Political Economy Students' Journal

Abstract

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the welfare states in Germany and Portugal, aiming to understand the variations in welfare systems in the Western world. The analysis encompasses historical foundations, current policy dynamics, and the economic, social, and cultural influences that shape the welfare systems in these two countries. The essay draws on a range of scholarly literature to explore the complexities of welfare state variation, including the paradox of redistribution, the impact of economic crises, and the role of institutional change in welfare capitalism. Additionally, the essay examines the specific policy areas of healthcare coverage, pension systems, and unemployment insurance mechanisms to highlight the differences between the welfare systems of Germany and Portugal. The analysis also considers the broader implications for comparative political economy and the challenges faced by these welfare states. By delving into the intricacies of welfare state variation, this essay contributes to a deeper understanding of the diverse approaches to social protection and the factors that underpin the differences in welfare systems across Western countries.

 

Introduction
The welfare state stands as a pivotal element of modern governance, manifesting differently across the global landscape. This essay embarks on a comparative exploration of the welfare models of Germany and Portugal, nations that encapsulate distinct historical trajectories and policy choices within the Western context. By examining the evolution, current framework, and multifaceted influences shaping these systems, we aim to dissect the underlying reasons for their divergence and characterize the principal contrasts between them.

The welfare state's intricacies are a reflection of the political, economic, and social fabric of a country. As such, analyzing the healthcare, pension, and unemployment insurance sectors not only reveals the nuances of social protection strategies but also the broader implications of economic trends and societal attitudes toward welfare. This analysis will trace the genesis of each system, navigating through the contemporary policy landscape and into the realm of ongoing challenges, thereby illuminating the unique nature of the German and Portuguese approaches.

It is imperative to clarify the boundaries of this essay. The focus is squarely on Germany and Portugal, with a lens on specific sectors of welfare policy, which allows for a rigorous yet specific comparison. Acknowledging these limits is not to overlook the complexity of the topic but to ensure a detailed and structured analysis within the parameters set. The insights gained here, while rich and informative, are contextualized within the particular cases of these two countries, offering a snapshot rather than a complete picture of Western welfare states.
 

Foundations of Welfare: Tracing the Historical Roots in Germany and Portugal

 

The German welfare state, with its inception dating back to the mid-19th century, presents an archetype of the conservative model, as noted by Seeleib-Kaiser (2016). Its foundational principles were informed by a strong male breadwinner system, reflecting the social and economic structures of the time. Grohs (2014) characterizes this as a hybrid organization that has integrated the mechanisms of the state, market, and community since its emergence, a notion further expanded upon by Grohs (2021) who details its early 20th-century expansion into social care and associated services. Germany's approach to welfare was also shaped by its immigration policy, which played a critical role in the country's labor dynamics (Kalm & Lindvall, 2019).

​

Economic fluctuations, such as those experienced during the Great Recession, necessitated adaptations in the labor market and prompted a reassessment of the sustainability of the welfare system (Rinne & Zimmermann, 2012). This led to significant restructuring, as exemplified by the Hartz IV reforms, which fundamentally altered unemployment benefits (Fervers, 2018). The expansive nature of the German welfare state, according to Campbell & Morgan (2005), can be viewed as a strategic intergovernmental effort to ease fiscal pressures, a perspective that places Germany within a broader comparative context (Schmidt, 2012).

​

In contrast, the Portuguese welfare state took shape in the mid-20th century, evolving through its responses to economic crises and political transitions. The financial constraints imposed by ongoing economic tribulations led to retrenchment, austerity measures, and reforms across social protection sectors (Pereirinha et al., 2020; Mauritti et al., 2020). The advent of European integration also played a pivotal role, in influencing social security reforms aimed at counteracting the impact of the sovereign debt crisis (Ferreira, 2005). Income redistribution, poverty, and inequality remain critical issues in the Portuguese context, as the welfare state's redistributive effects through pensions, benefits, and income taxes are continually debated (Rodrigues & Andrade, 2014). The challenges of indebtedness and the financialization of households further put the Portuguese welfare state's capacity for social protection under scrutiny (Romão & Barradas, 2022). Carolo & Pereirinha (2010) and Guibentif (1996) elucidate the historical context of the Portuguese welfare state, remarking on its alignment with the southern European welfare regime and highlighting the evolution marked by shifting trends in social expenditure and social security system transformations. The 2015 elected Socialist government marked a departure from the austerity policies of previous administrations (Calado et al., 2019). It undertook measures to restore social rights and improve living standards while striving to maintain financial stability and was a notable attempt to balance fiscal responsibility with social solidarity, representing a new chapter in the evolution of the Portuguese welfare state (ibid.).

