Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T08:26:11.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The End of Social Security as we know it – The Erosion of Status Protection in German Labour Market Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

SILKE BOTHFELD  and
PEER ROSENTHAL
SILKE BOTHFELD
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences Bremen, Neustadtswall 30, 28199 Bremen, Germany email: [email protected]
PEER ROSENTHAL
Affiliation:
Chamber of Labour Bremen, Bürgerstraße 1, 28195 Bremen, Germany email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The German labour market policy regime constitutes a reliable supporting pillar of the highly productive German employment system. Due to the most recent reforms, its core principle of status protection – a basic norm of the German middle-class-related model of social protection for the population of working age – is losing its formative character. Our analysis focuses on three separate policy principles that form the guiding logic of status centredness, namely the equivalence in security provision, the mechanisms that protect the socio-economic status in the event of unemployment, and the tripartite mode of funding. We argue that the ‘Hartz Reforms’ have reinforced the logic of the legal modifications since the mid-1990s, cumulating now in a shift away from the middle-class-oriented status-centred approach of social security provision.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 275 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Betzelt, S. and Bothfeld, S. (2011), ‘Incoherent strategies, fragmented outcomes. Raising women's employment rate in Germany’, German Policy Studies 7, 2, 73–106.Google Scholar
Bleses, P. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2004), The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Bogedan, C., Bothfeld, S. and Sesselmeier, W. (2012), ‘Arbeitsmarktpolitik in der sozialen Marktwirtschaft - Vom Arbeitsförderungsgesetz zu Sozialgesetzbuch II und III. Eine Einleitung’, in S. Bothfeld, W. Sesselmeier und C. Bogedan (eds.), 13–24.Google Scholar
Bosch, G. (2012), ‘Berufliche Weiterbildung in Deutschland 1969 bis 2010: Entwicklung und Reformoptionen’, in S. Bothfeld, W. Sesselmeier und B. Claudia (eds.), 106–125.Google Scholar
Bothfeld, S. and Betzelt, S. (2011), ‘The Erosion of Social Status: The Case of Germany’, in Betzelt und, S. Bothfeld, S. (eds.), Activation and Labour Market Reforms in Germany. Challenges to Social Citizenship, Houndsmills: Palgrave, 103–124.Google Scholar
Bothfeld, S. and Leschke, J. (2012), ‘''More and better jobs": is quality of work still an issue - and was it ever?’, Transfer. The European Review of Labour and Research. Special Issue: EU social and employment policy under the Europe 2020 strategy 18, 3, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bothfeld, S. and Rosenthal, P. (2014), ‘Paradigmenwechsel durch inkrementellen Wandel: Was bleibt von der Arbeitslosenversicherung?’, WSI-Mitteilungen 67, 3, 199–206.Google Scholar
Bothfeld, S., Sesselmeier, W. and Bogedan, C. (eds.) (2012), Arbeitsmarktpolitik in der sozialen Marktwirtschaft - Vom Arbeitsförderungsgesetz zu Sozialgesetzbuch II und II, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bruckmeier, K. and Schnitzlein, D. (2009), ‘Der Übergang von Arbeitslosenhilfeempfängern in das SGB II. Eine empirische Analyse anhand von Befragungsdaten’, Sozialer Fortschritt 58, 1, 1–9.Google Scholar
Arbeit, Bundesagentur für (2015a), Amtliche Nachrichten der Bundsagentur: Arbeitsmarkt 2014, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Arbeit, Bundesagentur für (2015b), Analytikreport der Statistik. Arbeitslosigkeit nach Rechtskreisen im Vergleich., BA, Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Arbeit, Bundesagentur für (2015c), Haushaltsplan 2015, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Castel, R. (2003), L'insécurité sociale. Qu'est-ce qu'être protegé?, Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Chung, H. and Mau, S. (2014), ‘Subjective insecurity and the role of institutions’, Journal of European Social Policy 24, 4, 303–318.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. and Clegg, D. (2007), ‘Levels and levers of conditionality: measuring change within welfare states’, in Clasen und, J. Siegel, N. (eds.), Investigating Welfare State Change. The ‘Dependant Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 166–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, J. and Goerne, A. (2011), ‘Exit Bismarck, Enter Dualism? Assessing Contemporary German Labour Market Policy’, Journal of Social Policy 40, 4, 795–810.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. and Oorschot, W. v. (2002), ‘Changing Principles in European Social Security’, European Journal of Social Security 2, 89–115.Google Scholar
Clemens, J. (2012), ‘Reicht der jetzige Beitragssatz von drei Prozent?’, Soziale Sicherheit 61, 12, 420--422.Google Scholar
Cox, R. H. (1998), ‘The Consequences of Welfare Reform: How Conceptions of Social Rights are Changing’, Journal of Social Policy 27, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2011), Germany: moving towards integration whilst maintaining segmentation, in Clasen und, J. Clegg, D. (eds.), Regulating the risk of unemployment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–74.Google Scholar
Dörre, K. (2006), ‘Prekäre Arbeit und soziale Desintegration’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 40–41, 7–13.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W., Grienberger-Zingerle, M. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2010), ‘Activating Labor Market and Social Policies in Germany: From Status Protection to Basic Income Support’, German Policy Studies, 11, 65–106.Google Scholar
Engbom, N., Detragiache, E. and Raei, F. (2015), The German Labor Market Reforms and Post-Unemployment Earnings, IMF-Working Papers, IMF, Washington.Google Scholar
