Social Service Provision in the US and Germany: Convergence or Path Dependency?

Abstract

With a special focus on social services, the article discusses the topic of convergence versus path dependency of state welfare arrangements in the US and Germany. In both countries, social services cover a broad spectrum of activities. In the US as well as in Germany, these services are to a large extent provided by non-profit organisations, although the two countries belong to very different welfare regimes. With a special eye on social services, the article provides an overview of the history of the two welfare states; it refers to current developments, of which the shift towards private commercial social service provision is most prominent. Against this background, the article comes to the conclusion that there is no simple answer to the question of path-dependency versus convergence. Indeed, in both countries commercial provision of social services is on the increase; however, current developments in Germany and the US do not reflect thoroughly the path-dependent or the convergence approach of depicting change.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Annette Zimmer is professor of German and European Social Policy and Comparative Politics at the Institute for Political Science at the University of Münster, Germany. Her research focuses on associations, voluntary organizations, and NPOs and NGOs in selected policy fields and countries. Her publications include Future of Civil Society Organizations in Central Europe (2004), Strategy Mix. Nonprofit Organizations – Vehicles of Social and Labor Market Integration (with Christina Stecker, Springer, 2004), Gendered Career Trajectories in Academia in Cross National Perspective (with Renata Siemienska, Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2007), Third Sector Organizations Facing Turbulent Environments: Sports, Culture and Social Services in Five European Countries (with Adalbert Evers, Nomos, 2010).

Steven Rathgeb Smith is the executive director of the American Political Science Association. He was most previously the Louis A. Bantle Chair in Public Administration at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. He was also the Nancy Bell Evans Professor at the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington as well as the Nancy Bell Evans Professor of Public Affairs. He also directed the Nancy Bell Evans Center for Nonprofits & Philanthropy. He was also editor of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly from 1998–2004 and president of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. His forthcoming book, Nonprofits and Advocacy (with Robert Pekkanen and Yutaka Tsujinaka) will be published by the Johns Hopkins University Press.

Notes

1. Gosta Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).

2. Benjamin Gidron, Ralph M. Kramer and Lester M. Salamon (eds), Government and the Third Sector (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1992); Jens A. Alber, ‘A Framework for the Comparative Study of Social Services’, Journal of European Social Policy 5/2 (1995), pp.131–49; Jens A. Alber, ‘What the European and American Welfare States have in Common and where they Differ: Facts and Fiction in Comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States’, Journal of European Social Policy 20/2 (2010), pp.102–25.

3. Harold Wilensky and Charles N. Lebeaux, Industrial Society and Social Welfare (New York: The Free Press, 1965).

4. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

5. Clare Bambra, ‘The Worlds of Welfare: Illusory and Gender Blind?’, Social Policy and Society 3/3 (2004), pp.201–12; Peter Abrahmson, ‘The Welfare Modelling Business’, Social Policy and Administration 33/4 (1999), pp.394–415; Giuliano Bonoli, ‘Classifying Welfare States: A Two Dimensional Approach’, Journal of Social Policy 26/3 (1997), pp.351–72; Georgy J. Kasza, ‘The Illusion of Welfare “Regimes”’, Journal of Social Policy 31/2 (2001), pp.271–87.

6. Paul P. Pierson, ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependency, and the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Revue 94/2 (2000), pp.251–67; Paul P. Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

7. Katharina Holzinger and Christoph Knill, ‘Causes and Conditions of Cross-national Policy Convergence’, Journal of European Public Policy 12/5 (2005), pp.775–96; Peter Starke, Herbert Obinger and Francis G. Castles, ‘Convergence towards Where: In what Ways, if any, are Welfare States becoming More Similar?’, Journal of European Public Policy 15/7 ( 2008), pp.975–1000; Carina Schmitt and Peter Starke, ‘Explaining Convergence of OECD Welfare States: A Conditional Approach’, Journal of European Social Policy 21/2 (2011), pp.120–35.

8. Christopher Pollitt and Geert Bouckaert, Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Christopher Hood, ‘A Public Management for All Seasons’, Public Administration 69 (1991), pp.3–19; R.A.W. Rhodes, ‘The New Governance: Governing without Government’, Political Studies XLIV (1996), pp.652–67; Laurence E. Lynn, Jr, ‘The New Public Management: How to Transform a Theme into a Legacy’, Public Administration Review 58/May–June (1998), pp.231–7.

9. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

10. Ralph M. Kramer, ‘Voluntary Agencies and the Personal Social Services’, in Walter W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), pp.240–57.

11. Adalbert Evers, Rolf G. Heinze and Thomas Olk, ‘Einleitung: Soziale Dienste – Arenen und Impulsgeber sozialen Wandels’, in Adalbert Evers, Rolf G. Heinze and Thomas Olk (eds), Handbuch Sozialer Dienste (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011), pp.10–12.