​

This comparative examination delineates the differing historical timelines and trajectories of development for the German and Portuguese welfare states. Germany's established system has undergone adaptive reforms to maintain its conservative model amidst economic changes, while Portugal's relatively younger welfare state has faced retrenchment and reform, driven by both internal challenges and external exigencies, particularly within the framework of Europeanization. Welfare states are not static entities but are instead subject to ongoing evolution, shaped by economic conditions, societal values, political negotiations, and international influences. To make this clearer, the areas of healthcare coverage, pension system dynamics, and unemployment insurance mechanisms are subjected to a comparative analysis in the following.

​

Comparative Analysis: Germany and Portugal

​

Healthcare Coverage Compared

​

Healthcare systems, as cornerstones of welfare states, serve as critical indicators of a nation's commitment to social welfare. This segment of the essay offers a comparative analysis of the healthcare systems in Germany and Portugal, focusing on their coverage, financing, and service provision, with the intent to contextualize these within their respective welfare models and address the impact of recent socio-political developments and health crises.

​

Germany's healthcare model is underpinned by the Statutory Health Insurance scheme, a legacy of the Bismarckian system that provides comprehensive and high-quality health services to its citizens. This system is characterized by its universality and reflects a tradition of solidarity and social responsibility. The German healthcare system's efficiency and its ability to adapt are evidenced in its response to modern challenges, including economic recessions and demographic shifts (Rinne & Zimmermann, 2012).

​

Portugal's healthcare system, while universalistic in intent, is distinguished by its fragmented and corporatist-driven nature, with dualistic cash benefits that highlight the distinct Southern European welfare model (Valadas, 2017). The impact of the sovereign debt crisis and subsequent austerity measures have significantly influenced the structure and effectiveness of the healthcare system (Romão & Barradas, 2022). Additionally, the surge of populist movements poses a potential threat to the integrity of healthcare systems, as these parties often challenge the established norms of universal healthcare coverage (Pavolini et al., 2018).

​

The resilience of healthcare systems has been put to the test by the COVID-19 crisis. Germany's system, with its universal coverage and public provision, has had to navigate the pandemic's challenges, revealing both strengths and areas for policy improvement (Hong & Seog, 2022). In Portugal, the pandemic has tested the healthcare system's robustness, highlighting the relevance of social insurance schemes and signaling a possible shift towards an Anglo-Saxon welfare model (Cantillon et al., 2021).

​

Securing the Future: Pension System Dynamics

​

Within the landscape of European welfare states, pension systems represent a crucial aspect of social policy, reflecting a nation's response to aging populations and economic sustainability. This section conducts a comparative analysis of the pension systems in Germany and Portugal, evaluating their structures, responses to demographic shifts, and sustainability challenges.

​

Germany's pension system is distinguished by its multi-pillar structure, which has been subject to a series of reforms aimed at diversification and sustainability (Börsch-Supan et al., 2015). The German system places a significant emphasis on public pension provisions, which remain a primary source of income for many elderly citizens (Grossmann et al., 2021). However, the system faces sustainability challenges, particularly in light of the demographic phenomenon of a rising longevity gap by lifetime earnings, which introduces complex distributional implications for future pension benefits (Haan et al., 2020).

​

In contrast, Portugal's pension system, a product of a relatively recent welfare state institution, has been shaped by its late development and the sociopolitical context of its formation (Carolo & Pereirinha, 2010). Unlike Germany, Portugal's welfare state did not emerge under the influence of strong neoliberal forces during its creation, which has led to distinct policy frameworks (Martins, 2018). Nonetheless, Portugal's pension system lags behind the more generous provisions found in most established EU15 countries, facing criticisms for its adequacy and comprehensiveness (Zartaloudis, 2014).

