Objectives and classification

With the question and hypothesis formulated above, we are responding to the fact that the real shifts in social policy that have taken place in recent years have produced veritable knowledge gaps, strands of debate and research desiderata. In particular, there has been a "substantial shift in power resources" from "organized labour to employers" (Pierson 2011: 9). This has fundamentally changed the forms of welfare state socialization (cf. Lessenich 2008). In addition, the axis between contribution financing and tax financing is shifting. While the old risks of the welfare state were covered by contribution-financed systems, the new risks are increasingly covered by tax financing. Interest groups play a more significant and weightier role in the system of old risks than in the system of new risks. In one area of the welfare state, they are part of a corporatist form of politics, while in the area of new risks they are rather weak or have not yet really developed.

According to Bonoli (2006: 5), new risks are "situations in which individuals experience welfare losses and which have arisen as a result of the socio-economic transformations that have taken place over the past three or four decades and are generally subsumed under the heading of post-industrialization." In the following, the Anglo-Saxon term post-industrialism (Pierson), which is commonly used in the international debate, is used with a slightly different meaning. This is because the transformation of the welfare state from an industrial to a service society is still ongoing in Germany. In addition, it must be assumed that industrial production and post-industrial services coexist. In particular, the social security system is still rooted in the industrial phase. However, new constellations have emerged as a result of changing life situations, the growing participation of women in the labour market, changes in family structures, the de-standardization of the employment relationship, the growing proportion of services and other changes. They are characterized not least by the fact that they are only partially covered by the social security systems of the "old" welfare state. On the one hand, the "new" risks are therefore not so new and already existed in the old welfare state. On the other hand, due to the new constellations, we can justifiably speak of new risks, the management of which is located in a new context and which cannot be dealt with on the reliable basis of the old welfare state characterized by industrial society. At the same time, we tend to be dealing with different policy modes: While corporatist negotiation systems and parity were the dominant policy forms in the social security state (Nullmeier/Rüb 1993), policy forms in which collective and associational interest groups no longer play this dominant role now dominate (cf. Schroeder/Paquet 2009). Instead, state actors are gaining power, which in the next step assigns new responsibilities, influence and tasks to companies, civil society actors and those affected (families, patients, clients) (Trampusch 2009). This also applies to the early stage of the policy cycle. Where interests have not yet been formed via interest groups in the political arena, policymakers must obtain the necessary information and concepts from other sources and resort to various forms of policy advice (Speth 2010). Policy advice thus has the opportunity to decisively influence the perception of interests by politicians. In turn, this could mean that new interests with few members or interests that are difficult to organize would have the opportunity to influence the development of welfare state arrangements with the corresponding "epistemic power" (Fischer/Forester 1993), despite having little "manpower". Apart from this, the media also play more than a mere moderating role in the interest landscape and sometimes almost take on the role of a "sponsor", especially in the case of interest articulation that is not (yet) organizationally constituted, in the form of protest or social movement. Some observers predict a "liquefaction" of the interest landscape, in which small professionalized organizational cores mobilize those affected and the public on a case-by-case basis. From this perspective, agencies that use grassroots campaigning techniques to mobilize citizen groups and connect them with established interest organizations in the form of support networks are gaining in importance (Speth 2012).

New risks and legal positions in the welfare state

The central research question of the Research Training Group relates to the new life situations and the associated risk groups that have emerged as a result of the development of post-industrial economies in the new welfare states (cf. Bonoli 2004, 2006; Häusermann 2010). In order to understand this shift and grasp its developmental dynamics, it is necessary to take a look at the old welfare state.

The old welfare state developed to protect against risks along the industrial economy in the OECD countries. At its core, it was concerned with safeguarding the risks of the "standard male industrial worker" (Häusermann 2010: 15; Thelen 2004) and thus with establishing the social model of the "male breadwinner model". In this welfare state arrangement, the challenges of poverty in old age and the risks of illness, accident and unemployment were covered by a social insurance system. At the heart of this system was full and continuous participation in the labour market as well as a family model with a sole breadwinner and the marginalized position of women in the labour market. It primarily covered the loss of the breadwinner's earned income. This applies above all to the conservative type of welfare state (cf. Esping-Andersen 1990).

With the transition to the post-industrial economy and social change, new socio-political challenges have arisen, which are discussed in research under the term post-industrial welfare state (Pierson 1996; Argingeon/Bonoli 2006; Kitschelt/Rehm 2006). This transformation of the social and economic structure goes hand in hand with new risks that the welfare state is supposed to take care of.

The risks that the welfare state of the post-industrial economy has to cope with in the context of new lifelong learning have a structuring function for the fundamental research question and the individual projects of the Research Training Group. They go hand in hand with new needs and new risk groups, such as women and families with children, single parents or the low-skilled. At the same time, questions arise about the effects of the (re)distribution of welfare state benefits. Of particular interest is whether new interest organizations and coalitions are forming along these new risk lines and what the causes of this are. An important observation here is that, in addition to the new risks, the transformation of the welfare state is also characterized by new welfare state rights. In addition to political and economic rights, Thomas Marshall (1992) has emphasized the function of social rights for the development of the welfare state. A new cycle of anti-discrimination policy, particularly by the UN and the European Commission, supports weak interest (groups). Recently, for example, the rights of social benefit recipients as users have been redefined and discussed at international, European and national level (cf. Strünck 2008; most recently Igl 2011). This applies in particular to the rights of patients, people with disabilities and the rights of children. Examples include the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities explicitly requires states parties to involve people with disabilities in policies relevant to them through their associations (Art. 4 para. 3 CRPD). In German law, this regulation can already be linked to the participation rights of patient and disability associations within the framework of the existing corporatist self-government structures, for example through patient participation in the Federal Joint Committee (§ 140f SGB V) and in the Federal Working Group for Rehabilitation (§ 13 Para. 6 SGB IX). The participation of youth associations in child and youth welfare law through the Youth Welfare Committee (Section 71 SGB VIII) already has a very long tradition in Germany. In addition to the use of traditional opportunities for participation by new players, there are now also rights of action for associations, particularly in disability equality law. The legislator is thus intervening in the ability of weak interests to organize themselves and engage in conflict. These new legal positions are also being used by interest groups, be they self-help groups, welfare organizations or advocacy groups (cf. Vanhala 2011).

With regard to research on associations, the question arises as to whether this is softening and/or renewing corporatist structures and initiating a re-pluralization or whether established interest organizations are successfully pursuing an additional path. This example clearly shows that further research questions can be generated from the overarching question of the role of interest organizations in connection with demographic developments, changing life situations, new risks and welfare state services.