Digitalizing the welfare state: citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015

As governments worldwide become increasingly reliant on digital technologies and e-government, ‘digital citizenship’ has become an important topic for research and policy-makers alike. While often described as the contemporary ‘ideal’ of citizenship, research has tended to downplay the normative dimensions of digital citizenship. Counter to such depoliticized approaches, this article argues that the digital citizen is a deeply political figure. Through a discourse-theoretical analysis of Danish governmental digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015, the article shows how these have relied on a very particular image of the digital citizen. More specifically, we showcase how this figure has reproduced neoliberal conceptions of subjectivity, concerned with efficiency, productivity, individualization and collective responsibilization. By shedding light on these novel links between neoliberal and digital citizenship, the article challenges current views on digitalization. The article foregrounds how digitalization serves to reproduce and recast already-existing political rationalities and must be considered in relation to neoliberal hegemony.As governments worldwide become increasingly reliant on digital technologies and e-government, ‘digital citizenship’ has become an important topic for research and policy-makers alike. While often described as the contemporary ‘ideal’ of citizenship, research has tended to downplay the normative dimensions of digital citizenship. Counter to such depoliticized approaches, this article argues that the digital citizen is a deeply political figure. Through a discourse-theoretical analysis of Danish governmental digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015, the article shows how these have relied on a very particular image of the digital citizen. More specifically, we showcase how this figure has reproduced neoliberal conceptions of subjectivity, concerned with efficiency, productivity, individualization and collective responsibilization. By shedding light on these novel links between neoliberal and digital citizenship, the article challenges current views on digitalization. The article foregrounds how digitalization serves to reproduce and recast already-existing political rationalities and must be considered in relation to neoliberal hegemony

The distribution and re-distribution of income of selfemployed as freelancers and entrepreneurs in Europe

The economic transformations of modern industrial societies have changed the labor markets in terms of industrial relations and occupational structure. The transformation of the traditional welfare state, the deregulation of the labor markets, the technological change and the reorganization of industrial structures influenced strongly the attitude of individuals towards their preferred labor contract. The structural change of the occupational structure was one of the results of this tendency. In particular the self-employed and freelancers have been affected and are a driving factor of labor market changings. On the one side the value of autonomy regarding industrial relations is becoming more important for employees. On the other side employers want to get rid of social security contributions. As a result the multitudinousness of these professions increased. The increasing varieties of occupations among the self-employed and freelancers influenced strongly their income distribution. Recent studies for Germany have shown a great dispersion and a heterogeneous structure of earnings in particular of freelancers (liberal professions) and self-employed. Though there are a variety of international income distribution studies, but – as to the best to our knowledge – no study focusing on the selfemployed and freelancers within the total labor force. In our study we concentrate on the income distribution of self-employed and freelancers in different European countries. Based on the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) we analyze five different European countries and the United States structured by different types of welfare states according to Esping Anderson. We analyze income distributional aspects, an occupational decomposition à la Shorrocks, and re-distributional effects of the tax and transfer systems

On impact factors and university rankings: from birth to boycott

In this essay we explore parallels in the birth, evolution and final ‘banning’ of journal impact factors (IFs) and university rankings (URs). IFs and what has become popularized as global URs (GURs) were born in 1975 and 2003, respectively, and the obsession with both ‘tools’ has gone global. They have become important instruments for a diverse range of academic and higher education issues (IFs: e.g. for hiring and promoting faculty, giving and denying faculty tenure, distributing research funding, or administering institutional evaluations; URs: e.g. for reforming university/department curricula, faculty recruitment, promotion and wages, funding, student admissions and tuition fees). As a result, both IFs and GURs are being heavily advertised—IFs in publishers’ webpages and GURs in the media as soon as they are released. However, both IFs and GURs have been heavily criticized by the scientific community in recent years. As a result, IFs (which, while originally intended to evaluate journals, were later misapplied in the evaluation of scientific performance) were recently ‘banned’ by different academic stakeholders for use in ‘evaluations’ of individual scientists, individual articles, hiring/promotion and funding proposals. Similarly, URs and GURs have also led to many boycotts throughout the world, probably the most recent being the boycott of the German ‘Centrum fuer Hochschulentwicklung’ (CHE) rankings by German sociologists. Maybe (and hopefully), the recent banning of IFs and URs/GURs are the first steps in a process of academic self-reflection leading to the insight that higher education must urgently take control of its own metrics

The rise and fall of the European social model. A contribution to the diagnosis of its political explanation

The article sheds light upon the political and scientific career of the conception of a "European Social Model". In a first step, it gives a comprehensive review of the literature to answer the question for the common characteristics of the European societies. The authors claim that the European Social Model as realised in these societies is characterised by structures and processes of ordered diversity and social compensation. In a second step, the development of the political integration project which is also referred to as the "European Social Model" is lined out. The authors focus on the idea of a regulated capitalism by Jacques Delors, which in the 1990s has been reformulated into a eurokeynesian strategy, as well as on the discussion about a "Third Way" which finally led to the promotion of a 'new' European Social Model. It is shown that the principles of the 'new' European integration model conflict with and indeed contradict the old structures of the European Social Model, i.e. the shared characteristics of the European societies