Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State

The idea that globalization and the welfare state are contradictory is that globalization is based on maximizing profits but the main purpose of the welfare state is to reduce inequality, anxiety and poverty through appropriate redistribution of wealth . . The welfare state "must improve the ability of people to adapt to themselves so that they can change themselves from losers to winners regardless of their skills, regardless of their skills" (Dennis J. Snower et al ., 137). The starting point is that these two concepts are related to resource allocation, and conflicts need to occur at this level.

This section explains the relationship between globalization and welfare state. There is considerable disagreement on how globalization affects the welfare state. In most studies, international comparisons are often limited to specific organizations of economic cooperation development (OECD) countries such as Germany, UK, Japan, Sweden, the United States, etc., ignoring "developing" countries. Bowles, Paul, and Barnet Wagman (1997) point out four hypotheses about the relationship between globalization and welfare states in the context of OECD countries: downward adjustment hypothesis, upward convergence hypothesis, convergence hypothesis, and globalization independent hypothesis Identified. . In order to prove this hypothesis, indicators such as education, health and social security, and welfare expenditure in welfare state have been applied. As a result, it shows that globalization certainly can bring challenges to the welfare state.

In the 1999 paper "Determinants of Declining Welfare Incidents", the authors studied the economic factors and the effects of welfare policies on the decline in the number of cases between January 1997 and June 1998. The analysis shows that the welfare policies of the country, especially the severity of sanctions and the difference in requirements of working hours, have been very successful in explaining the rapid rate of decline in the number of cases. In contrast, the relative vitality of the national economy, measured by unemployment, the change in the unemployment rate, or the nationwide employment growth does not have a statistically significant impact on the reduction in the number of cases. (See Table 1)