​

Demographic challenges are central to the discourse on pensions, where Germany demonstrates particular associations between older women's incomes and their work histories, signaling potential gender disparities in pension entitlements (Sefton et al., 2011). Furthermore, the role of international migration is instrumental in shaping pension systems, with studies emphasizing the significant impact of demographic trends and labor force projections on the sustainability of public pensions (Alves et al., 2019).

​

The pension systems of Germany and Portugal are emblematic of their distinct welfare trajectories. Germany's system, characterized by its depth and reformative approach, is navigating demographic and economic challenges to ensure equitable pension distribution. Portugal's system, still in a phase of development and expansion, is wrestling with the dual demands of increasing adequacy and ensuring financial sustainability. Both systems exemplify the ongoing efforts within the European context to adapt welfare policies to the evolving needs of aging societies.

​

Safeguarding Employment: Unemployment Insurance Mechanisms

​

The unemployment insurance systems serve as a safety net within the social security framework, providing financial support and facilitating labor market reintegration for those who have lost their jobs. This section presents a comparative analysis of the unemployment insurance systems in Germany and Portugal, examining their respective structures, the extent of support provided, and the measures implemented for job reintegration.

​

Germany's approach to unemployment insurance is rooted in a model of moderate generosity, offering up to one year of financial support for involuntarily unemployed individuals (Villanueva, 2005). The support is part of a comprehensive system that also includes government-sponsored training programs designed to enhance the skills of job seekers (Nie, 2010). Workplace health promotion and company reintegration management programs complement these efforts, aiming to support long-term illness sufferers in their return to employment (Lutz et al., 2022).

​

While specific details on Portugal's unemployment insurance system are not extensively documented in the provided literature, it can be inferred that the system is designed with consideration of the country's socio-economic environment. Portugal's welfare state, younger and shaped by unique historical circumstances, suggests an unemployment insurance system that may differ in structure and provision from the more established EU counterparts (Carolo & Pereirinha, 2010; Martins, 2018; Zartaloudis, 2014).

​

Both countries recognize the critical role of reintegration measures in unemployment insurance systems. In Germany, such measures are well-articulated and documented, aligning with the broader goals of health promotion and labor market re-entry (Lutz et al., 2022). While specific reintegration programs in Portugal are not detailed in the available sources, Portugal has likely developed its initiatives to address similar challenges faced by the unemployed, albeit tailored to the national context.

​

Beyond Policy: Economic, Social, and Cultural Influences

​

The economic landscape is a critical determinant of welfare state configurations. The austerity measures necessitated by economic crises, as observed in Greece and Portugal, demonstrate how financial pressures precipitate significant welfare state reforms (Zartaloudis, 2014). In Germany, the economic reasoning behind unemployment insurance is intricate, balancing labor market stimuli against fiscal constraints, especially within the backdrop of high unemployment rates (Haisken-DeNew & Vorell, 2009). These economic realities underscore the need for insurance systems to be resilient and responsive to changing economic conditions.

​

Social attitudes and the structure of civic networks also exert a profound influence on welfare systems. In Portugal, familial networks represent a vital form of social capital, significantly impacting the welfare mix and informing the country's social services framework (Ferreira, 2010). Similarly, the interplay between women's labor histories and pension outcomes in countries like the UK, the US, and West Germany, illuminates social considerations within pension systems, underscoring the gendered assumptions that can lead to disparities in retirement incomes (Sefton et al., 2011).

​

Culturally, the conception of social policy and the welfare state is deeply embedded within socio-cultural fabrics, which leads to varied manifestations of social policy across different societies (Kaufmann, 2013). This cultural dimension is essential in understanding the diversity of welfare models, as it captures the societal values and historical contexts that shape policy formulation and public expectations.

