Social Capitalism: a Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State

308 Pages·2003·1.932 MB·English

by  Van Kersbergen, Kees

Social Capitalism
A study of Christian democracy and the welfare state
Social Capitalism
A study of Christian democracy
and the welfare state
Kees van Kersbergen
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 1995
by Routledge
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
© 1995 Kees van Kersbergen
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book has been requested
ISBN 0-203-42958-3 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-73782-2 (Adobe eReader Format)
ISBN 0-415-11670-8 (Print Edition)
Contents
List of tables v
Acknowledgements vii
List of abbreviations x
1 Introduction 1
2 The welfare state and Christian democracy: An 6
introduction
3 The political entrenchment of Christian democracy in 31
Western Europe, 1870–1960
4 Christian democracy in Germany, Italy and the 63
Netherlands: A closer comparison
5 Welfare state regimes and social spending 98
6 The quality of welfare state regimes 126
7 The structure of welfare state regimes 149
8 Social capitalism and Christian democracy 175
9 Catholicism and social citizenship: From charity to social 193
justice?
10 The intellectual origins of Christian democracy and 206
social capitalism
11 Conclusion 230
Appendix 249
Notes 257
References 263
Index 286
Tables
3.1 Christian democratic parties in continental Western Europe 50
and Ireland
3.2 Membership and electoral strength of Catholic/Christian 54
democratic parties in continental Western Europe and
Ireland, 1945–60 (or nearest year)
3.3 Government record of Christian democracy in continental 55
Western Europe and Ireland, 1945–60
5.1 Expenditure of social security schemes as a percentage of 101
gross domestic product, 1960 and 1980
5.2 OLS regression, dependent variable=social security 103
expenditure, 1960 and 1980
5.3 Pension expenditure as a percentage of GDP, 1960 and 1980 105
5.4 Pension coverage ratios among population aged 15–65, 1960 106
and 1980
5.5 Net pension replacement rates for singles and couples, 1960 107
and 1980
5.6 Number of people over 65 years of age as a proportion of total 109
population, 1960 and 1980
5.7 OLS regression, dependent variable=pension spending, 1960 111
and 1980
6.1 Weighted average net replacement rates, average net 127
replacement rates and average coverage ratios of major social
security schemes, 1960 and 1980
6.2 OLS regression, dependent variable=weighted average net 128
replacement rates of major social security schemes, 1960 and
1980
6.3 Privileging of families in net average production worker’s 138
wage, 1960 and 1980
6.4 Privileging of families in disposable income in 1976 140
6.5 OLS regression, dependent variable=family bias in tax- 141
benefit regimes, 1980
6.6 OLS regression, dependent variable=cash-benefit bias in 144
welfare states, 1960 and 1980
6.7 OLS regression, dependent variables=labour force 147
participation rates: total, male and female, 1960 and 1980
vi
6.8 Growth of female labour force as a percentage of female 148
population from 15 to 64, 1960–80
7.1 OLS regression, dependent variable=bi-and tripartism in 150
social security administration, 1980
7.2 Financing of social security schemes, shares of insured, 152
employers and the state, 1960 and 1980
7.3 Benefit structure and benefit inequality of pensions in 1960 153
and 1980
7.4 OLS regression, dependent variable=fragmentation in social 155
security schemes in 1980
7.5 Cash transfers as a percentage of gross earnings of a married 169
couple with two children at the level of an average production
worker, 1972–6
7.6 Disposable income as a percentage of gross earnings at the 171
level of an average production worker in 1978, selected
household compositions
7.7 Percentage change in disposable income as percentage of 172
gross earnings, moving from one household composition to
another, at the level of an average production worker in 1978
7.8 OLS regression, dependent variable=absolute values of 174
column 4, Table 7.7
Acknowledgements
Christian democracy has attracted surprisingly little scholarly
attention. Whereas studies of social democracy could easily fill a small
library, monographs on the Christian-inspired movements of Western
Europe would probably scarcely fill a single bookshelf. Given the
political importance of Christian democracy I have always found such
lack of concern with the phenomenon quite perplexing. In the course
of my studies I have noticed that occupying oneself with Christian
democracy out of intellectual curiosity tends to bring out scepticism
from those who have never seriously thought about the topic. They
have sometimes doubted my motives. Each time I presented my work
somewhere, somebody always felt obliged to ask whether I was
perhaps religious myself. Apparently, it is difficult to imagine that
Christian democracy can be an intriguing object of study in itself. One
does not have to believe in the Christian democratic project in order to
study it, just as one does not have to be a fool to study madness. The
most cordial reaction I ever got was when someone praised my
courage to tackle the topic, probably contending that masochism is a
prerequisite for martyrdom. Trying to explain that Christian
democracy is related to the welfare state has not been an easy matter
either. The possibility of the connection seems to be excluded in the
minds of many ‘critical’ social scientists. It is ‘common wisdom’ that
Christian democracy inhibits a happy life for all. But how do we
know? Let us postpone value judgments until knowledge permits us to
assess the movement’s virtues and vices properly.
Fortunately, the academic entourage of the European University