12. Evers et al., Handbuch Sozialer Dienste.

13. Alber, ‘A Framework for the Comparative Study of Social Services’.

14. Helmut K. Anheier and Jeremy Kendall (eds), Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads (London/New York: Routlege, 2001); Lester M. Salamon, Partners in Public Service: Government–Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Kramer, ‘Voluntary Agencies and Personal Social Services’; Lester M. Salamon, ‘Partners in Public Service: The Scope and Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations’, in Walter W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), pp.99–117.

15. Adalbert Evers and Annette Zimmer (eds), Third Sector Organizations Facing Turbulent Environments. Sports, Culture and Social Services in Five European Countries (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010); Annette Zimmer, ‘Third-Sector Government Relationships’, in Rupert Taylor (ed.), Third Sector Research (New York: Springer, 2010), pp.201–17; Steven Rathgeb Smith and Kirstin A. Gronbjerg, ‘Scope and Theory of Government–Nonprofit Relations’, in Walter W. Powell and Richard Steinberg (eds), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), pp.221–42; Lester M. Salamon, ‘The Nonprofit Sector at a Crossroads: The Case of America’, in Anheier and Kendall (eds), Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads, pp.17–35; Michael Lipsky and Steven Rathgeb Smith, ‘Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the Welfare State’, Political Science Quarterly 104/4 (Winter 1989–90), pp.625–48.

16. Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Varianten des Wohlfahrtsstaates. Der deutsche Sozialstaat im internationalen Vergleich (Frankfurt: edition Suhrkamp, 2003).

17. Rolf G. Heinze and Thomas Olk, ‘Die Wohlfahrtsverbände im System sozialer Dienstleistungsproduktion’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialsychologie 33 (1981), pp.94–114

18. Christoph Sachße, ‘Public and Private in German Social Welfare’, in Michael B. Katz and Christoph Sachße (eds), The Mixed Economy of Welfare. Public/Private Relations in England, Germany and the United States, the 1870’s to the 1930’s (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1996), p.150.

19. Christoph Sachße, ‘Zur Geschichte Sozialer Dienste in Deutschland’, in Evers et al. (eds), Handbuch Sozialer Dienste, pp.94–116.

20. Christoph Sachße, ‘Verein, Verband und Wohlfahrtsstaat. Entstehung und Entwicklung der dualen Wohlfahrtspflege’, in Thomas Rauschenbach, Christoph Sachße and Thomas Olk (eds), Von der Wertgemeinschaft zum Dienstleistungsunternehmen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1995), pp.123–49; Sachße, ‘Zur Geschichte Sozialer Dienste in Deutschland’, pp.97ff.

21. Heinze and Olk, ‘Die Wohlfahrtsverbände im System sozialer Dienstleistungsproduktion’; Peter J. Katzenstein, Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple UnivErsity Press, 1987); Sachße, ‘Verein, Verband und Wohlfahrtsstaat. Entstehung und Entwicklung der dualen Wohlfahrtspflege’; Peter Hammerschmidt, Wohlfahrtsverbände in der Nachkriegszeit. Reorganisation und Finanzierung der Spitzenverbände der freien Wohlfahrtspflege 1945 bis 1961 (Weinheim/München: Juventa, 2005).

22. Karl-Heinz Boeßenecker, Spitzenverbände der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. Eine Einführung in die Organisationsstrukturen und Handlungsfelder der deutschen Wohlfahrtsverbände (Weinheim/München: Juventus, 2005).

23. Joachim Merchel, ‘Wohlfahrtsverbände, Dritter Sektor und Zivilgesellschaft’, in Evers et al. (eds), Handbuch Sozialer Dienste, p.245.

24. Boeßenecker, Spitzenverbände der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege.

25. Merchel, ‘Wohlfahrtsverbände, Dritter Sektor und Zivilgesellschaft’, pp.251f.

26. Heinze and Olk, ‘Die Wohlfahrtsverbände im System sozialer Dienstleistungsproduktion’.

27. Hammerschmidt, Wohlfahrtsverbände in der Nachkriegszeit, p.161.

28. Holger Backhaus-Maul and Thomas Olk, ‘Von Subsidiarität zu “outcontracting”: Zum Wandel der Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Wohlfahrtsverbänden in der Sozialpolitik’, in Wolfgang Streeck (ed.), Staat und Verbände (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), pp.100–135; Annette Zimmer et al., ‘Chapter 2 Germany: On the Social Policy Centrality of the Free Welfare Associations’, in Jeremy Kendall (ed.), Handbook on Third Sector Policy in Europe: Multi-Level Processes and Organised Civil Society (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 2009), pp.21–42.

29. Reinhard Liebig, ‘Was bleibt für das Ehrenamt? Analysen und Forschungsbefunde zum Wandel der Führungsstrukturen im Sozialbereich’, in Thomas Rauschenbach and Annette Zimmer (eds), Bürgerschaftliches Engagment unter Druck? (Berlin/Farmington: Barbara Budrich, 2011), pp.29–163.

