Streams

The Organising Committee is happy to present the list of accepted streams for the 22nd ESPAnet Annual Conference (please note that streams are called “tracks” in the conference management tool):

Fiscal, regulatory and institutional implications of European Social policy
The welfare state and the family: Contemporary thinking and policy developments
The Uses of Comparative Research Methodologies in Social Policy and Politics
New perspectives on non-standard work and labour market segmentation
Social Policy and Authoritarian contexts : polarization and resistance
Social policy, social work and the welfare state
The Politics of Education
Varieties of Just Transitions: Actors and Ecosocial Policies
The Nordic Welfare Model facing New Challenges
Social Policy, Family Diversity and Child and Parent Well-Being
Work, wellbeing and social policy
The politics of welfare state reform
New trends in social policy in Europe and its periphery. Inclusionary and exclusionary processes amidst crisis
Inequalities in informal and formal care
Sustainability of pensions in ageing welfare states
Eco-social risks and eco-welfare states: Taking stock of a growing debate
Resilience as a challenge for the welfare state
New Perspectives on Poverty and Inequality
Between Titmuss and Castles. Towards an expanded understanding of Social Protection: Occupational Welfare, Fiscal Welfare and Social Policies by Other Means
Concepts and ideas in current welfare state policies
Transforming care in changing conditions and contexts
Human needs and welfare responses to these
Welfare and migration: Actors, policies and institutions
Fostering socially and ecologically sustainable digitalisation and automation of welfare states
Welfare and Migration: Welfare Attitudes and Welfare Access
The Role of Work Organizations in the Implementation of Social Policy. Special Focus on Work-family Reconciliation Policies.
Disability, poverty and policy
OPEN STREAM
PITCH YOUR BOOK
PITCH YOUR PROJECT

Stream Descriptions

1. Fiscal, regulatory and institutional implications of European Social policy

A new era in European social policy was launched by the European pillar of social rights, entailing a relaunch of EU regulation in the social policy area, and the Recovery and Resilience facility of NGEU, entailing fiscal means to develop and strengthen social infrastructure in member states. There is now a wealth of literature about the emergence of this new EU social turn. There also are good theoretical elaborations on shifts in the European integration project and how change has played out in terms of ideas, policies and institutions. Yet, the literature on the actual impact, as well as processes of accountability and legitimation of policies, funds and new regulations in member states is just starting to emerge. Furthermore, as it is the area of social policy, where the EU only has limited competence, the question is how this is shaped politically in member states, and ultimately, what the consequences of these new initiatives are for EU citizens. We need an investigation of (altered) roles of EU in social and labour market policy in the current context marked by EU scepticism. We are interested in the consequences of changes in EU social policy – conceived broadly – for reform processes, output and outcome, across member states. Linked to this, what are the political dynamics underlying these processes as well as the political implications of this transformation for the European integration project and European democracies more generally, reflecting on issues of popular legitimacy.

Furthermore, it is necessary to integrate this novel research on investigations of other more long- standing institutionalised initiatives in EU and labour market and social policy, such as related to gender equality, labour law or working conditions. This panel welcomes papers on the new era of European social policy as delineated above. We welcome contributions from different theoretical, analytical and methodological perspectives, including quantitative and/or qualitative data and analyses.

Stream Chairs:

David Bokhorst (European University Institute)

Caroline de la Porte (Copenhagen Business School: Department of International Economics, Government and Business)

2. The welfare state and the family: Contemporary thinking and policy developments

The welfare state and the family: Contemporary thinking and policy developments European and other welfare states have been renewing their child and family policies in numerous ways with this as one of the most vibrant fields of policy development and reform. This leads us to question to what extent traditional comparative understandings of family policy models still hold from a cross-national perspective. In recent years, comparative social policy literature also has emphasized the importance of policy interplays, i.e., the intersections of multiple social policy subfields and the embeddedness of policies in broader institutional configurations. Family policy is a marvelous example of a policy field in which different types of policies, such as gender, employment, education, income benefits, and welfare services combine. Social assistance has become increasingly polycentric such that a multiplicity of cooperating, overlapping, and competing entities set the landscape of available services. Furthermore, the shift towards work-contingent welfare in several countries may alter the dynamics of how policies may combine to influence outcomes such as fertility, employment, educational enrolment and childcare selection. External circumstances (e.g., COVID-19) may alter how people perceive and capitalize on statutory benefits. In addition, policy design and benefit structures may also contribute to how families and communities depend on and provide for one another informally through social networks or voluntary agencies. This stream is oriented to taking stock of both the policy developments and the frameworks and concepts used to analyse them. We welcome papers dealing with but not limited to the following questions:

What models of family (life, structure and relationships) underpin contemporary family policies? What are the drivers of family policy reform within and across countries and what are the linkages between these and reforms in other social policy domains?
What is the state of the art (concepts, theories, methods, evidence) in studying family policy and its reform?
What inequalities (gender and intersectional) are to be seen in family policies and what are the long threads in this regard?
How have recent developments (COVID-19, austerity policies) changed the terrain of policy making in regard to families?
How have policy interplays changed over time for select economically marginalized groups?
How do policy characteristics such as coverage, eligibility, or stigma contribute to how policies affect families?

We strongly encourage comparative papers on these and other relevant topics but accept also single country papers. We aim to have a mix of historical, conceptual, methodological, and empirical papers, and welcome qualitative and quantitative contributions. We also welcome and encourage interdisciplinary papers and submissions by students.

Stream chairs:

Mary Daly (University of Oxford)

Mikko Niemela (Professor of Sociology, University of Turku)

Melissa Radey (Ph.D., MSSW, MA, Agnes Flaherty Stoops Professor in Child Welfare Florida State University College of Social Work)

3. The Uses of Comparative Research Methodologies in Social Policy and Politics

In this stream, we look at current innovation in comparative social policy and political analysis and we take stock of developments over the past half century, building on our recent reviews of the field (Ferragina and Deeming 2022, 2023). Regression techniques were foundational and continue to proliferate. Today, however, we see a growing interest in qualitative comparative analysis, and a trend for mixed and multiple methods, and the use of experiments. The pursuit of causality in comparative social policy inquiry, while highly valuable for comparative scholars, is perhaps less visible in studies reported in scholarly journals than recent discussion and debate might suggest. In this stream we consider theoretical and methodological trends and exemplar studies demonstrating innovations, whether theoretical, analytical or methodological, we are interested in the tools necessary to engage in comparative analysis. The existence of a stable growing trend in the use of comparative methodology warrants further scholarly engagement at the 22nd ESPAnet Annual Conference at Tampere University in August 2024. We welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analyses, as well as innovative contributions incorporating diversity perspectives that speak to the development of Comparative Social Policy Analysis across the growing range of methods and techniques: Regression Techniques, including Linear and Logistic Regression, Multi-Level Models (MLM), Pooled Time Series (PTS) and Panels; Case-Studies and Comparative Historical Analysis (CHA); Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Factorial Techniques including Latent Models; Cluster Analysis; Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets; Mixed- and Multi- Methods; Natural Experiments (NEs), difference-in-differences (DiD); Big Data – algorithms, sensor data, transactional data, administrative data etc. Methods for examining textual data and computational linguistics for advancing qualitative methods. Theoretical work and reflections on comparative method. Ferragina, E. and C. Deeming (2022) Methodologies for Comparative Social Policy Analysis, in M. A. Yerkes, K. Nelson and R. Nieuwenhuis (eds) Changing European Societies: The Role for Social Policy Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 218–234 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802201710.00022. Ferragina, E. and C. Deeming (2023) Comparative Mainstreaming? Mapping the Uses of the Comparative Method in Social Policy, Sociology and Political Science since the 1970s, Journal of European Social Policy, 33(1): 132–147 https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221128438.

