Old-age pensions are the most widespread social security programmes around the world. While many case studies have focused on the historical origins of old-age pensions, global and comparative studies are limited mainly due to missing data. To address this shortcoming, this article introduces the novel PENLEG dataset (Pension Legislation around the World, 1880–2010), which comprises data on: (1) the timing of the first pension introductions; (2) the pension design; (3) the mode of financing; (4) eligibility criteria; (5) benefit generosity and (6) coverage rates for all independent countries. Additionally, the article describes global pension patterns and highlights case evidence. It shows that economic development strategies, political incentives to bind citizens to the state, administrative reasons as well as colonial legacies and the Soviet model of social security have strongly affected the origins of old-age pensions.

Over two decades ago, Korpi and Palme (1998) published one of the most influential papers in the history of social policy discipline, in which they put forward a “paradox of redistribution”: the more countries target welfare resources exclusively at the poor, the less redistribution is actually achieved and the less income inequality and poverty are reduced. The current paper provides a state-of-the-art review of empirical research into that paradox. More specifically, we break down the paradox into seven core assumptions, which together form a causal chain running from institutional design to redistributive outcomes. For each causal assumption, we offer a comprehensive and critical review of the relevant empirical literature, also including a broader range of studies that do not aim to address Korpi and Palme’s paradox per se, but are nevertheless informative about it.

In academia and beyond, it has become commonplace to regard populist parties – in particular, those on the radical right – as the archetypical embodiment of politics of nostalgia. Demand-side studies suggest that nostalgic sentiments motivate populist radical-right (PRR) voting and welfare chauvinist attitudes, yet systematic analyses of the nostalgic discourse that these parties promote have not been forthcoming. This paper seeks to fill that lacuna by analysing how the Freedom Party of Austria, the Dutch Party for Freedom and the Sweden Democrats framed the historical fate of the welfare state in their electoral discourse between 2008 and 2018. It demonstrates that their commitment to welfare chauvinism finds expression in a common repertoire of “welfare nostalgia,” manifested in the different modes of “reaction,” “conservation” and “modernisation.” Giving substance to a widespread intuition about PRR nostalgia, the paper breaks ground for further research into nostalgic ideas about social policy.

The purpose of this study is to analyse determinants of resources devoted to public employment services (PES). It has proven difficult to disentangle ‘carrots’ (placement and services) from ‘sticks’ (sanctions and monitoring) when tracking the development of PES spending. This has contributed to ambivalence concerning the role of partisan politics, especially since welfare states have been argued to increasingly emphasize the ‘sticks’ aspect of the PES, irrespective of ideological orientation. This suggests that the role of partisan politics should be analysed together with ‘demanding’ activation, which is made possible with novel data on unemployment benefit conditionality. The analysis includes 16 welfare states and results indicate that left and secular centre-right parties are associated with increased resources devoted to PES, but that effects of partisan politics are contingent on the form and extent of benefit conditionality. Increased conditionality is associated with higher PES spending, thus nuancing the cost-containment argument for activation.

In 2008, the world underwent one of its worst economic and financial crises, whose consequences are still visible in some countries. This paper aims to analyse the impact of the crisis within the long-term care systems of Germany, England, Sweden and Spain from a comparative perspective. The time period analysed spans from the outset of the crisis in 2008, up to 2017. This article starts off from the thesis of the divergent impact of the economic crisis in these countries and the convergence between the impact of the crisis and long-term care contractions in the most afflicted countries. The outcome highlights the power of economic and financial pressures in order to explain the contractions within the care policies. Equally, it emphasizes the contradictions between the formal development level of the care systems and their practical institutional implementation in the field.

We investigate how labour market and pension measures associated with active ageing influence retirement behaviour in Austria and Germany. We focus on two conservative welfare states and evaluate how individuals respond to comparable pension scheme changes. Using the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, findings point to increasing average actual retirement ages in both countries. Early retirement becomes less important while working until pension age has gained in significance. In particular, findings point towards greater de-standardisation of retirement transitions, though to a different extent across the two countries. Whereas gender differences are still prevalent in Austria, in line with traditional conservative welfare state characteristics, we find that Germany exhibits lower gender differences, but instead displays stronger inequalities between education groups. We argue that social risks emerge in Germany that are usually found in liberal welfare states. We suggest that this trend is reinforced by retirement policies that focus on “pushing” individuals out of employment. This study contributes to the understanding of how individuals respond to national policy incentives when making retirement transitions.