30. Backhaus-Maul and Olk, ‘Von Subsidiarität zu “outcontracting”’.

31. Stefan Pabst, ‘Privatisierung sozialer Dienstleistungen’, in Ulli Arnold and Bernd Maelicke (eds), Lehrbuch der Sozialwirtschaft, 3^rd ed. (Wiesbaden: Nomos, 2009), p.156.

32. Zimmer et al., ‘Chapter 2 Germany’, p.128.

33. Reinhard Liebig, Wohlfahrtsverbände im Ökonomisierungsdilemma (Freiburg: Lambertus 2005); Christoph Strünck, ‘Contested Solidarity? Emerging Markets for Social Services in Germany and the Changing Role of Third Sector Organizations’, in Adalbert Evers and Annette Zimmer (eds), Third Sector Organizations in Turbulent Environments, pp.55–69.

34. Scott W. Allard, Out of Reach: Place, Poverty, and the New American Welfare State (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).

35. Neil Gilbert, ‘The Transformation of Social Services’, Social Service Review 51/4 (December 1977), pp.624–41; Neil Gilbert, ‘The Plight of Universal Social Services’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1/3 (Spring 1982), pp.301–16; Christopher Howard, The Welfare State Nobody Knows: Debunking Myths About U.S. Social Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004); Alber, ‘What the European and American Welfare’.

36. Anne Kallman Bixby, ‘Public Social Welfare Expenditures, Fiscal Year 1995′, Social Security Bulletin 62/2 (1999), pp.86–94.

37. Smith and Gronbjerg, ‘Scope and Theory of Government–Nonprofit Relations’; Laurence E. Lynn, Jr, ‘Social Services and the State: The Public Appropriation of Private Charity’, Social Service Review 76/1 (March 2002), pp.58–82.

38. John Holahan and Arunabh Ghosh, ‘Understanding the Recent Growth in Medicaid Spending, 2000–2003’, Health Affairs, Web exclusive, 26 Jan. 2005, available from http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/suppl/2005/01/24/hlthaff.w5.52.DC1; Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Home and Community-Based Service Programs: Data Update (2011), available from http://kff.org/medicaid/upload/7720-04.pdf; Bruce C. Vladeck, ‘Where the Action Really is: Medicaid and the Disabled’, Health Affairs 22/1 (Jan./Feb. 2003), pp.90–100; Alber, ‘What the European and American Welfare States have in Common and where they Differ’.

39. Ways and Means Committee, US House of Representatives, The Green Book(2004), available from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-108WPRT108-6/pdf/GPO-CPRT-108WPRT108-6-2-7.pdf, pp.7-3, 7-4.

40. Pamela Winston and Rosa Maria Castaneda, Assessing Federalism: ANF and the Recent Evolution of American Social Policy Federalism (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2007), available from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411473_assessing_federalism.pdf.

41. Eugene E. Steuerle and Gordon Mermin, Devolution as Seen from the Budget, Series A, No.A-2 (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1997), available from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/Anf_a2.pdf; Cynthia Andrews Scarcella et al., The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children V: Understanding State Variation in Child Welfare Financing (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2006), available from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311314_vulnerable_children.pdf; Winston and Castaneda, Assessing Federalism .

42. Robert D. Behn and Peter A. Kant, ‘Strategies for Avoiding the Pitfalls of Performance Contracting’, Public Productivity and Management Review 22/4 (June 1999), pp.470–89; Dall W. Forsythe (ed.), Quicker, Better, Cheaper? Managing Performance in American Government (Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press, 2001).

43. Steven Rathgeb Smith, ‘Social Services’, in Lester M. Salamon (ed.), The State of the Nonprofit Sector (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2012), pp.192–228.

44. Robert K. Prouty, Charlie Lakin and Kathryn Coucouvanis, ‘In 2006, Fewer Than 30% of Persons Receiving Out-of-Family Residential Supports Lived in Homes of More than Six Residents’, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45/4 (Aug. 2007), p.289.

45. NASMHPD (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors), FY 2005 State Mental Health Revenue and Expenditure Study Results (2007), available from http://www.nri-inc.org/projects/Profiles/RevExp2005/FY2005%20Revenues%20&%20Expenditures%20Study%20Results.pdf.

46. Gregory J. Dees, Beth Battle Anderson and Jane Wei-Skillern, ‘Scaling Social Impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review 1/4 (Spring 2004), pp.24–33; Christine W. Letts, William P. Ryan and Allen Grossman, High Performance Nonprofit Organizations: Managing Upstream for Greater Impact (New York: John Wiley, 1999).

47. Alber, ‘A Framework for the Comparative Study of Social Services’.

48. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

49. See also Alber, ‘What the European and American Welfare States have In Common’.

50. Starke et al., ‘Convergence towards Where?’

51. Angela M. Eikenbery and Jodi Drapal Kluver, ‘The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil Society at Risk?’, Public Administration Review 64/2 (April 2004), pp.132–40; Smith, ‘Social Services’.