Stream chairs:

Christopher Deeming (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland)

Emanuele Ferragina (Sciences Po, Paris, France)

4. New perspectives on non-standard work and labour market segmentation

Non-standard work and labour market segmentation remain important topics both for academics and policy makers in Europe and beyond. Non-standard work has been depicted both as a stepping stone to more sustainable employment and as a trap locking people into cycles of substandard employment and unemployment. One of the main areas of research are institutions and policies that shape the extent, forms of non-standard employment and demarcation of labour market segments as well as labour market mobilities and transitions to standard employment. This includes employment protection legislation but also a broader set of social policies regulating open-ended contracts and facilitating the use of flexible forms of employment including fixed-term contracts, temporary agency work, self- employment, on-call work, zero hours contracts or work intermediated by digital labour platforms. A second area of research has evolved around the role of actors below national politics. This includes firms and their behaviour (e.g. outsourcing, subcontracting and use of temporary agency workers) and policies and interventions by employee representatives and social partners. These actors influence the actual use and empirical shape of different forms of employment and their social consequences. A third research area considers the consequences of segmented labour markets in terms of job quality. This includes remuneration (earnings and fringe benefits), intrinsic job quality (autonomy and control and skills’ development), physical and social work environment, working time quality and work-life balance, job security, representation and voice. Job quality has important implications for subjective and objective wellbeing, health and family formation. Fourth, the increasing use of non-standard forms of employment has also had knock-on effects on the access to social protection including unemployment benefits and pensions as social protection systems are commonly designed on so-called ‘standard employment’. Some countries have been more successful than others to better include non-standard workers into social protection systems including through innovative policy solutions. Notable differences in patterns of labour market segmentation have been found not only between countries, but also across sectors or occupations and over time. While in some cases segmentation has advanced even further in recent years, there have also been steps to even out labour market divides and address gaps in job quality and social protection including at the EU level. Against this backdrop, we invite papers that provide new and up-to-date analytical and methodological perspectives on non-standard work and labour market segmentation. The stream is open to both conceptual and empirical papers.

We encourage in particular the submission of papers that explore new ways to analyse labour market segments and labour market mobility. We invite contributions based on qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. We are particularly interested in cross-country comparative papers but also welcome single country studies if they make a broader contribution to the topic. We also welcome papers that discuss the role of EU policies on non-standard employment.

Stream chairs:

Werner Eichhorst (IZA Institute of Labor Economics and University of Bremen)

Janine Leschke (Dpt. of Management, Society and Communication)

5. Social Policy and Authoritarian contexts : polarization and resistance

Much of the focus in welfare state scholarship has been on the role of social policy in the development of democracies and, more recently, on how democratic backsliding in the form of growing support for populist radical right parties is shaping social policies. While taking its cue from these debates, this stream focuses on those cases where the idea of backsliding may not apply, in so far as the term suggests a shift away from a functioning and relatively stable democratic system of government. Such authoritarian practices offer fewer, if any, democratic avenues to resist and challenge the rightward/illiberal shift in social policy design and delivery. Instead, the way policy priorities are set and how these policies are presented to the public in authoritarian contexts draw on practices of clientelism, patronage, electoral bargains, and informal – even illegal – exchanges between the decision-makers and their electoral base. To discuss the welfare policies in authoritarian contexts a close analysis of welfare policies themselves and the way in which they are framed in order to comply with the anti-elite discourses of those who govern and make the social policies are needed.

As the part of the population who benefit from these policies continues to support political power, these policies tend to support the maintenance of an electoral status quo. The rest of the population, who find themselves in the margins of the social policies as a consequence of discriminatory practices and precarity, create alternative ways to organize and mobilize through civil society and social movements. This stream invites theoretically-driven empirical papers which focus either on the issue of how the welfare policies in authoritarian contexts reflect their populist political narratives, or how the resistance to these policies through citizen activism is enacted. Papers should seek to analyse the patterns through which social policies are embedded within authoritarian practices in different authoritarian contexts, from the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa to Eastern Europe or South Asia.

Alternatively, papers could seek to understand the mechanisms of resistance and resilience that citizens generate through alternative, often informal, systems of welfare support. Examples of possible contributions include but are not limited to:

The role welfare policies play in electoral campaigns.
The changes in the eligibility criteria of the social assistance recipients with the change of the governing parties.
To what extent the policies of the care are made to reconcile with the ideal family narrative of authoritarian contexts?
What are the ways in which the parts of the society that remain in the margins of the welfare policies create alternative ways of mobilization?
How do these practices create resistance and collective action? – Where to find alternative narratives and processes of social policy building ?

Stream chairs:

Isil Erdinc (Université libre de Bruxelles)

Ayşecan Kartal (Galatasaray University)

Markus Ketola (University of Edinburgh)

6. Social policy, social work and the welfare state

Social workers are archetypical agents of the welfare state. Across welfare states, members of this profession have typically been perceived primarily as the implementors of social policies, particularly on the local level, and, as such, their distinctive impact on the welfare state and its social policies has not enjoyed much scholarly attention. However, in recent years there has been growing interest in the social policy-social work nexus. In part, it is due to efforts to better understand the impact of the changing nature of social policies in the rapidly changing social and technological environment of human life. Exploring the role of the professionals charged with implementing these policies can contribute to this. Examining the impact of issues such as austerity, New Public Management, the devolution of power and the marketization of welfare are prominent in this context. No less important, interest in the social policy-social work nexus has intensified because there is robust evidence that social workers impact social policies in different ways and because there is a sense that social policies goal can be more effectively achieved through the policy involvement of social work policy actors, who were previously perceived as passive policy deliverers. Thus, a large body of research, drawing upon the street-level bureaucracy literature, has examined the ways in which street-level social workers affect social policies at the point of implementation. Other scholars have explored the role that formal policymakers who are social workers play in formulating social policies and on the impact of social workers who become politicians on social policies. Focusing on the paths through which social workers impact policy from below, still others have studied the collaboration between social workers and service users in promoting policies (or alternately opposing policies) and the ways in which social worker street-level policy entrepreneurs have pushed for new policies on the local level. Much of this research has employed sophisticated methodological tools, theoretical frameworks from diverse disciplines, and often a cross-national comparative perspective, in order to reach empirically based conclusions that have contributed much to a better understanding of the role of social workers in social policy. The goal of this stream is to offer space for cutting-edge research and thinking by scholars from within social work but also from other relevant disciplines and approaches who are engaging in research on different facets of the social policy-social work nexus. The research can focus on the impact of social policy on social workers. It can also relate to the ways in which social workers impact policy. The studies can examine these issues on the international, national or local levels and explore the diverse fields in which social workers are present. Case studies or cross-national studies are welcome, as is work that takes a historical perspective or focusses on contemporary social policy.

