LIST OF PANELS

All European Welfare Systems (EWS) are facing severe challenges and it is uncertain as to what extent political re-actions change our acquainted worlds of welfare. The financial crisis in particular has shown that 1) the same challenges often hit EWS in different ways and that, accordingly, (2) also EWS’ reactions to the crisis differ broadly. European countries with similar sets of criteria (e.g. demographic structure, (un)employment rate and public deficit/debt) have generated wildly diverging policy responses; some have relied on stimulus packages, others on austerity policies, some have protected insiders’ interests while others have opted for more universal policies. Although the future development of the EWS seems to be open to change, it is reasonable to see future processes taking place in a corridor between national path-dependency, a large variety of political intentions and EU-stimulated coordinated action. Against this background, research into EWS cannot be restricted to a general systems perspective but has to include the perceptions, estimations and expectations of political actors, stakeholders, interest groups and involved institutions. Thus, adopting a policy analysis perspective seems most fruitful. Although the challenges EWS have been facing have been increasingly researched, we still lack up-to-date analyses that provide a more actor-oriented perspective on 1) how EWS have developed since the outbreak of the crises, and 2) how similarities and differences in policy-making can be explained. We encourage comparative public policy scholars of all stages to submit papers. We invite empirical contributions that adopt an actor-centered perspective on EWS since the outbreak of the crises. Both synchronic and diachronic comparisons of welfare systems and of specific policy fields are welcome, ranging from comparative case studies to large-N and applying quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods designs. Also contributions with a theoretical focus on the conceptualization of continuity and change of welfare systems are welcome. 299 words

All European Welfare Systems (EWS) (Schubert et al. 2009) are facing severe challenges and it is uncertain as to what extent political re-actions change our acquainted worlds of welfare. The financial crisis in particular has shown that 1) the same challenges often hit EWS in different ways and that, accordingly, 2) also EWS’ reactions to the crisis differ broadly. European countries with similar sets of criteria (e.g. demographic structure, (un)employment rate and public deficit/debt) have generated wildly diverging policy responses; some have relied on stimulus packages, others on austerity policies, some have protected insiders’ interests while others have opted for more universal policies. Clearly, exogenous factors do not have a deterministic role in shaping policy agendas. Instead,it is national social policies that shape the experiences of people, national identity and provide for legitimacy. In many ways, preferences are endogenous, shaped by institutional frameworks. However, also the EU plays an important role in shaping national welfare systems. EWS are nowadays semi-sovereign welfare states (Van Gerven & Beckers 2009) as the EU has taken a strong position in influencing national policy preferences and facilitating policy learning (Kerschen 2012). National welfare states are legally and economically constrained by European rules of economic integration, liberalization and competition law. Moreover, the objectives of the EU regarding employment and social protection and the respective competences of the Union and of the European member states are defined in European treaties.So, although the future development of the EWS seems to be open to change, it is reasonable to see future processes taking place in a corridor between national path-dependency, a large variety of political intentions and EU-stimulated coordinated action (Natali & Vanhercke 2013). Against this background, it is evident that research into EWS cannot be restricted to a general systems perspective but has to include the perceptions, estimations and expectations of political actors, stakeholders, interest groups and involved institutions. Thus, adopting a policy analysis perspective seems most fruitful for understanding and explaining EWS’ developments. Although challenges to EWS have been increasingly researched in recent years (Farnsworth & Irving 2011, Greve 2011, Starke et al. 2013, Van Kersbergen et al. 2014, Schubert et al. forthcoming), we still lack analyses that provide a more actor-oriented perspective on 1) how EWS have developed since the outbreak of the crisis, and 2) how similarities and differences in policy-making can be explained.From a political, social or institutional actors’ point of view many influential boundary conditions are to be noted. Apart from parameters defined by changing fiscal and financial situations, rising costs of welfare services, new social risks and arising problems of demographic change and (labour) migration have to be considered. Concerning an economic policy of fiscal austerity, the conflicts among diverse social actors become increasingly relevant. 453 words (excl. References)   References Farnsworth, K. and Irving, Z. (eds.) (2011a). Social Policy in Challenging Times, Bristol: Policy Press. Greve, B. (2011). Editorial Introduction: Overview and Conclusion. Social Policy & Administration 45 (4), pp. 333 – 337. Kerschen, N. (2012). The European Union as institutional model and policy context for industrial relations in France: new power games between the social partners and the State, in S. Smismans (ed.), The European Union and Industrial relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 139-154. Natali, D., Vanhercke, B. (eds.)(2013). Social developments in the European Union 2012. ETUI (European Trade Union Institute), OSE (European Social Observatory): Brussels. Schubert, K., de Villota, P., Kuhlmann, J. (eds.) (forthcoming). Challenges to European Welfare Systems, New York: Springer Publishing. Schubert, K., Hegelich, S., Bazant, U. (eds.). The Handbook of European Welfare Systems, London & New York: Routledge. Starke, P., Kaasch, A., Van Hooren, F. (2013). The Welfare State as Crisis Manager: Explaining the Diversity of Policy Responses to Economic Crisis, Houndmills: PalgraveMacmillan. Van Gerven, M., Beckers, M. (2009). Unemployment Protection Reform in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, and the UK: Policy Learning Through Open Coordination?, in J. Zeitlin, M. Heidenreich (eds.), Changing European Employment and Welfare Regimes. The Influence of the Open Method of Coordination on National Labour Market and Social Welfare Reforms. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 61 – 83. Van Kersbergen, K., Vis, B., Hemerijck, A.(2014): The Great Recession and Welfare State Reform: Is Retrenchment Really the Only Game Left in Town? Social Policy & Administration, DOI: 10.1111/spol.12063.