​

Adapting to Change: Current Challenges and Future Reforms​

​

As Germany and Portugal navigate the evolving landscape of welfare policies, they encounter challenges that spur the need for reform. The urgency for sustainable and inclusive social policies is given, for example, the critical issue of integrating migrants into welfare systems, a matter intertwined with social cohesion. The rise of populist radical right parties adds complexity, affecting welfare reforms and population health (Rinaldi & Bekker, 2020). The future of welfare in Germany and Portugal also grapples with balancing the rights and responsibilities within their systems amid wider European debates on worker mobility (Grabbe, 2023). In response to these pressures, Germany and Portugal must forge paths that uphold the integrity of their welfare states while embracing the innovation required for a resilient and equitable future.

 

Conclusion

​

Germany's welfare state, deeply rooted in a conservative, Bismarckian tradition, has evolved to address contemporary challenges through a multi-pillar pension system, moderate unemployment insurance generosity, and a strong emphasis on reintegration programs. These elements reflect a commitment to social solidarity and a proactive approach to policy reform in response to demographic shifts and economic imperatives.

​

Portugal, with a younger welfare state that developed under different historical conditions, has faced distinct challenges in its pursuit of comprehensive social protection. While its efforts to expand and refine the social safety net are notable, Portugal continues to strive towards the more generous provisions characteristic of older EU welfare states. The country's welfare system, influenced by familial support structures and the recent financial crisis, encapsulates the struggles and adaptations inherent in the pursuit of social cohesion and welfare inclusivity.

​

Both Germany and Portugal are navigating a complex array of contemporary pressures, including economic austerity, demographic changes, and the rise of populism, all within the broader context of European integration and global social policy trends. Their welfare systems exemplify the dynamic nature of social policy, which must remain flexible and responsive to both domestic conditions and international influences.

​

The road ahead for both welfare states involves balancing the sustainability of social programs with the need to enhance inclusivity and equity. As Germany and Portugal confront the future, they do so with an eye toward integrating migrants, addressing the challenges posed by aging populations, and achieving global social protection goals. The comparative analysis underscores the importance of continued innovation and adaptation in welfare policy, ensuring that both nations can meet the needs of their citizens while fostering social stability and resilience in an ever-changing world. For future analyses, the Varieties of Capitalism approach according to Hall & Soskice (2001) could be used, for example, to compare the relationships between the various European welfare states and their economic systems and to examine the multidimensionality of welfare state attitudes across European countries more closely.

​

References 

​

Alves, J., Craveiro, D., Garcia, M. T. M., & Albuquerque, P. (2019). The impact of international migration on the public pension system: The case of Portugal. International Social Security Review, 72(1), 107- 128. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12197

 

Börsch‐Supan, A., Bucher‒Koenen, T., Coppola, M., & Lamla, B. (2015). Savings in times of demographic change: Lessons from the German experience. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(4), 807-829. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12116

 

Calado, A., Capucha, L., & Estêvão, P. (2019). Welfare state development in Portugal. Comparative Sociology, 18(5–6), 658–686. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341515

Campbell, A. L., & Morgan, K. J. (2005). Federalism and the politics of old-age care in Germany and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 38(8), 887-914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005277575

 

Cantillon, B., Seeleib-Kaiser, M., & van der Veen, R. (2021). The COVID‐19 crisis and policy responses by continental European welfare states. Social Policy & Administration, 55(2), 326-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12715

 

Carolo, D. F., & Pereirinha, J. A. (2010). The development of the welfare state in Portugal: Trends in social expenditure between 1938 and 2003. Revista De Historia Económica / Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 28(3), 469-501. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0212610910000133

 

Ferreira, S. (2005). The past in the present: Portuguese social security reform. Social Policy and Society, 4(3), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746405002484

 

Ferreira, S. (2010). Researching civicness contexts and conditions: The case of the Portuguese welfare mix in social services. Civicness in the Governance and Delivery of Social Services, 227-248. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845222400-227

​

Garcia, M. T. M. (2017). Overview of the Portuguese three-pillar pension system. International Advances in Economic Research, 23(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-017-9636-x

 

Grabbe, C. (2023). Free movement and access to social security in the EU: The challenge of exporting unemployment benefits. European Journal of Social Security, 25(1), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231161926

 

Grohs, S. (2014). Hybrid organizations in social service delivery in quasimarkets. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1425-1445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534671

 

Grohs, S. (2021). Participatory administration and co-production. Public Administration in Germany, 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_18