Stream chairs:

John Gal‏ (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Roman Baláž (Masaryk University, Czech Republic)

Idit Weiss-Gal (Tel Aviv University, Israel)

7. The Politics of Education

Education systems aim to prepare citizens for the digital age, to integrate migrant youth, and to sensitize the future leaders about climate change. Education policy plays thus an important role in addressing today’s pressing challenges. At the same time, education systems are also fundamentally reshaped by these challenges. Consequent conflicts about the distribution and control over the delivery of skills, values, and educational credentials have been resolved in different ways. The determinants and mechanisms shaping these reform processes, and the resulting institutional variation, show striking similarities as well as instructional differences to the dynamics underlying welfare state development. This stream aims to analyze how education systems and education policy contribute to addressing the pressing challenges of today. We welcome submissions that focus on the politics of education. We are particularly interested in papers that explore:

drivers of education policy reforms (e.g., institutions; structural changes; preferences, organization, and strategies of parties and organized interests; ideas and discourse);
trajectories of institutional change, and associated socio-economic outcomes (e.g., social inequality; social mobility; public attitudes; stakeholder organization and power).

We welcome contributions that examine these issues with reference to all sectors of formal education, including school education, vocational education, and higher education.

Methodologically, we are open to a range of different contributions, including single case studies, comparative case studies or large-N designs. We would like to bring together contributions from different neighbouring disciplines (e.g., politics; political economy; social policy; education; sociology) to stimulate discussion on complementary theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the politics of education.

Stream chairs:

Anja Giudici (Newcastle University)

Annatina Aerne (University of Lausanne)

8. Varieties of Just Transitions: Actors and Ecosocial Policies

Ecological transitions have become a crucial issue in policy agendas, within the European Union and beyond. One of the key challenges that decarbonization strategies face is the need to balance ecological and social priorities, i.e., formulating, adopting and implementing just transitions in coherent and mutually complementary policy instruments. The European Green Deal, with its new funds (e.g. the Just Transition Fund, the Social Climate Fund, etc.) aimed at simultaneously addressing ecological, social and economic concerns, has been among the most prominent and well researched cases of such policy efforts Furthermore, departing from different welfare and green states, contemporary democracies have faced several social conflicts linked to decarbonization and other environmental-friendly policies under the form of mobilisation over potential job losses and massive unemployment. While the determinants of public support for eco-social policies have been sufficiently explored, we know little about broader political dynamics that just transition policies entail, including the preferences and behaviour of political parties, social movements, and organized interest groups.

The stream brings together contributions which analyse eco-social policies and politics from different theoretical and empirical angles; emphasizing a comparative perspective and addressing, among others, the following questions:

Who are the main political actors in the formulation and implementation of new ecosocial policy instruments across different institutional setups?
What are the generational and gender aspects of the new ecosocial conflicts?
Have welfare policies in different countries changed as a consequence of green transitions?
Who are the key actors animating ecosocial policies and conflicts? And what are the attitudes to and the political feasibility of integrated ecosocial policies?

“The stream is organized by the Sustainable Welfare & Eco-Social Policy Network, which currently has more than 600 members from over 20 countries, https://t1p.de/EcoWelfareList.”

Stream chairs:

Paolo Graziano (University of Padua)

Benedetta Cotta (University of Padova)

Ekaterina Domorenok (University of Padova)

Katharina Zimmermann (University of Hamburg)

9. The Nordic Welfare Model facing New Challenges

The Nordic welfare states have traditionally been known for their passion for equality. Hallmarks of the model have been well-regulated labour markets, high labour market participation rates, generous and inclusive welfare benefits, and active family policies that have promoted the labor market inclusion of women. In recent years, the Nordic countries have faced several new challenges that have prompted new approaches across different policy areas. Digitalization has prompted new forms of precarious work, as well as new forms of working within social services. This challenges the user/service interface, for better or worse, and has the potential to undermine access to labour and social rights and to create new inequalities. Climate change and the green transition create new risks which will have a disproportionate impact in some geographical areas and for individuals with low skills.

Transformations in view of mitigating climate change and the green transition, including in industry and energy policy, require new skills, signifying that some workers may become redundant and others will need to be retrained. Furthermore, energy poverty could become more pronounced in the coming years. The war in Ukraine has led to vast increases in immigration, which come on top of the immigration already seen from Africa and Asia and as part of intra-EU labour mobility. This raises possibilities and challenges for labour market and societal integration. Demographic aging puts public finances under pressure, encouraging new debates on how long-term care will be organized in

the future, what pension systems are viable and how immigrants can be attracted to and kept in Nordic labour markets in order to address labour shortages. An increasing share of single-person households creates new risks of financial precarity and loneliness. Each of these challenges – and others – have inspired change in the welfare systems in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland. By 2023, it can reasonably be asked:

is there still a distinct Nordic model, and if so, what sets it out from welfare models in other countries?
Are the five Nordic countries still on the same path, and if not, how are they diverging?
What examples are there of welfare reforms that address novel concerns in line with the basic tenets of the Nordic approach, and which are the reforms that break away from the premises of the Nordic model?
Can the Nordic model, developed in small and largely homogeneous states, survive as the population becomes more diverse?

This stream invites papers that address recent developments in the welfare states in the five Nordic countries. We encourage papers that discuss new challenges and their implications for the Nordic welfare model, papers that analyse welfare reforms – their antecedents and / or consequences – in the light of the Nordic welfare policy tradition, and papers on experiences and outcomes for users of welfare state provisions in the Nordic countries. Papers that compare two or more countries are highly welcome, but we will also consider single country papers.

Stream chairs:

Anne Skevik Grødem (Institute for social research)

Janine Leschke (Copenhagen Business School)

Rune Halvorsen (Oslo Metropolitan University)

10. Social Policy, Family Diversity and Child and Parent Well-Being

Within most countries, substantial diversity in children’s family experiences exists. Children are born to same-sex partners, married partners, unmarried cohabitors, surrogates, and parents who do not co- reside. Many children experience their parents’ separation, and an increasing number of these children are splitting time between both parental homes. Many children whose parents separate then see their parents’ re-partner, bringing potential earners and/or caregivers and perhaps new siblings into their lives. Extended-family households are common in some countries. Instability further complicates the picture, with some experiencing several different family forms within their childhood years. Moreover, these family changes are not uniformly experienced, but are especially prevalent among those with lower socioeconomic status. Often, social policies intended to assist families were initiated during a period in which stable nuclear families with a breadwinning husband and caregiving wife were seen as the norm. However, these policies may no longer work well for today’s families.