Esser, I., Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K, Palme, J. and Sjöberg, O. (2013), Unemployment Benefits in EU Member States, EU Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giannelli, G., Jaenichen, U. and Rothe, T. (2013), Doing Well in Reforming the Labour Market? Recent Trends in Job Stability and Wages in Germany, IZA Discussion Paper Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2002), ‘Structures of Mutual Obligation’, Journal of Social Policy 31, 4, 579–596.Google Scholar
Hauser, R., Nolan, B., Mörsdorf, K. and Strengmann-Kuhn, W. (2000), ‘Unemployment and Poverty: Change over Time’, in Gallie und, D. Paugam, S. (eds.), Welfare Regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–46.Google Scholar
Hausner, K. H., Simon, S. and Spitznagel, E. (2015), ‘Die Finanzlage der Bundesagentur für Arbeit im Spannungsfeld von konjunkturellen Risiken und arbeitsmarktpolitischen Herausforderungen’, Sozialer Fortschritt 64, 3, 54–63.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. (2010), ‘A social insurance state withers away. Welfare state reforms in Germany–or: attempts to turn around in a cul-de-sac’, in Palier, B. (eds.), A long goodbye to Bismarck, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 45–72.Google Scholar
Hofmann, B. (2012), ‘Short- and long-term ex-post effects of unemployment insurance sanctions: evidence from West Germany’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 232, 1, 31–60.Google Scholar
Jahn, E. and Stephan, G. (2012), ‘Leistungsansprüche bei kurzen Beschäftigungszeiten: Arbeitslosengeld - wie lange man dafür arbeiten muss’, IAB-Kurzbericht 19.Google Scholar
Knuth, M. (2013), Labour market reforms and the “jobs miracle” in Germany European Economic and Social Committee. Workers Group, Brussels.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998), ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries’, American Sociological Review 63, 5, 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisering, L. (2004), ‘Paradigmen sozialer Gerechtigkeit - Normative Diskurse im Umbau des Sozialstaats’, in Liebig, S., Lengfeld und, H. Mau, S. (eds.), Verteilungsprobleme und Gerechtigkeit in modernen Gesellschaften, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, 29–68.Google Scholar
Lessenich, S. (2003), Dynamischer Immobilismus. Kontinuität und Wandel im deutschen Sozialmodell, Frankfurt am Main/New York.Google Scholar
Lübke, C. and Erlinghagen, M. (2014), ‘Self-perceived job insecurity across Europe over time: Does changing context matter?’, Journal of European Social Policy 24, 4, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1963), Citizenship and Social Class, in Marshall, T. H. (eds.), Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays, London: Heinemann, 116.Google Scholar
Mau, S. (2012), Lebenschancen. Wohin driftet die Mittelschicht?, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Nullmeier, F. and Vobruba, G. (1994), ‘Gerechtigkeit im sozialpolitischen Diskurs’, in Nullmeier, F., Pioch und, R. Vobruba, G. (eds.), Gerechtigkeit im Wohlfahrtsstaat, Marburg: Schüren, 9–66.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1972), Leistungsprinzip und industrielle Arbeit: Mechanismen der Statusverteilung in Arbeitsorganisationen der industriellen Leistungsgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Europ. Verl.-Anst.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1987), ‘Democracy against the Welfare State? Structural Foundations of Neoconservative Political Opportunities’, Political Theory 15, 4, 501–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offe, C. (2003), ‘The European Model of 'Social’ Capitalism: Can it survive European Integration?', Journal of Political Philosophy 11, 4, 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oorschot, W. v. (2000), 'Who should get what, and why? On Deservingness Criteria and the Conditionality of Solidarity among the Public', Policy & Politics 28, 1, 33–48.Google Scholar
Oschmiansky, F. (2010), ‘Aktive Arbeitsförderinstrumente seit Einführung des SGB III: Rückblick und Ausblick’, Sozialer Fortschritt 59, 1, 16–23.Google Scholar
Ozkan, U. R. (2014), ‘Comparing Formal Unemployment Compensation Systems in 15 OECD Countries’, Social Policy & Administration 48, 1, 44–66.Google Scholar
Palier, B., (ed.) (2010), A long Goodbye to Bismarck. The Politics of Welfare Reform in Continental Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Palier, B. and Thelen, K. (2010), ‘Institutionalizing Dualism: Complementarities and Change in France and Germany’, Politics & Society 38, 1, 119–148.Google Scholar
Rafass, T. (2016), ‘Work Enforcement in Liberal Democracies’, Journal of Social Policy 45, 3, 417–434.Google Scholar
Schmid, G. (1994), ‘Equality & Efficiency in the Labor Market: Toward a Socioeconomic Theory of Cooperation’, in Schmid, G. (eds.), Labor Market Institutions in Europe. A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Performance, Armonk/New York: M.E. Sharpe, 243–279.Google Scholar
Schmid, G., Reissert, B. and Bruche, G. (1992), Unemployment Insurance and Active Labor Market Policy: An International Comparison of Financing Systems, Detroit.Google Scholar
Schmid, G. and Schömann, K. (1994), ‘Institutional Choice and Flexible Coordination’, in (eds.), Labor Market Institutions in Europe, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 9–57.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2002), ‘A Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State?’, West European Politics 25, 4, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2016), ‘The End of the Conservative German Welfare State Model’, Social Policy & Administration 50, 2, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stovicek, K. and Turrini, A. (2012), Benchmarking Unemployment Benefit Systems, Economic Papers, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (2005), Introduction, in Streeck und, W. Thelen, K. (eds.), Beyond Continuity. Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–39.Google Scholar
Venn, D. (2012), Eligibility Criteria for Unemployment Benefits, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, Paris.Google Scholar
Voßemer, J. and Schuck, B. (2015), ‘Better Overeducated than Unemployed? The Short- and Long-Term Effects of an Overeducated Labour Market Re-entry’, European Sociological Review, 32, 2, 251–265.Google Scholar