification of labor, mass migration, concentration of urban poverty, slum dwelling, low wages - The informal welfare collapses Elites realize that the mass poverty is not individual failure but instead is produced by a system (socially produced) - Poverty of wage-earners is related to family cycle =\> life-course risks The government works together with unions and employers to create social insurance programs. WELFARE CAPITALISM =\> synergy between social policy and economic growth. (A system where social policies and economic growth support and strengthen each other.) First social insurance programs for 'male breadwinners. WWl: disability and old-age insurance. WWll: all nation state citizens-\> universalism. Welfare: you chip in and when you are in need you get some benefits. You pay when you work and get money when you're retired for example. So it is a social insurance Beveridge: During WII investigates poverty and wants to wipe poverty out. The main causes of poverty are because of the fact that you cannot make a living. People shift from periods of earning and periods of not earning (social insurance). And periods of having many mouths to feed and having none to feed (family allowances). So why don't people put money in a social money bank and then when they need it they can get support. This is horizontal redistribution. Poverty could be abolished by redistribution **within** the working classes" - 'Horizontal redistribution' over the life course Five 'giants' that threatened well-being five pillars of welfare Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, nummer Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving Idleness: werkeloosheid, squalor: vuiligheid (living in squalor, leven in ellende/vuil) Underlying social contract: Everyone contributes at some point and benefits at another. All welfare states systems of horizontal redistribution (taxes and contributions). Handeling free-riders by making it mandatory by law. Provide basic financial help only to those who really need it, and check to make sure people follow the rules. Types of risks Life-course risks - Unequal distribution of risks across the life-course - Trajectories &transitions (education, employement, parenthood) - Welfare state structures life: youth (education), mid-life (work), old (retirement)  Class risks - Unequal distribution of risks across social classes (occupational groups) - Risks are Structural inequalities tied to socioeconomic status/ class position (injury: miner vs. professor) - The welfare state (horizontal distribution) depending on how it is designed amplifies this. - Unequal coverage of class risks across welfare systems - Residual, corporativist, universalistic Intergenerational risks - Transmission of social risks due to inhertance. - (dis)advantages that are passed down from one generation to the next - The extent of social mobility - Achievement and [ascription] Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving  Seminar 1 Welfare is about more than just material wealth - **Meeting basic needs**: Having enough food, shelter, and other essentials. - **Realizing potential**: Living a life of autonomy and reaching your full capabilities. - **Social participation**: Engage in society without feeling shame or exclusion. **When Welfare is Missing**: - People face **social risks**, like poverty, hardship, and extreme inequality. - These situations prevent a good quality of life and can harm communities. What is welfare: Welfare is the highest possible access to economic resources, a high level of well-being, including the happiness of the citizens, a guaranteed minimum income to avoid living in poverty, and, finally, having the capabilities to ensure the individual a good life How is welfare measured? - **Market Indicators**: economic measures, like **GDP per capita**(average income) - **Social Indicators**: How well people are integrated and connected in society, such as: - **Social inclusion**: Whether people feel they are part of society. - **Social cohesion**: How well people get along with one another, both in objective ways (e.g., equality) and subjective ways (e.g., personal feelings of belonging). **Provision of Welfare:** Welfare is provided by both **private** and **public** organizations in different ways: 1. **Markets (labour markets)**: People can sell their skills or \"capabilities\" to earn money. This is an **economic exchange** where people work and get paid. 2. **Market Failure**: Sometimes, markets don\'t work well, leading to people needing **welfare**. For example, if there aren\'t enough jobs or if some people can\'t work, they might need financial help. 3. **Civil Society**: In addition to governments, welfare can come from the **family**, **charities**, or **non-governmental organizations (NGOs)**. These groups help support people in need. 4. **Solidarity in Social Groups**: In history, people have helped each other within certain groups: - **Guilds** (like worker organizations in medieval times) - **Friendly/mutual societies** (groups of workers who helped each other during industrial times) 5. **Welfare States**: Governments also provide welfare, aiming to balance the needs of **workers (labour)** and **employers (capital)**. After **World War II**, many countries grew their economies and set up welfare systems (this was the time from **1945-1975**). 6. **Moral and Political Questions**: Who should get welfare, how much, and why? These are big moral and political questions that often depend on the values and decisions of society.