Research in this stream will examine whether those living in all manner of diverse family settings have access to the social protections they need and how social policies affect the well-being of those who have diverse family forms. A body of extant research describes patterns of fertility, partnership dissolution, and living arrangements across various countries, while other research describes general family and social policies and provides overviews of their effectiveness and (more rarely) their impact on well-being for those in typical families. However, less is known about how policies work for those with diverse family forms. This stream will address these issues, describing similarities and differences across countries in the way their social policies treat diverse family forms and exploring how their policies work for those living in diverse family forms. Assessments of a program’s effectiveness could be based on its own particular goals or broader goals, such as ameliorating poverty and social exclusion, increasing social mobility, or increasing gender equality. Papers could address a range of policy areas, including family leave, early childhood education and care, income support, child custody, divorce, child support, or housing; we are interested in how a broad array of policies respond to or are shaped by family change. Finally, we also invite papers proposing new social and family policies that might fit better with current family realities and papers that assess whether family policies that seem to be working well for diverse families in one country context would need to be adapted to fit another country context. As such, we are particularly interested in quantitative and qualitative research papers that consider more than one country believing that comparative analysis will lead to new insights.

Stream chairs:

Mia Hakovirta (University of Turku and INVEST Research Flagship Center)

Elke Claessens (University of Antwerp, Belgium)

Daniel R. Meyer (University of Wisconsin, USA)

11. Work, wellbeing and social policy

The Covid-19 pandemic catalysed interest in the relationship between work and wellbeing. It focused attention on a range of factors that shape individual experiences of work, including changing business and managerial practices, the rise and deployment of new technologies and the extent of opportunities for worker voice. To date, however, social policy has not been a prominent part of this discussion. But social policy should influence the wellbeing of workers in a variety of ways, while levels of wellbeing at work are in turn likely to have major ramifications for social policy. Social policies regulate the terms of private sector employment relationships, provide resources that can support the reconciliation of working life with family life and provide an array of exit options from wage labour. For unemployed workers – who report some of the lowest levels of personal wellbeing – they structure access to income, opportunities for re-employment and the lived experience of worklessness. The welfare sector is also a major employer, and many of the ‘key workers’ on whom the spotlight fell during the pandemic – health professionals, teachers, those working in infant or elder care – are on the front line of social policy delivery. Welfare state institutions matter very directly for the wellbeing of workers in these sectors, as well as for the citizens whose needs they meet. Low levels of wellbeing at work may manifest in greater demands on the welfare state, most obviously as a result of mental and physical ill- health leading to pressures on health services and sickness/disability benefits or leading to early withdrawal from the labour market. If low levels of wellbeing reduce productivity, over time it will erode the resource base of the welfare state. And poor experiences of working life may help foster social and political attitudes that are hostile to the welfare state and its beneficiaries. This stream therefore invites papers that discuss the broad nexus between social policy (including labour market policy), work and wellbeing from a variety of angles. While empirical papers using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are welcome, we particularly invite contributions taking a cross-national comparative perspective. More conceptual/theoretical papers that reflect on the social policy-work- wellbeing nexus will also be considered for inclusion. Potential research could engage with the following questions:

How does the design/operation of social policies (of different kinds) affect the wellbeing of workers (whether working or unemployed)?
What are the implications of policy frameworks for the organisation and experience of health and care work, and what impact does this have on service users?
How do experiences at work shape attitudes to social policy/redistribution and help to structure political cleavages?
How far and for what reasons has job quality and wellbeing at work become salient in debates over the future sustainability of national welfare states?
How should social policy be redesigned if wellbeing of workers is seen as a central policy outcome?
How might social policy contribute to the aim put forward in some countries of ‘going beyond GDP’ and becoming ‘wellbeing economies’ in which concepts of decent and fair work feature strongly?

Stream chairs:

Elke Heins (University of Edinburgh)

Nathalie Morel (Sciences Po Paris)

Daniel Clegg (University of Edinburgh)

12. The politics of welfare state reform

Linking politics and social policy is key for better understanding of the causes of policy outputs and outcomes. Political ideologies are one of the main drivers of social policy reform and their legacies often determine the level and shape of social welfare provision. Political actors hereby play a crucial role as they shape the course of political action and thus affect citizens’ social security, and ultimately liberal and economic freedoms. Although partisan and power resource theory has sometimes been declared ‘dead’, recent developments such as recurring recessions and high inflation show that politics remains one of the most important and consistent drivers of social policy reform. We invite contributions that show how political actors and their respective ideologies influence the design of social policy and/or their reform trajectories. In particular, we are interested in contributions that shed light on the role of (sub-)national actors, political parties, institutional veto players, and individual or organized interests in social policy reform processes. Possible contributions could examine these links in relation to all areas of social policy, e.g. benefits related to working life, pensions, health, child and elderly care, etc. We aim to bring together contributions from different neighboring disciplines (e.g., political science, political economy, social policy research, and sociology) to stimulate discussion on complementary theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the politics of social policy reform. Contributions may have either an empirical or a more theoretical focus emphasizing the link between politics and social policy reform. Methodologically, we are open to a range of different contributions including small and large-N comparative designs, single case studies or process-tracing analyses, and mixed methods.

Stream chairs:

Jan Helmdag (Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI), Stockholm University)

Kenneth Nelson (Department of Social Policy and Intervention (DSPI), Oxford University)

Nils Düpont (Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy (SOCIUM), University of Bremen)

13. New trends in social policy in Europe and its periphery. Inclusionary and exclusionary processes amidst crisis

Subsequent crises of recent years (migration, Covid-19, war(s), inflation, demographic change etc.) have confronted welfare states with new challenges in the past decade. Meanwhile, right-wing populist rule gained increasing ground in a number of countries in Europe and its periphery. Extreme political polarization and autocratizing tendencies led to a crisis of democracy in numerous countries, challenging the modus operandi of the European Union itself. The impact of these crises differs greatly. Some countries expanded their welfare effort, while others introduced further austerity. In some instances, we see a departure from former neoliberal policies towards more universalism in social policy, and this happens not only under democratic circumstances. The fiscalization of welfare, as well as novel programs that fall into the category of “social policy by other means” are increasingly widespread in more affluent and poorer countries, including those that experience populism and democratic decline. In this stream, we invite research that examines the welfare impact of various crises in European countries including East-Central Europe, the post-Soviet states, and the periphery of Europe. We particularly welcome submissions from countries that are less in the focus of mainstream social policy research, like post-Soviet states, Turkey or Israel. Papers that highlight the possibilities of social policy making under limited political and discursive opportunity structures are of special interest. We welcome comparative works and single-country studies alike. Research focusing on inclusionary and exclusionary processes with a gendered and intersectional approach are of particular interest. We also welcome qualitative work scrutinizing personal experiences of beneficiaries, or those excluded by novel social policy programs.

