Building the Eco-social State: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?
Tóm tắt
Authors such as Dryzek, Gough and Meadowcroft have indicated that social-democratic welfare states could be in a better position to deal with development of the ‘green’ or ‘eco’ state, and the intersection of social and environmental policies, than conservative or liberal welfare regimes (synergy hypothesis). However, this hypothesis has as yet not been examined in comparative empirical research. Based on comparative empirical data from EUROSTAT, the World Bank, the OECD, the Global Footprint Network and the International Social Survey Programme, we are carrying out two research operations: First, by applying correspondence analysis, we contrast the macro-structural welfare and sustainability indicators of thirty countries and ask whether clusters largely follow the synergy hypothesis. Second, we raise the issue of whether differences in the institutional and organisational capabilities of combining welfare with environmental policies are reflected in people's attitudes and opinions. With regard to the first issue, our results suggest that there is no ‘automatic’ development of the ecostate based on already existing advanced welfare institutions. Representatives of all welfare regimes are spread across established, deadlocked, failing, emerging and endangered ecostates. As for the second issue, the results are mixed. While responses to the statements ‘economic growth always harms the environment’ and ‘governments should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people's rights to make their own decisions’ did not vary according to welfare regimes, people from social-democratic countries expressed more often than average their willingness to accept cuts in their standard of living in order to protect the environment.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bourdieu, 1984, Distinction: A Social Critque of the Judgement of Taste
Blasius, 2006, Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods
Blasius, 2009, Capitalism, Democracy and the Prevention of War and Poverty
The World Bank (2014), ‘World development indicators’, available online at http://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 13 January 2014).
Dryzek, 2008, The ecological crisis of the welfare state, Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 325
OECD (2014), OECD.StatExtracts and indicators on green growth, http://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed between 13 and 15 January 2014).
Jacobs M. (2012), ‘Green growth: economic theory and political discourse’, Working Paper No. 108, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London.
Esping-Andersen, 1990, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism
Christoff, 2011, Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
Meadowcroft, 2008, From welfare state to environmental state?, Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 331
Goodman, 1996, Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies
Global Footprint Network (2014), ‘Country trend figures’, www.footprintnetwork.org (accessed between 16 and 17 January 2014).
EUROSTAT (2013), Online statistical databases at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (accessed between 8 and 12 of April 2013).
Jones, 1993, New Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe
Koch, 2014, Climate change, carbon trading and societal self-defence, Real-World Economics Review, 67
Daly, 2009, Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications
Görg, 2003, Regulation der Naturverhältnisse: Zu einer kritischen Theorie der ökologischen Krise
Gough, 2011, Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
2003, Welfare Capitalism in East Asia: Social Policy in the Tiger Economics
Pye, 2008, Addressing the Social Dimensions of Environmental Policy
2012, Living Planet Report 2012
Meadowcroft, 2005, The State and the Global Ecologicl Crisis
Wilkinson, 2010, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone