Social acceleration – the progressively faster rate of technological, social and life-pace change – poses a dilemma for democratic problem solving: It increases the amount of new social problems emerging on the political agenda and hence amplifies the demand for rapid and effective policy solutions. Democratic politics is, however, slow. So either the political system speeds up decision making at the cost of democracy, or it holds on to democracy at the cost of problem solving. Obviously, neither option is desirable. How do governments try to solve this dilemma and provide positive-sum solutions that are both effective and democratic? We present two so-called paradigm cases of governments, in Denmark and the Netherlands, that have developed a remarkably quick and effective digitalization response to social acceleration. By focusing on four markers – (1) awareness and timing; (2) motivation; (3) new strategic goals; and (4) goal-directed strategic policy action – we theorize how governments aim to solve the dilemma for democratic problem solving under conditions of social acceleration.
AbstractIn many countries, new, broad, and normative "conceptions of society" gained prominence that represent fundamentally different discursive alternatives to the classical welfare state. We present two political projects that contain radical alternative conceptualizations of the classical welfare state, the "Big Society" in Britain and the "Participation Society" in the Netherlands, and contrast these with Norwegian developments, where no such a radical alternative conceptualization of the welfare state can be found. We show that the British and Dutch political projects were attempts to replace the welfare state, whereas there is no comparable big idea about a radical overhaul of the welfare state in Norway. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of a fundamental shift in welfare state reform, namely a radical reconsidering of the ideational and normative foundation that defines and underpins what the welfare state is or should be.
In: van Kersbergen , K & Metliaas , K 2020 , ' Radical Alternative Conceptualizations of the Classical Welfare State? Contrasting the United Kingdom and the Netherlands with Norway ' , Social Policy and Administration , vol. 54 , no. 5 , pp. 813-826 . https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12580
In many countries, new, broad, and normative "conceptions of society" gained prominence that represent fundamentally different discursive alternatives to the classical welfare state. We present two political projects that contain radical alternative conceptualizations of the classical welfare state, the "Big Society" in Britain and the "Participation Society" in the Netherlands, and contrast these with Norwegian developments, where no such a radical alternative conceptualization of the welfare state can be found. We show that the British and Dutch political projects were attempts to replace the welfare state, whereas there is no comparable big idea about a radical overhaul of the welfare state in Norway. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of a fundamental shift in welfare state reform, namely a radical reconsidering of the ideational and normative foundation that defines and underpins what the welfare state is or should be.
This paper investigates how and why welfare state universalism can shape the integration of migrants into the national community. Universalism is broadly regarded as central to the integrative and solidarity-building potential of welfare states, but we argue that the traditional approach to understanding the concept is fraught with inconsistencies. Rather than comparing welfare states using the classical universalist/selectivist dichotomy, we suggest that they should be thought of as embodying various 'packages' of universalist traits – all of which are unified by their connection to a core, self-sustaining logic of solidarity. A comparison of Canadian and Danish universalism allows us to draw out how (indiscriminate/selectivist) 'community perks' traits and (inclusive/exclusive) 'community scope' ones may interact in unexpected ways. This, in turn, helps us better understand how and why 'classically universalist' Denmark is facing threats to solidarity and migrant integration that are much more intense than those found in 'classically selectivist' Canada.