CAHIERS DU CRISES
–
COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES
–
NO
ET0908
26
mentioned typology of governance (cf. tab. 2), these arrangements can either represent
governance by command, multilateral or citizen’s governance.
As welfare governance represents the only clear-cut ideal type in Pierre’s typology aiming at
solving problems of social exclusion, different European variations of this type of governance
will now be introduced more thoroughly. The work of Esping-Andersen (1990) on the three
different forms of the welfare state can be an interesting starting point for this sake (cf. also
Jessop 2002: 62f.): (1) The Anglo-American liberal welfare regime attributes only a minimal
role for the state, emphasizing the individualization rather than socialization of the risks
related to labour market participation and preferably seeks for market solutions to economic
and social problems. (2) The conservative welfare regime privileges the traditional family
form. Welfare rights are attached to class and status rather than national citizenship, and have
a limited redistributive impact because they reflect rather than reduce existing class and status
inequalities. Conservative welfare regimes also allocate a key role to the voluntary sector. (3)
The social democratic welfare regime is most strongly developed in the Nordic economies,
and is strongly committed to social redistribution. It accepts an extended role for state action
in compensating for market failures, socializes a broad range of risks, and offers generous
levels of universal benefits and redistribution.
As Andreotti et al. (2001) show, this typology does not grasp (4) the Southern European
welfare regime, which relies on the family with a male breadwinner and female care-work.
The weak state is thus heavily dependent on reciprocity networks and family support. Women
bare most of the burden of social welfare and therefore participate considerably less in the
labour market than in other European countries. The transition from dictatorships to liberal
democracies led in some cases to the establishment of new welfare structures and to
experiments with new forms of democracy. (5) The former state socialist countries form
another distinct group (Berend 1996: 55). Until 1989, it was an authoritarian regime that gave
universal access to social services. Afterwards, transition to neoliberalism was radical, leading
to severe cases of social exclusion (cf. Winkler 2007).
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
–
KATARIS PROJECT
27
2
2
.
.
T
T
H
H
E
E
O
O
R
R
I
I
E
E
S
S
O
O
F
F
G
G
O
O
V
V
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
N
N
C
C
E
E
:
:
P
P
O
O
W
W
E
E
R
R
,
,
E
E
X
X
C
C
L
L
U
U
S
S
I
I
O
O
N
N
A
A
N
N
D
D
I
I
N
N
C
C
L
L
U
U
S
S
I
I
V
V
E
E
N
N
E
E
S
S
S
S
2.1.
Coordination, Organisation and Domination
Governance theories focus on the coordination and organization of society. Governance can
also be treated as a concept to cope with the liberal transformation of society and a relational
conception of space with a focus on the inclusion of segments of civil society. Concerning
actors in politics it describes a new mode of governing which transcends the rather mechanical
view of governing as government: a normative claim that governance is a more integrative and
efficient form of governing. In a territorial dimension governance tries to capture ongoing
spatial restructuring by introducing global, regional and local dimensions beside the national
state (cf. Stoker 1998; Rhodes 2000; Kjær 2004; Benz/Papadopoulos 2006a; Leubolt 2007 for
literature reviews). To be able to deal with questions of power relations, including the
relationship between governance and socioeconomic development, an adequate understanding
of capitalist market economies and the role of the state therein is necessary (Jessop 1990).
Transforming governance theory into a “modern theory of domination” (Mayntz 2005), within
the framework of Gramscian state theory is a promising approach. Antonio Gramsci
(1971; 1992ff.) had a broad understanding of the “integral state”, including civil society as
well as state bureaucracy and government
3
. The corresponding theories on the state have
always treated the state as the concrete form of power relations (Jessop 1990; Poulantzas
2001; Hirsch 2005), thereby differing from the widely used definition of the state as neutral
arbiter of the common good as applied by mainstream governance theorists (Kjær 2004:
124ff.) and of civil society as an autonomous sphere.
2.2.
Main Mechanisms of Social Exclusion
Dominant discourses concerning the role of the state in society/in the economy usually rest on
the neoclassical assumption of the state and the market constituting two completely
independent realms (cf. e.g. Williamson 1979). The market is conceived as the natural – and
efficient – order of things, whereas the state is seen as being highly bureaucratic and
non-transparent and therefore to lack efficiency. Yet this understanding neglects the fact that
3
This historical heritage is hardly ever taken into account in governance theory, with the important exception of the strategic-relational
approach (e.g. Jessop/Sum 2006).