Institute in Florence has provided me with an intellectual
environment wherein my original attempt to make sense of Christian
democracy and the welfare state has been more than encouraged.
Here I have come across very little prejudice. The Institute’s openness
and its international character have given me a unique opportunity to
carry out this study. I am grateful to the Dutch Ministry of Education
and the European Community for providing me with the grants that
viii
allowed me to write a dissertation on the topic and survive
financially.
If altruism and generosity have lost much of their content in
contemporary personal relationships, Gøsta Esping-Andersen has
certainly made a great effort to refresh the genuine meaning of the
concepts (and note that unlike charity—altruism does not imply the
submission of the recipient to the benefactor). His influence on this
study is unmistakable and I do not regret it for a moment. It is
certainly not a ‘bad idea’ to ask under what conditions some do and
some don’t. I thoroughly disagree with him on only one minor detail.
The first rule of sociology is that ‘everything took longer’.
The initial idea for this study was conceived when I was at the
Political Science Department of the University of Amsterdam. I wish
to thank Uwe Becker for making me aware of the fact that Dutch
exceptionalism may be as much due to the peculiarities of this nation
as to the hidden assumptions of theories of the welfare state. He
taught me the importance of a critical spirit. The collaboration with
Dietmar Braun has contributed much to my understanding of
Christian democracy and the original project was a direct result of a
seminar on Christian democracy that we held in 1986–7. I also wish to
thank him for his critical suggestions.
During my stay in Florence I participated in several seminars which
gave me the opportunity to present the preliminary results of my
research. I wish to thank all the participants for their efforts to read
and comment upon my usually too wordy papers. My gratitude goes
especially to Mary Daly, Johan De Deken, Bernhard Ebbinghaus,
Maurice Glasman, Stephen Hopkins, Jürgen Kohl, Philippe Marlière,
Veronica Muñoz Dardé, Declan Murphy, James (Jim) Newell, Fritz
von Nordheim-Nielsen, Lasse Ringius, David Thomas, Philippe van
Parijs and Axel West Pedersen. If you read this work carefully, you
will certainly recognise bits and pieces of your own remarks and miss
the most important ones. My friend Zina Assimakopoulou deserves
special mention. Together we found out how tedious empirical
research sometimes can be. Steven Lukes has encouraged me to think
harder, and even harder. Harald Sonnberger has helped me to
understand many things, but above all the importance of econometric
testing. I wish I could blame him for all the remaining statistical
mistakes I have made, but unfortunately they are the result of my
own obstinacy.
Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Hans Keman, Roger Morgan and John
Stephens kindly gave me their critical comments when this work was
still a doctoral thesis. I am also much indebted to the anonymous reader
of Routledge for his or her constructive criticism. The participants of
the conference on ‘Comparative Studies of Welfare State
ix
Development: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions’ (Bremen,
September 1992) allowed me to test the plausibility of the argument. I
am especially grateful to Christoph Sachβe for his extensive
comments.
If it were not for the Swedish Institute for Social Research in
Stockholm, I would never have been able to write this book. I would
like to thank Walter Korpi for allowing me to use the data-set, Joakim
Palme for preparing the data, sending me updates and telling me
what I did wrong, and Olli Kangas for sending me such excellent and
extensive comments. I also would like to thank Jorma Sipilä for his
comments, Eugen Shoenfeld for making me rethink my ideas on
charity, Alex Hicks for sending me an encouraging letter at a time I
was ready to abandon the whole project, and Bertjan Verbeek for
helpful comments. The section on social democracy as a model of the
welfare state (Chapter 2) is an adopted and partly amended and
extended version of Esping-Andersen and van Kersbergen (1992: 190–
95) and is reproduced, with kind permission, from the Annual Review
of Sociology, vol. 18, © 1992, by Annual Reviews Inc.
I know it is common practice to be critical of the administration of a
university. Unfortunately, in the case of the European Institute I
cannot think of anything important to complain about. The staff of the
EUI library have been helpful in many ways. I particularly would like
to thank Peter Keneally. The Department of Political Science and
Public Administration of the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam kindly
allowed me to return to Italy for some months to prepare the
manuscript.
I also wish to thank Andreas Frijdal and Chris Colinet for their
friendship, hospitality and for the many occasions on which they gave
me the opportunity to satisfy some of my non-academic needs. Beatrijs
de Hartogh has taught me, among other things, what ‘harbour the
homeless’ as one of the positive connotations of charity means. The
people from Faella, particularly Anna, Roberto, the late Primo, Anita
(Stella), Giuliana, Bistino, Beppe and Filomena, have introduced me
to real Italian life.
Bep and Corry, my parents, have contributed to this work in their
own peculiar manner. I can show my gratitude now that—for the
moment at least -we are all back in the Netherlands. Of course, I should
also thank my wife, Inger Stokkink, but I already did that yesterday
and today, and I will do so again tomorrow.