Stream chairs:

Szandra Kramarics (PhD candidate, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

Dorottya Szikra (PhD, Senior Research Fellow, HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Sociology)

14. Inequalities in informal and formal care

Policies on ageing, disability and care emphasise living at home with the help of family and other informal carers. However, formal services and personal assistance are also needed. These may be either publicly provided or privately purchased, depending on national care policies, social policy systems and individual socio-economic resources. The way in which informal care and formal services are organised and allocated can promote and build equality – or create inequalities. People with care needs may have unmet needs due to lack of support or inadequate care. Informal carers may be overburdened by caring for a person with high needs without support. Both socio-economic background and health status have been shown to be associated with care deprivation. Unmet care needs have also recently been analysed through the concept of care poverty, highlighting its nature as a societal and political issue. The institutional settings and transitions of care systems and policies are very relevant to this stream, as are the practices of care arrangements.

How are equal rights to care promoted – or not?
To what extent do policies and service arrangements promote equality?
What is the role of informal and unpaid care in reducing inequalities or, on the contrary, in creating or maintaining inequalities?
Have there been changes over time – has inequality increased or decreased – including the period of COVID-19 and recovery?

This stream invites papers on sustainable ways of organising informal care and formal services, as well as papers on inequalities in care. We particularly welcome papers that link inequalities in care to wider issues, changes and temporal aspects of social and public policy. Topics may relate to social inequalities among older or disabled people or informal carers, unmet needs, care poverty, vulnerable positions, inadequate care and different mechanisms that lead to disadvantaged positions or difficulties in having care needs met. Comparative contributions are particularly welcome.

Stream chairs:

Teppo Kröger (University of Jyväskylä)

Kirstein Rummery (University of Stirling)

Lina Van Aerschot (University of Tampere)

15. Sustainability of pensions in ageing welfare states

Pension systems in European welfare states have been reformed in various ways to maintain financial sustainability and provide adequate income in old age in the face of ageing populations and changing labour market conditions. Many of the reforms are aimed at postponing retirement and extending the working life required for full pension entitlement. At the same time, the de-standardisation of employment and various forms of self-employment are becoming more widespread, and the necessities of work-family reconciliation and coverage of care-periods more relevant. As a result, inequalities in old-age income and retirement appear to be increasing, raising questions about the social sustainability of pension policies in ageing welfare states. This stream focuses on recent developments in pension systems and their consequences for individual retirement behaviour and inequalities in amongst others income, wealth and well-being in old age. We invite papers on (but not limited to) the following topics: – Extending working lives, later career employment, and forms of flexible retirement – Atypical work, flexible careers and pensions – The relevance of unpaid care work and work-life balance for pensions and inequalities in old age – Consequences of changing careers for health and well-being in later life – Pension inequalities due to gender, migration, and disability – The interplay between pension, family and labour market policies We particularly encourage contributions that provide novel empirical insights. Papers can be both country specific and comparative.

Stream chairs:

Kati Kuitto (Finnish Centre for Pensions)

Katja Möhring (University of Bamberg)

Moritz Hess (University of Applied Sciences Niederrhein)

16. Eco-social risks and eco-welfare states: Taking stock of a growing debate

Ecological crises, and notably climate change, as well as the policies to mitigate such crises are expected to generate a third wave of social risks for welfare states to address. These are known as eco- social risks. In a functionalist perspective, we can hypothesize that such new risks will give raise to pressures for a recalibration of existing welfare institutions towards an increasing integration between social and environmental policy goals, which has been so far prevented by the prevalence of a silo- thinking logic in policymaking. Against this background, a growing number of social policy scholars have started to shed a light on the interlinkages between welfare states and ecological perspectives.

These developments have eventually led to the formation of a lively scholarly community and new research field, advocating for a sustainable welfare that meets human needs within planetary boundaries. In spite of the considerable evolutions in the field, more research discussion is required about how ecological issues and policies will actually alter the nature and distribution of social risks, what are the structural and political challenges that European welfare states face because of the ecological crisis, and how to transform welfare states into eco-welfare states. With this stream we would like to give space to present and discuss interdisciplinary research on sustainable welfare and eco-social policy. We invite theoretical conceptualizations and qualitative and quantitative research on cross-national case studies and comparative research as well as in-depth research focusing on single countries. The presented research might cover but is not limited to the following two macro-topics:

Eco-social risks:
- New forms of poverty and inequalities connected to environmental change e.g. in energy, housing, food and mobility;
- Ecological perspectives on social policy sector, e.g. pensions, healthcare, long-term care, and childcare;
- Labour market risks related to ecological change: skill needs, redundancies, green jobs, recalibration of paid and unpaid work times.
- Institutionalization and insurance of new eco-social risks at the local, national, European or global level.
Eco-welfare states:
- Varieties of eco-welfare states and their provisioning systems;
- Socio-ecological transformations of the welfare state to address the ecological footprint of social protection and tax systems;
- The growth- dependencies of welfare states and the role of alternative economic approaches in the transformation.

The stream is organized by the Sustainable Welfare & Eco-Social Policy Network, which currently has more than 600 members from over 20 countries, https://t1p.de/EcoWelfareList.

Stream chairs:

Matteo Mandelli (SciencesPo Paris)

Tuuli Hirvilammi (Tampere University)

Katharina Bohnenberger (German Institute for Interdisciplinary Social Policy Research, University of Bremen)

17. Resilience as a challenge for the welfare state

The concept of “resilience” is increasingly prominent in the policy discourse of the EU and its member states. A 2020 Communication from the EU on strategic foresight focused on “charting the course towards a more resilient Europe”, which later resonated in the 2021 implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), and the 2023 report by the High-Level Group on the Future of Social Protection of the Welfare State that argues for “the need to foster social resilience”. The rise of resilience in the EU is matched in the academic attention to inequality and well-being in the social literature, and sustainability in ecological study. Yet, it is evident that resilience is a ‘contested concept’, understood to mean different things and used for varying purposes. From the perspective of social policy research, it can be argued that the concept of resilience is under-developed and lacks a critical edge. When thought of in social terms, resilience has mainly been developed as a characteristic of individuals, firms or other organisations rather than of families, states and other social institutions. This poses a challenge to resilience as applicable to social policy and the welfare state. Developing resilience as a socio-economic and social policy relevant concept undoubtedly helps to sharpen understanding of contemporary social problems. To that end, it can be argued that “resilience” should encompass a perspective on what individuals and families do to deal with risks, to emphasize agency, and a focus on potential future risks (e.g. how many shocks can a person or family deal with before well-being is impaired?) and the role of the welfare state. The aim of this stream is to bring together papers that:

Make conceptual contributions on resilience and social resilience as concepts and fields of study;
Analyse if there is a ‘turn to resilience’ in a welfare state context, and analyse the links between resilience and social investment for example;
Assess the utility of resilience as a critical lens on the welfare state;
Evaluate social policy’s possible role in fostering greater resilience, especially on the parts of families.

We aim to have a mix of conceptual and empirical papers, and welcome qualitative and quantitative contributions. Both single country and cross-national work are welcome.

