Skip to main content

Between Democratic Responsibility and Economic Modernization – Political and administration scholars compare welfare state reforms in Europe

“Between democratic responsibility and economic modernization”: Can the welfare state be adaptet to the conditions of the 21st century? Photo: Fotolia.com/Gina Sanders.
Photo :
“Between democratic responsibility and economic modernization”: Can the welfare state be adaptet to the conditions of the 21st century? Photo: Fotolia.com/Gina Sanders.

Outdated, inefficient, and no longer supported by a majority of the people: Systems of the welfare state, with a long tradition in Europe, have become the target of criticism in recent years. But can the welfare state be made fit for the future? European political and administration scholars are jointly researching how the latest attempts to reform the welfare state have influenced both the ways political influence is exercised and the forms of interaction between states and their citizens.

“Reforming the Welfare State: Accountability, Democracy and Management” was a joint international project launched in 2011 by the universities of Bergen (Stein Rokkan Centre), Potsdam, Copenhagen, and Oxford and was overseen by Prof. Per Lægreid of Norway.

The stakes are high, as the project’s subtitle suggests: “Between democratic responsibility and economic modernization”. Political efforts are being made to prepare the welfare state for the 21st century and adapt it to the new conditions. To find out what measures are being taken by states and how successful they have been, the researchers examined and compared various national welfare state systems. They concentrated on how the labor market is organized and administered, structural reforms in healthcare, e.g. in hospitals, as well as immigration and new approaches to handling it.

The research project, which ended in 2015, focused on countries with strong social welfare systems that benefit a large percentage of the population. The states examined – Norway, Denmark, and Germany – can boast similarly positive developments, but differ with regard to the political and administrative application and implementation of their social welfare systems. Still, there are comparable initiatives – such as the Hartz reforms in Germany and the NAV reform in Norway – to reintegrate the long-term unemployed into the labor market.

In Potsdam, project head Prof. Werner Jann and his three fellow researchers each analyzed one aspect of the German welfare state and its reforms: Ina Radtke looked at migration and integration, Tanja Klenk at healthcare reforms, and project manager Bastian Jantz at the labor market. Jantz’s point of departure was the situation before the Hartz reforms, when the Federal Labor Agency exerted a major influence on labor market policy. At that time, politicians were overwhelmed by mass unemployment, and labor agencies began manipulating data – which ended in scandal. “It was a time of organized irresponsibility. For too long, unemployment figures had been the only measure of success in labor market policy, a view shared by all political parties. But it is not just about the rights of the unemployed,” Jantz says, but also about adequate social and housing conditions for everyone being an imperative of the democratic accountability of the state.

With the reforms came the introduction of a new benefit system, which provides jobseekers with a basic income – colloquially referred to as Hartz IV. Organizational changes were also implemented: Job centers with more decentralized discretionary competences replaced labor agencies. On the one hand, this was functionally useful, since local authorities can better respond to local needs and opportunities. On the other, they were less experienced in placing jobseekers in other regions.

For those working in administration, the reforms affected not only their spheres of responsibility, but often also formal rules, labor standards, jurisdiction, and accountability. Wherever responsibility for the implementation of reforms is set out in detail and accountability is regularly demonstrated, the authority of the individual politician decreases. As a result, such systems operate independent of party-political objectives. “At the same time we found that reforms meant to simplify matters ultimately had the opposite effect. Much has become more complicated in detail, but ‘more complicated’ does not mean ‘worse’,” Jann says.

Understanding this complicated system was one of the challenges the researchers faced during the project. “You could say that the labor market in Germany, relatively speaking, works surprisingly well. There is, of course, room for improvement,” Jantz points out. A look across the border shows what he means: So far, the main task of the German Federal Audit Office has been to examine the federal financial management. In the future it will also monitor the long-term efficiency of politics and regularly publish its findings. In Norway and Denmark, the respective institutions have been doing this for quite a while now. In those countries, the audit office is, according to the political logic, an executive body of parliament with stronger links to the public. “Even though more flexibility and transparency would be desirable, Germany has been exemplary in implementing reforms,” Jantz sums up.
“On the whole, the research project has helped everyone better understand how the reform system developed and how it works,” Werner Jann says.