 

Grossmann, V., Schünemann, J., & Strulik, H. (2021). Fair pension policies with occupation-specific aging. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3885423

 

Guibentif, P. (1996). The transformation of the Portuguese social security system. South European Society and Politics, 1(3), 219-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608749608539490

 

Haan, P., Kemptner, D., & Lüthen, H. (2020). The rising longevity gap by lifetime earnings – Distributional implications for the pension system. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 17, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2019.100199

​

Haisken‐DeNew, J. P., & Vorell, M. (2009). Killing them with kindness: Negative distributional externalities of increasing UI benefits. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1491550

 

Hong, J., & Seog, S. H. (2022). Health insurance system and resilience to epidemics. Risk Analysis, 43(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14005

 

Kalm, S., & Lindvall, J. (2019). Immigration policy and the modern welfare state, 1880–1920. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(4), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928719831169

 

Kaufmann, F. (2013). The idea of social policy in western societies: Origins and diversity. International Journal of Social Quality, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.3167/ijsq.2013.030202

 

Lutz, R., Fischmann, W., Drexler, H., & Nöhammer, E. (2022). A German model project for workplace health promotion – Flow of communication, information, and reasons for non-participation in the offered measures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 8122. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138122

 

Martins, C. M. J. (2018). Trend, scale and limit. Portugal and the end of the «Golden Age» of welfare state. Revista De História Das Ideias, 35, 71-110. https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-8925_35_4

 

Mauritti, R., Nunes, N., Botelho, M. do C., & Craveiro, D. (2020). The left and right hands of the Portuguese state: Welfare retrenchment of public employment. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 19(2), 237-

257. https://doi.org/10.1386/pjss_00028_1

 

Nie, J. (2010). Training or search? Evidence and an equilibrium model. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1544487

 

Pavolini, E., Kuhlmann, E., Agartan, T. I., Burau, V., Mannion, R., & Speed, E. (2018). Healthcare governance, professions and populism: Is there a relationship? An explorative comparison of five European countries. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 122(10), 1140–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.020

 

Pereirinha, J. A., Branco, F., Pereira, E., & Amaro, M. I. (2020). The guaranteed minimum income in Portugal: A universal safety net under political and financial pressure. Social Policy & Administration, 54(4), 574-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12604

 

Rinaldi, C., & Bekker, M. (2020). A scoping review of populist radical right parties’ influence on welfare policy and its implications for population health in Europe. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.48

 

Rinne, U., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2012). Another economic miracle? The German labor market and the Great Recession. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9004-1-3

 

Rodrigues, C. F. and Andrade, I. (2014). Robin Hood versus Piggy Bank: Income redistribution in Portugal 2006-2010. Panoeconomicus, 61(5), 617-630. https://doi.org/10.2298/pan1405617r

​

Romão, A., & Barradas, R. (2022). Macroeconomic determinants of households' indebtedness in Portugal: What really matters in the era of financialisation? International Journal of Finance & Economics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2690

​

Schmidt, M. G. (2012). Wirklich nur Mittelmaß? Deutschlands Sozialstaat im Spiegel neuer, international vergleichender Daten. Zeitschrift Für Staats- Und Europawissenschaften, 10(2), 159-195. https://doi.org/10.5771/1610-7780-2012-2-159

Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2016). The end of the conservative German welfare state model. Social Policy & Administration, 50(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12212

 

Sefton, T., Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., & Vlachantoni, A. (2011). The relationship between women’s work histories and incomes in later life in the UK, US and West Germany. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710380475

 

Servers, L. (2018). Economic miracle, political disaster? Political consequences of Hartz IV. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928718774259

​

aladas, C. (2017). A changing labour market under the intensification of dualization. The experience of a Southern European society. Social Policy & Administration, 51(2), 328-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12290

 

Villanueva, E. (2005). Inter vivos transfers and bequests in three OECD countries. Economic Policy, 20(43), 506-565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2005.00145.x

 

Zartaloudis, S. (2014). The impact of the fiscal crisis on Greek and Portuguese welfare states: Retrenchment before the catch‐up? Social Policy & Administration, 48(4), 430–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12069