The “Resilience as a challenge for the welfare state” stream is hosted by members of the rEUsilience project (www.reusilience.eu). We explicitly welcome contributions from outside the project, and those will be given priority. Project members will act as discussants to the paper presentations.

Stream chairs:

Rense Nieuwenhuis (Swedish Institute for Social Research)

Mary Daly (Prof., Oxford Institute of Social Policy, University of Oxford)

18. New Perspectives on Poverty and Inequality

Poverty and income inequality are frequently examined in European social policy research, yet their precise measurement, causes, and consequences remain contested. This stream will focus on advancing our understanding of the measurement, causes, and consequences of poverty and income inequality in Europe. Centred on this objective, we invite empirical papers that examine the changing relationship between poverty, income inequality and social policy across Europe. We also welcome papers that reflect on the conceptual significance of recent empirical advances and methodological innovations in distributional analyses. On Measurement: We welcome papers that challenge standard measurements of poverty and inequality and reflect on measurement issues for understanding policy effectiveness and impacts. Such papers might capture, for example, the vast heterogeneity of individuals living in poverty, the multidimensionality of poverty and inequality, the appropriate unit of analysis when it comes to theories and indicators of poverty and inequality, or strengths and weaknesses of the at-risk-of-poverty measure in identifying the most vulnerable populations.

Considering recent developments, we particularly welcome papers that examine the utility of different measures covering aspects of income, expenditure, material deprivation or subjective indicators. On Causes: We welcome papers that advance our knowledge on the causes of poverty or income inequality across Europe. Studies that compare multiple perspectives – such as individual and demographic explanations of poverty and inequality versus contextual and structural explanations – are particularly encouraged. Analyses that seek to understand how different types of public policies affect poverty and inequality, or how external shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic affect these phenomena, are all encouraged. On Consequences: We welcome papers that investigate the short and long term consequences of poverty and inequality in Europe, either at the individual, household or societal level. Such papers might relate to the lasting consequences of exposure to childhood poverty, how different dimensions and degrees of poverty affect social outcomes over time, the role of inequality in shaping social relations, how rising inequality itself may affect rates of poverty, or similar themes that fit within this broad focus. All papers that broadly align with these themes are welcome.

Stream chairs:

Zachary Parolin (Bocconi University)

Maria Vaalavuo (THL)

Daniel Edmiston (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Selçuk Beduk (University of Oxford)

19. Between Titmuss and Castles. Towards an expanded understanding of Social Protection: Occupational Welfare, Fiscal Welfare and Social Policies by Other Means

If the ultimate goal of social policy is to insure against social risk, such an insurance can be achieved through traditional public welfare state programs, which represent an important but not the only source of social protection. At the analytical and theoretical level, this stream builds on the one hand on Richard Titmuss’s (1958) distinction between “social welfare”, “occupational welfare”, and “fiscal welfare”; on the other hand, it builds on the stream of research focusing on “social protection/policy by other means” – first highlighted by Francis Castles (1989). As pointed out by Rieger (1995), Howard (1997), Schwartz (2000), Seeleib-Kaiser (2001, 2002), Estevez-Abe (2008), Beland (2019), Seelkopf and Starke (2019), these types of social policies have in common that they attempt to provide functional equivalents to formal systems of social protection and are often either based on non-state provision or take a form of public policy (such as trade or agricultural policy) not directly related to social protection. As Moreira and Hick (2021) and Beland et al (2023 forthcoming) have documented, the responses to both COVID-19 pandemic and to the recent Cost-of-Living crisis (in advanced economies) provide good examples of the increased importance of this type of social policies by other means. This stream aims to foster discussion and research in the field of unconventional and often less studied social policies and their interrelationships, links, and tensions with traditional welfare state analyses.

The stream welcomes papers with a comparative perspective as well as those focusing on single case studies scrutinizing social protection by other means widely understood or their interaction with formal welfare provision.

Stream chairs:

Emmanuele Pavolini (University of Milan)

Prof. Amilcar Moreira (University of Lisbon)

Prof. Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (University of Tubingen)

20. Concepts and ideas in current welfare state policies

Welfare state reforms at the turn of the millennium were substantially informed by neoliberal ideas. On the basis of such ideas, welfare states supported the marketization of social security and social services, the outsourcing of tasks to for-profit providers and the construction of social citizens as “consumers” who individually purchase social security and social services on welfare markets. These welfare state reforms have in general contributed to an increase in social inequality, social cleavages and social conflicts in many European countries. New global challenges, though, such as the COVID pandemic, the climate change, and the rise of right wing and populist parties let to a new turn in welfare state policies by further developing and partly implementing new or former concepts and ideas, on the basis of which the role of public support and social rights was in part re-negotiated.

Current welfare state policies are reacting to various crises and classical and emerging social problems, and political actors in part are trying to find solutions on the basis of old and new political concepts and ideas beyond the neoliberal paradigm. The question now is whether and how far changes in the basic ideas and concepts of welfare state policies are signs of new or upgrading cultural ideas of solidarity, equality, trust and legitimacy. We suggest a stream in which we analyse new concepts and ideas in the policies of contemporary welfare states, their cultural basis, the political and public debates and struggles about these concepts, and the question what kind of welfare states are currently emerging. We also aim to discuss the theoretical approaches and typologies that can be used for cross- national comparative research in this field. The main questions of this stream include:

Which concepts and ideas have recently been developed or newly adopted in welfare state policies?
In how far do they offer a basis for solutions to classical social problems and those that emerged from the neoliberal austerity policy, and to the consequences of multiple crises since 2015?
In how far are these concepts and ideas supported or contested among the political actors and in the population?
How far do policies based on new concepts and ideas reproduce old social cleavages or produce new ones?
In how far do we need new theoretical concepts and typologies in welfare state research in order to characterize and analyse the various concepts and ideas that are to be found in contemporary welfare states?

Stream chairs:

Birgit Pfau-Effinger (Professor at University of Hamburg)

Patricia Frericks (Professor at University of Kassel)

21. Transforming care in changing conditions and contexts

Around the world, care in all its forms – of children, of adults with disabilities, and of frail older people – is becoming increasingly challenging, visible, and important, and requiring the attention and involvement of welfare states, but also civil society, market and volunteers. This stream invites you to present papers on how critical contemporary changes and policy contexts are affecting who provides care, of what kinds, and at which stages in their life; the circumstances in which care is provided and experienced; and the outcomes and consequences for the individual and societies. Papers can also address how certain contexts and changes in these can have effects on care and caring, and decisions about when, and to whom, support is offered or denied. This includes policy contexts, exemplified in care regimes, with particular policy configurations, norms and obligations. It also includes crisis contexts, such as major crises of public health and of the global financial system and international relations; and by conflict and war affecting many millions of people. We welcome papers that consider the transformation of care and care policies from a theoretical and/or empirical perspective, also welcoming methodological innovations in the analyses. Thematically, this could be papers focussing on privatization/marketization of care, familization / defamilization of care, access to care and/or care provision, quality of care work and of care provision, as well as sustainability of care.