The collaboration between the research partners without a doubt worked very well. “The project was organized very efficiently, with the largest publication output,” Jann states. A number of papers were published annually in conjunction with thematic meetings and conferences also attended by external experts. Later this year, Bastian Jantz and Tanja Klenk will also publish their research results that show how conflict resolution and the setting of standards through (arbitrary) courts alters the relationship between politics, administration, and law in the labor market and health policy in Germany.

The end of the project is not the end of research, however. Organization and administration as well as necessary reforms in the three areas examined will remain important issues for industrialized states – and scholars will undoubtedly be there to research it.

The Researcher

Prof. Werner Jann studied political sciences, mathematics, and economics in Berlin and Edinburgh; PhD (1982) and habilitation (1989) at the German University of Applied Sciences, Speyer. Since 1993 he has been Professor of Political Science, Administration, and Organization at the University of Potsdam.

Contact

Universität Potsdam
Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät
August-Bebel-Str. 89, 14482 Potsdam
E-Mail: jannuni-potsdamde

Bastian Jantz studied administrative sciences in Potsdam. Since 2007 he has been a Research Fellow at the Chair for Political Science, Administration, and Organization of the University of Potsdam.

Contact

E-Mail: bjantzuni-potsdamde

Tanja Klenk has been a Senior Researcher at the Chair for Political Science, Administration, and Organization of the University of Potsdam since 2014.

Contact

E-Mail: tklenkuni-potsdamde

Ina Radtke, M.A. has been a Research Fellow at the Chair for Political Science, Administration, and Organization of the University of Potsdam since 2013.

Contact

E-Mail: iradtkeuni-potsdamde

The Project

Since 2011, the research project “Reforming the Welfare State: Accountability, Democracy and Management” examined health, labor market administration, and migration. How did the welfare state reforms of the past decade influence political governance and forms of interaction between the state and its citizens? A comparative study was done by scholars in Norway (Stein Rokkan Centre, University of Bergen), Denmark (University of Copenhagen), and Germany (Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam), with the University of Oxford contributing to one topic. The project researched modernization approaches in welfare state administration with a special focus on the relationship between democratic, political accountability, and organizational autonomy of the administrative bodies. The project primarily took aim at organizational reforms and examined how these accountability structures in various fields and countries changed.

History of Hartz Reforms

16 August 2002: Peter Hartz, then Volkswagen’s personnel director and head of a 15-member committee, offers recommendations on reforms to the labor market to Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD). A few days later the cabinet approves the fast implementation of its key points.
15 November 2002: Parliament adopts Hartz I and II. The new laws bring tighter rules as to what kind of jobs unemployed workers must accept, more temporary employment and fixed-term work, and the introduction of “mini-jobs”.
17 October 2003: Hartz III and IV are adopted by parliament with the votes of the red-green coalition. Hartz III concerns the reconstruction of the Federal Labor Agency; Hartz IV unites unemployment assistance and social assistance to unemployment benefit II.
19 December 2003: After a conciliation procedure, the German parliament and the Federal Council adopt Hartz III and IV. During a special session on various reform laws, parliament has to vote by roll call 10 times and turn down five objections by the Federal Council.
1 January 2004: Hartz III goes into effect; the start of Hartz IV has to be postponed for a year due to unsettled financial issues.
2 August 2004: Under the slogan “We are the people!” tens of thousands take to the streets in Magdeburg und Dessau and demand Hartz IV be stopped and even up to 100,000 a week in eastern Germany.
By Mid-October the protests have died down.

Text: Ingrid Kirschey-Feix, Translation: Monika Wilke
Online-Editing: Agnes Bressa
Contact Us: onlineredaktionuni-potsdamde

Published