Understanding Power, Democracy, and Welfare States: A Comparative Analysis
Understanding Power
The Power and Appeal
Hobbes believed that power and resources are intertwined, with power stemming from the control of resources. He recognized various forms of power, including authority, negotiation, and persuasion. Weber, on the other hand, viewed power as the ability to impose one’s will within social relationships, often leading to domination. He categorized domination into three types based on legitimacy: charismatic (based on personal qualities), traditional (based on established customs), and legal-rational (based on laws and rules).
Foucault emphasized the role of power in shaping individual actions. He argued that institutions, such as companies, exert power through policies and practices that encourage certain behaviors.
Crisis of Democracy
According to Manin, the crisis of democracy is rooted in a decline of trust between citizens and politicians. This crisis is partly due to the changing nature of society and the inability of political parties to effectively represent the evolving needs of the people. Factors contributing to this crisis include the rise of direct communication between parties and individuals, ambiguous electoral promises, and the emergence of catch-all parties that seek broad appeal rather than representing specific interests.
Bourdieu highlighted the role of media in exposing the self-serving nature of politicians, further eroding public trust.
Welfare State Crisis
The Keynesian welfare state model, which emerged in the 20th century, aimed to provide social services and ensure full employment. However, from the 1970s onwards, this model faced challenges due to economic difficulties and a shift towards neoliberal policies. The fiscal crisis of the state led to a decline in public confidence and a questioning of the welfare state’s effectiveness.
Marxists argued that the welfare state failed to address fundamental inequalities, while universalists criticized its focus on the middle class at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Welfare Regimes
Welfare regimes refer to the ways in which responsibility for social welfare is shared between the state, market, and families. Different countries have adopted distinct welfare models:
Liberal Welfare Regimes
Prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries, these regimes minimize state intervention and emphasize market-based solutions. Social assistance is limited and means-tested, with individuals expected to rely on their own resources whenever possible.
Social Democratic Welfare Regimes
Found in Nordic countries, these regimes are characterized by universal social programs, generous benefits, and a commitment to equality. Citizens’ rights are prioritized, and efforts are made to reduce dependence on the market.
Conservative Welfare Regimes
Typical of Western Europe and Japan, these regimes combine elements of state intervention and familial responsibility. Social benefits are often tied to employment status, and families play a significant role in providing care.
Mediterranean Welfare Regimes
Common in Southern Europe, these regimes feature a strong emphasis on family support and informal care networks. Social benefits are often fragmented and targeted towards specific groups.