Stream chairs:

Tine Rostgaard (Roskilde Universitet)

David Palomera Zaidel (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Lea Graff (VIVE)

Costanzo Ranci Ortigos (Politecnico di Milano)

22. Human needs and welfare responses to these

As humans we have needs which differ over the life course, and according to our resources. Some needs can be considered universal and objective: We need shelter, food, health, and also social relations and love. Other needs may be considered ‘social’ and perhaps more negotiable and therefore dependant on the social policy context, time-period or subjective experience of the person. If the purpose of welfare states is to cover the needs of its citizens, a core question is therefore what needs are considered legitimate, what is the hierarchy of needs, and when can we claim that needs have been met? This is the core question for this stream. The role of the welfare state can be said to cover basic human needs, such as income to avoid living in poverty or education to be able to find a job (ILO definition). Broader understanding of needs may according to Maslow include feeling safe and secure, having a sense of well-being, autonomy or even happiness, or in the eyes of Sen, have the capabilities for functioning well. Both Nussbaum and Gough&Doyle have argued for a universal approach to the understanding of objective need. However, this do not inform about how strong the support shall be and whether all needs should be covered by the welfare state, including whether this might give rise to inequalities, given that individual’s might have different subjective understanding of their needs. Also, critiques of such a universal approach have argued that it does not take into account diversity in cultural system and offers a paternalistic approach which does not respect individual preferences.

Thus, we are in this stream addressing what are the dynamics in the understanding of objective and subjective needs across time and space, and whether we can identify changes in the collective recognition and responsibility covering some needs. Further, what the responsibility of the welfare state is, and based upon what quality and criteria these needs will be covered. The stream welcomes proposals from different theoretical approaches as well as more empirically driven papers.

Theoretically, related to, for example, philosophical questions of justice of needs, to understanding of what welfare, support and care is, and how and to what degree this can be argued to be the role of the welfare state, civil society, or the market. Empirically, papers can discuss different levels of needs and the understanding of unmet needs, and methodologically, papers can address measures and indicators of needs assessment.

Stream chairs:

Tine Rostgaard (Roskilde Universitet)

Bent Greve (Professor, RUC)

23. Welfare and migration: Actors, policies and institutions

Given the salience of global mobility, there is a need for expanding research on the interplay between welfare and migration. Ageing welfare states need migrants as contributors and workers. At the same time, the apparent tension between open borders and national welfare provision manifests in welfare chauvinist attitudes and politics. To address these questions, we invite quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods contributions exploring the nexus between welfare and migration in its many facets. Topics include, but are not limited to:

the role of political parties and civil society organisations in advocating for or against migrants’ social rights;
the involvement of national, regional and local administrations in enabling or constraining migrants’ access to welfare benefits and services;
the role of EU institutions in managing the tensions between transnational mobility and national welfare provision;
policies at the intersection of social investment and social protection in the context of free movement;
social policy responses in countries of emigration;
the role of traditional and social media in welfare chauvinist debates;
migrants’ perspectives on the welfare state and access to welfare, especially for transnationally mobile workers.

Stream chairs:

Anna Safuta (University of Tübingen)

Friederike Römer (DeZIM & University of Bremen)

Dominic Afscharian (University of Tübingen)

24. Fostering socially and ecologically sustainable digitalisation and automation of welfare states

Digitalisation and automation of welfare systems is often touted as a driver of increased efficiency and service quality, enabling flexibility for service users and a possibility to save on the costs. Big data, data-based analysing tools and artificial intelligence (AI) are argued to bring opportunities for the managers and decision-makers to lead better with knowledge derived from so-called real-time data.

The European Commission (2023) has presented ambitious aims for digital targets for 2030* specifically regarding secure and sustainable digital infrastructures as well as digitalisation of public services. However, insufficient attention has been given to how digitalisation and automation support or contradict social and ecological sustainability. In other words, policies often overlook the broader ramifications of digitalisation and automation for environment and social justice. This panel addresses the urgent need for welfare states to confront environmental crises in tandem with the challenges presented by rapidly ageing and diversifying populations. While sustainability problems have been known for decades, European welfare states still lack an integrated approach to sustainability. In this stream, we seek to spark discussions around the ongoing digitalization and automation of welfare states as well as envisioning futures characterized by both social justice—ensuring fairness, equity, and inclusivity for all members of society—and ecological sustainability—ensuring that technological advances do not harm the environment but ideally contribute positively to measures to counter climate change. Additionally, we aim to examine ongoing trends and challenges of digitalisation and automation across welfare states but also to build knowledge about the conditions for socially and ecologically just futures that would balance technological change with the imperatives of social justice and ecological resilience. We invite theoretical and empirical contributions that address the following questions and more:

What kind of digitalisation or/and automation projects in public services and administration may strengthen social or ecological sustainability and how?
How social and/or ecological sustainability might be already directly or implicitly addressed in the current processes of digitalisation or/and automation of public services and welfare administration?
How is the issue of socio-digital inequalities addressed in the ongoing digitalisation or/ and automation processes of welfare states? What are the differences and similarities between the countries in the digitalisation or/ automation of welfare administration and how those might be connected to earlier developments of these welfare states?
How do the ongoing digitalization or/and automation processes challenge the street-level bureaucracy of public administration?
How to enhance socially and ecologically just futures for the digitalized welfare state?

* See Europe’s Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 at https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes- digital-decade-digital-targets-2030_en

Stream chairs:

Paula Saikkonen (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL))

Marta Choroszewicz (University of Eastern Finland)

Anne Kaun (Södertörn University)

25. Welfare and Migration: Welfare Attitudes and Welfare Access

The recent increase of migration into the European welfare states invokes strong feelings within the native population. It is well known by now, that at least parts of the European populations are very sceptical about sharing welfare with newcomers. This wave of “welfare chauvinism” has however not hit Europe evenly, as attitudes to migrants’ receiving welfare benefits and services varies across the continent. Further, these attitudes have not translated into similar politics and policy across all countries. Therefore, we invite papers that study where, when and why natives oppose sharing welfare with migrants and how that is translated into politics. Seen from the migrant’s perspective the relationship with the welfare state might not be straight forward, either. We know that migrants tend to use welfare benefits and services more than the natives, but to a lesser extent than they are entitled to. This “gap” in welfare usage has been tied to a number of factors including migrants’ knowledge of welfare rights, their views on the welfare state, socialization, values, as well as socioeconomic differences between migrants and natives. However, we still know very little about the immigrant perspective of the welfare state. We therefore invite all papers that explore the relationship between migrants and the welfare state in all its complexities. All papers that combine the two topics of immigration and the welfare, whether they study them qualitatively, quantitatively or normatively, are welcome. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

Migrants’ usage of welfare benefits and services
Migrants’ attitudes to the welfare state and the surrounding society
Migrants’ knowledge of their social rights
Consequences of welfare usage regarding migrants’ integration chances
Natives’ attitudes to sharing welfare resources with migrants
Studies of when and how this welfare chauvinism spill over into politics

Stream chairs:

Verena Seibel (Utrecht University, the Netherlands)

Troels Hedegaard (Aalborg University, Denmark)

26. The Role of Work Organizations in the Implementation of Social Policy. Special Focus on Work-family Reconciliation Policies.

