Publications - MPIfG

38
MPIfG Report 1999–2002
Bernhard Ebbinghaus, Philip Manow (eds.)
Comparing Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy and Political
Economy in Europe, Japan and the USA. London: Routledge,
2001, 352 pp.
Variants of Welfare Capitalism: Pension
Systems in Japan and Germany
Philip Manow
The social security systems in developed industrial societies
are not merely buffers to protect individuals from the negative
externalities of a free market economy. They are also an
integral part of a country’s institutional framework and influence
its national version of capitalism. Systems of social security
profoundly affect a country’s industrial relations, its ability
to implement economic restructuring policies, and its
financial system. With declining economic growth, increasing
globalization of markets and the aging of the populations of
developed countries, the pressure on policy-makers to reform
national welfare systems intensifies, especially the pension
systems. By comparing the institutional development of pension
systems in Japan and Germany, as well as the adaptation
processes currently taking place in these countries, this habilitation
project investigates the role old-age insurance has
played in each country’s political economy and explores its
future in an increasingly unfavorable economic and demographic
context. The comparative approach should also answer
more general questions about the stability and instability
of national variants of capitalism within the context of a
global economy. Project duration: 1996 to September 2000.
Philip Manow
Social Protection, Capitalist Production. The German Political
Economy and the Bismarckian Welfare State from the 1880s to
the 1990s. Habilitation thesis submitted to the University of
Konstanz, Faculty for Politics and Management, 20 July 2001
Philip Manow
Crisis and Change in Pension Finance: Germany and Japan
Compared. In: Kozo Yamamura, Wolfgang Streeck (eds.), The
Future of Nationally Embedded Capitalism in Germany and
Japan (edited volume planned for publication in 2003)
Philip Manow
Welfare State Building and Coordinated Capitalism in Japan
and Germany. In: Wolfgang Streeck, Kozo Yamamura (eds.),
The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism: Germany and Japan in
Comparison. Ithaca/NY: Cornell University Press 2001,
94–120
Philip Manow
Business Coordination, Wage Bargaining and the Welfare
State: Germany and Japan in Comparative Historical
Perspective. In: Bernhard Ebbinghaus, Philip Manow (eds.),
Comparing Welfare Capitalism. Social Policy and Political
Economy in Europe, Japan and the USA. London: Routledge,
2001, 27–51
Philip Manow
Consociational Roots of German Corporatism: The Bismarckian
Welfare State within the German Political Economy. In:
Jürg Steiner, Thomas Ertman (eds.), Consociationalism in Europe.
Thirty Years of Debate. Acta Politica, Special Issue,
Spring/Summer, Vol. 37, 195–212 (2002)
Philip Manow
Wage Coordination and the Welfare State: Germany and Japan
Compared. MPIfG Working Paper 00/7. Cologne: Max Planck
Institute for the Study of Societies, 2000. Online:
Philip Manow
The Uneasy Compromise of Liberalism and Corporatism in
Postwar Germany. CGES Working Paper 5/88. Berkeley: University
of California, Center for German and European Studies,
1999
Philip Manow
Social Insurance and the German Political Economy. MPIfG
Discussion Paper 97/2. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the
Study of Societies, 1997, 48 pp.
European Social Dialogue after Maastricht
Ute Hartenberger
Since the Maastricht Treaty, the European social partners have
greater opportunities to shape European social policy. But
there is still no agreement as to what effects these institutional
innovations will have on policy contents and the further
development of the integration process. The doctoral project
examines the application of the procedures in Articles 3 and 4
of the Agreement on Social Policy between November 1993
and the incorporation of the agreement into the Amsterdam
Treaty. By analyzing the cases which have been dealt with under
these procedures, the project aims to illustrate the effects
of the new institution on actors, decision-making processes
and the substance of regulations in the arena of European
social policy. The multilevel governance approach is then
used to explain the empirical results and to analyze why
almost all the relevant actors in the policy arena support the
new procedure even though the potential for any kind of substantial
innovation in Community social policy is quite limited.
The analysis draws not only upon theoretical work on
interest politics, intergovernmentalism and the effects of
structural decoupling within systems of multilevel governance,
but also upon the general debate about the democratic
legitimacy of the EU.
Ute Hartenberger
Europäischer sozialer Dialog nach Maastricht. EU-Sozialpart-