Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

The Repoliticization of the Welfare State grapples with the evolving nature of political conflict over social spending after the Great Recession. While the severity of the economic crisis encouraged strong social spending responses to protect millions of individuals, governments have faced growing pressure to reduce budgets and make deep cuts to the welfare state. Whereas conservative parties have embraced fiscal discipline and welfare state cuts, left-wing parties have turned away from austerity in favor of higher social spending. These political differences represent a return of traditional left-right beliefs over social spending and economic governance.



This book is one of the first to systematically compare welfare state politics before and after the Great Recession, arguing that a new and lasting post-crisis dynamic has emerged where political parties once again matter for social spending. At the heart of this repoliticization are intense ideological debates over market regulation, social inequality, redistribution, and the role of the state. The book analyzes social spending dynamics for 28 countries before and after the crisis. It also includes in-depth country case studies representing five distinct welfare state types: Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, and the Czech Republic.

Table of contents provided by Syndetics

• List of Illustrations (p. vii)
• 1 The Realignment of Welfare State Politics (p. 1)
• 2 Crisis and the Politics of Social Spending (p. 18)
• 3 The European Union (p. 48)
• 4 Germany: Continental European Welfare State (p. 68)
• 5 United Kingdom: Liberal Welfare State (p. 86)
• 6 Sweden: Nordic Welfare State (p. 103)
• 7 Spain: Southern European Welfare State (p. 120)
• 8 Czech Republic: Eastern European Welfare State (p. 141)
• 9 Conclusion (p. 169)
• References (p. 187)
• Index (p. 221)

Reviews provided by Syndetics

CHOICE Review

From the 1990s until the global financial crisis in 2008, both center-left and center-right governments agreed that high public debt and budget deficits required social spending retrenchment. However, renewed political fights about public finances and solidarity have replaced austerity. McManus (Emerson College) argues that the global financial crisis of 2008 was a critical moment that repoliticized social spending and broke the consensus on austerity and retrenchment. At first, governments stepped in and spent money to protect vulnerable populations, but once the crisis abated many conservative parties returned to austerity and advocated deep cuts to reduce budget deficits and public debt. By contrast, center-left governments abandoned austerity and continued to express support for social spending and redistribution. The reemergence of partisan or ideological conflict about economic governance and fiscal priorities may also influence the post-COVID-19 years, with center-left governments wishing to address poverty and inequality while center-right governments seek to restore balanced budgets and reduce spending. Throughout, McManus relies on quantitative modeling to analyze social spending in 28 countries, and he also presents detailed chapters on five different models of welfare states: Germany, the UK, Sweden, Spain, and the Czech Republic. Summing Up: Recommended. Undergraduates through faculty. --Paulette Kurzer, University of Arizona

Author notes provided by Syndetics

Ian P. McManus is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Emerson College.