Work-family reconciliation policies, such as parental leave, childcare services, part-time work, and flexible work arrangements, have been extensively analysed across different social policy disciplines. There is a wealth of existing research comparing the parameters of these policies across countries and exploring their effects on parents’ income, well-being, labour market outcomes, and health, as well as on children’s well-being and educational outcomes. Much is known about how these policies were adopted and implemented at the national level, and what their usage and perceptions are among parents. However, research exploring work-family reconciliation policies at the level of employers and work organisations remains limited, primarily due to the constrained availability of representative and comprehensive company-level data. Employers are actors who make strategic choices to design and introduce their own work-family reconciliation policies, whether at the organisational level or under collective agreements. They also play an essential role in implementing statutory work-family reconciliation policies, which are regulated by national law. It is at the workplace level that formal work-family policies transform into entitlements and claims, where requests are processed.

Institutional theory suggests that organisations adopt work-family policies in response to institutional pressures and to gain credibility. In places where institutional pressures are more evident, work organisations are more likely to respond to WLB policies, increase awareness of available policies and foster a higher sense of entitlement among employees. Owing to such organisational ownership of these policies, employees’ higher uptake of these entitlements also becomes more prevalent in these places. The business-case argument focuses on the financial cost-benefit analysis of implementing work-family reconciliation policies in work organisations. Employers are more likely to adopt work- family policies when they believe it will be financially advantageous, such as attracting or retaining desirable employees or improving employee performance, while considering the expected costs.

Conversely, when costs related to policy administration are too high, informal support for these policies is weakened. Employers might internalise the associated costs and discriminate against parents who are more likely to benefit from statutory policies (e.g. parents of childbearing age) by not hiring them or paying them lower wages. We welcome papers that analyse work-family reconciliation policies (such as parental leave, childcare services, part-time work, flexible work arrangements, etc.), including the employer perspective. Particularly, we are interested in research that addresses the following questions or similar:

To what extent do employers adapt national and supranational policies? What was the role of employers and their associations in adapting the EU Directive 2019/1158 on Work-Life Balance (WLB)? What role, if any, do the unions play in the design of the WLB?
How do work organisation formulate their own policies? Do they abide by the existing national policies or adapt and devise policies according to the specific situation of the workplace? What role do collective agreements play in implementing work-family reconciliation policies?
What are the methodological challenges in analysing the role of companies and employers in the uptake of work- family reconciliation policies? How can these challenges be addressed?
What are the rationale, motivations, and arguments of employers for implementing WLB, national, and their own policies?
What are potential policy recommendations that would improve the implementation and outcomes of the WLB directive in a way that benefits all stakeholders?
Are there any systematic variations by occupations or sectors in the implementation of the WLB? Why is the adaptation of the WLB faster and easier for some employers, whereas some others struggle more? What are some potential policy mechanisms to facilitate better implementation of the WLB regardless of the characteristics of employers?

Stream chairs:

Marie Valentova (Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER))

Merve Uzunalioğlu (Oxford University)

Ann-Zofie Duvander (Mid Sweden University and Stockholm University)

27. Disability, poverty and policy

It is estimated that around 16% of the world’s population has disabilities (WHO, 2023). By ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 188 states committed themselves to ensure an adequate standard of living and social protection to all disabled persons. Yet, research repeatedly shows that persons with disabilities are more likely to live at risk of poverty (Banks et al., 2017). The relationship between disability and poverty can be bidirectional (Pinilla-Roncancio, 2015). On the one hand, poverty can cause disability due to the adverse health effects of poor nutrition, restricted healthcare access, poor health behaviour and poor or dangerous living or working conditions. In fact, the poverty risk of persons with disabilities is strongly related to the social background of the household they are living in (Pinilla-Roncancio & Alkire, 2021; Shahtahmasebi et al., 2011). On the other hand, disability can cause poverty because having a disability incurs direct and indirect costs which negatively affect living standards and family income (Brown & Clark, 2017). The direct costs include the out-of-pocket expenses to cover the increased medical and care needs. They arise from extra expenses for items which non-disabled persons also need as well as from expenses for disability-specific goods and services. The indirect costs pertain to the lower and forgone labour earnings. Persons with disabilities earn less on the labour market than non-disabled persons due to the limited access to quality and inclusive education and the difficulties they face in obtaining and retaining employment. Moreover, family members of persons with disabilities may reduce or stop their employment participation due to the increased care burden or the adverse mental health consequences this entails (Brekke & Nadim, 2017). Welfare states play a crucial role in ensuring an adequate standard of living and social protection for persons with disabilities (Sainsbury et al., 2017). General poverty reduction strategies are important in this context. In fact, social transfers achieve more in terms of poverty reduction for persons with disabilities than for non-disabled persons (Lee & Choi, 2018; Vinck, forthcoming). Moreover, welfare states provide a variety of policy measures targeted at persons with disabilities and their families that can reduce the risk of disability onset or the direct and indirect costs incurred by the disability. However, there are substantial differences in the generosity, adequacy, accessibility, inclusiveness and implementation of these provisions between welfare states (Morris & Zaidi, 2020). These measures can also be prone to non-take-up which further impedes their effectiveness (Brekke et al., 2020). We welcome papers applying a quantitative, qualitative or mixed- method approach on (any aspect of) the relationship between disability, poverty and policy in Europe and beyond.

Stream chairs:

Julie Vinck (KU Leuven (Belgium))

Idunn Brekke (Department of childhood and families, Norwegian Institute of Public Health (Norway))

28. OPEN STREAM

Papers that do not fit to one of the tracks/streams above but cover subjects and issues that may be interesting for the broader ESPAnet community, can be sent in for the Track 28 Open Stream. The organising committee will evaluate them for inclusion in the conference program.

Stream chair:

[TBA]

29. PITCH YOUR BOOK

The book you submit must be published in 2023 or 2024, fit the general research interests of the ESPAnet community and not yet presented at any ESPAnet conference.

Book abstracts will be ranked by the Conference Organizing Committee based on the extent the book fits the general research interests of the ESPAnet community and the number of presentation slots available during the conference.

Stream chair:

[TBA]

30. PITCH YOUR PROJECT

In addition to submitting paper and book abstracts, we welcome poster proposals for pitch-your-project sessions. The project must meet the following criteria: it must be either an ongoing project or a project set to start in 2024 and it has to be relevant to the general research interests of the ESPAnet community.

Project abstracts will be ranked by the Conference Organizing Committee, which will inform successful applicants by the 15th of May 2024. The acceptance of proposals will be based on the extent the project fits the general research interests of the ESPAnet community and the number of poster slots available during the conference.

Stream chair:

[TBA]