The Normative Impact of Unemployment Insurance

A European Perspective


  • Jean-Pierre Tabin
  • Raluca Enescu



The debate on classification instruments for social security regimes opened by Esping-Andersen (1990) usually neglects the examination of the normative impact of the welfare state. This article focus on this latter through an analysis of systems of protection against unemployment in 11 of the European countries included in the database known as the Mutual Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC).We show in this article that unemployment insurance only recognize legal, authorized and declared salaried employees who have resided in the country for a set period of time, which confirms the close link between social policy and nationality, with some foreign workers being excluded from the circle of beneficiaries because of these norms. Unemployment insurance also always considers jobs as rare social goods - workers are expected to hold on to them, but they are declined differently along a person’s life course. The dominance of the male employment norm and the complete lack of consideration given to domestic labour by unemployment insurance contribute to structuring gendered roles as separate and hierarchically organized. Disparities between countries, whether related to contextual differences or to the history of the local welfare state, do not weaken these arguments since they are not founded upon fundamentally different conceptions of unemployment.

Author Biographies

Jean-Pierre Tabin

University of Applied Science of Western Switzerland
University of Lausanne

Raluca Enescu

Institute of Criminal Sciences, University of Hamburg


Barbier, J.-C., & Letablier, M.-T. (Eds.) (2008). Politiques sociales. Enjeux méthodologiques et épistémologiques des comparaisons internationales. Bruxelles, etc.: Peter Lang.

Bec, C. (1998). L’assistance en démocratie. Les politiques assistantielles dans la France des XIXe et XXe siècles. Paris: Belin.

Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.

Bourdieu, P. (2012). Sur l’État. Cours au Collège de France 1989-1992. Paris: Raisons d’agir/Seuil.

Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L., & Farage, S. (1994). Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratie Field. Sociological Theory, 12 (1), 1-18.

Donzelot, J. (1999). La police des familles. Suite. Informations sociales (73-74), 136-143.

Dubois, V. (1999). La vie au guichet. Relation administrative et traitement de la misère. Paris: Economica.

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

Fenger, H. J. M. (2007). Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Retrieved from viewFile/45/37.

Ferrera, M. (1996). The Southern model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (1), 17-37.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2011). Case Study. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fraser, N. (1989). Women, Welfare, and the Politics of Need Interpretation. In N. Fraser (Ed.), Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (pp. 144-160). Minneapolis.

Heinz, W. R., & Marshall, V. W. (Eds.) (2003). Social Dynamics of the Life Course. Transitions, Institutions, and Interrelations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hertz, E., Martin, H., & Valli, M. (2004). Le «feeling»: Une logique sous-jacente au fonctionnement de l’Etat providence. FEAS, 1, 12-21.

Kohli, M. (1987). Retirement and the moral economy. A historical interpretation of the German case. Journal of Aging Studies, 1 (2), 125-144.

Levy, R., Gauthier, J.-A., & Widmer, E. (2006). Entre contraintes institutionnelle et domestique: Les parcours de vie masculins et féminins en Suisse. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31 (4), 461-489.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemnas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Palier, B., & Bonoli, G. (1999). Phénomènes de Path Dependence et réformes des systèmes de protection sociale. Revue française de science politique, 3, 399-420.12 Individual project research 5, Overcoming vulnerability to unemployment: Possibilities and limits of the so-called “active” social policies (IP5).

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Culture and Path Dependency of Welfare State Development (Preliminary Draft). Retrieved from espanetconference/papers/ppr%5B1%5D.5.BP.pdf.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2008). Cultural change and path departure – the example of family policies in conservative welfare states. In W. van Oorschot, M. Opielka, & B. Pfau-Effinger (Eds.), Culture and welfare state: Values and social policy in comparative perspective (pp. 185-204). Cheltenham/UK, Northampton/ MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Pierson, P. (2000). Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94 (2), 251-267.

Ragin, Ch. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

Salais, R., Baverez, N., & Reynaud, B. (1986). L’invention du chômage. Histoire et transformations d’une catégorie en France des années 1890 aux années 1980. Paris: PUF.

Togni, C. (2009). Droit à l’assurance chômage: Toutes choses inégales par ailleurs. Nouvelles questions féministes, 28 (2), 52-65.

Topalov, C. (1994). Naissance du chômeur, 1880-1910. Paris: Albin Michel.

Weber, M. (1920). L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme (1967 ed.). Paris: Plon.

Woods, D.F. (2006). Focusing on care. Family policy and problems of analysis. WiP Working Paper Series, Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen, 30.

Zimmermann, B. (2001). La constitution du chômage en Allemagne. Entre professions et territoires. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.




How to Cite

Tabin, J.-P., & Enescu, R. (2012). The Normative Impact of Unemployment Insurance: A European Perspective. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 7(2), 113–125.