Abstract
Current debates on solidarity are part and parcel of a critical evaluation of the modern Western welfare state, in particular of its financial and redistributive dimensions. The assumption prevailing until the late eighties of the 20th century, that the possibilities of expanding welfare entitlement are virtually limitless, has been severely challenged. In the search of new (‘third’) ways of securing social cohesion and stability, concepts of solidarity have been reconsidered (cf. Giddens, 1998; Kersting, 2000). However, the notion of solidarity needs clarification, as political actors often tend to amalgamate solidarity and social justice. These are two distinct concepts and thus serve as a theoretical foundation of two distinct visions of the welfare state. A welfare state construed on the idea of solidarity is meant to react to clearly defined needs, while the model based on the idea of social justice ‘gives everyone what the community owes to him or her’ (cf. Kersting, 2000, p. 51). While the former draws on the idea of benevolence, the latter refers to the idea of obligation. In terms of Kant’s philosophical approach, the former constitutes a ‘softer’, the latter a ‘stronger law’. While we always know what we owe each other, we tend to act in solidarity contingent upon a given situation or condition.
As the current movement of civilisation is proceeding, we shall see the happiness of the largest possible number of people increase; society will become more perfect, more knowledgeable; life will be more comfortable and embellished, quieter and longer; but at the same time, and this we should anticipate, the number of those needing the support of their fellows to obtain a small share of all these goods will incessantly grow (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Bauböck, R.: 2000, ‘European Integration and the Politics of Identity,’ ICE-Working Paper 8, Wienna.
European Commission: 2000, Building an inclusive Europe,COM(2000) 79 final, Brussels.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: 1996, New Directions in Social Welfare. Report of a conference of the Irish Presidency of the European Union, Dublin.
Giddens, A.: 1998, The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge.
Habermas, J.: 2000, ‘Vor dem Ende des sozialstaatlichen Kompromisses,’ in G. Becher and E. Treptow (eds.), Die gerechte Ordnung der Gesellschaft, Campus, 2000, Frankfurt-New York, pp. 331–343.
Hayek, F.A. von: 1976, Law, legislation and liberty. A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. VoL2: The mirage of social justice, Routledge, London.
Heer, F.: 1996, Der Kampf um die österreichische Identität, 2nd ed., Böhlau Verlag, Wien-Köln-Weimar.
Kersting, W.: 2000, ‘Einleitung: Probleme der politischen Philosophie des Sozialstaats,’ in W. Kersting (ed.), Politische Philosophie des Sozialstaats, Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerwist, pp. 17–92.
Kitschelt, H.: 1993, The Radical Right in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis, in collaboration with A.J. Mcgann, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Kohlenberger, H. and H. Kelsen: 1998, ‘Der josefinische Kant,’ in M. Benedikt et.al. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus, Verzögerte Aufklärung, Vol. 4: Philosophie in Österreich 1880–1920, Verlag Leben Kunst Wissenschaft, Klausen, pp. 319–341.
Marin, B.: 1982, Die Paritätische Kommission. Augeklärter Korporatismus in Österreich, Internationale Publikationen, Wien.
Pelinka, A.: 1998, Austria. Out of the Shadow of the Past, Boulder, Westview Press, Colorado.
Pirker, R. and H. Rauchenschwandtner: 1998, ‘Sense of Community: A Fundamental Concept of Institutional Economics,’ Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 154 (2), 406–421.
Pollak, J.: 1998, Zur politischen Identität der Europäischen Staatengemeinschaft, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Pollak, J. and S. Puntscher Riekmann: 2000, Der Bürger als Telos. Chancen und Perspektiven der Unionsbürgerschaft,ICE-Working Paper 9, Vienna.
Prock, M.B.B.: 1995, ‘Gesellschaftslehre. Zwischen alteuropäischer Weltanschauung und Modernismus,’ in M. Benedikt et.al. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus, Verzögerte Aufklärung, Vol. 3: Philosophie in Österreich 1820–1880, Verlag Leben Kunst Wissenschaft, Klausen, pp. 473–483.
Puntscher Riekmann, S.: 1999, ‘The Politics of ‘Ausgrenzung’, the Austrian Nazi-Past and the European Dimension of the New Radical Right,’ in G. Bischof, A. Pelinka and F. Karlhofer (eds.), The Vranitzky Era: 1986–1996, Transaction Publishers (Contemporary Austrian Studies VII), New Brunswick-London, pp. 78–105.
Rauchenschwandtner, H.: 1998, Über einen möglichen Gemeinsinn der österreichischen Schule der Nationalökonomie,’ in M. Benedikt et.al. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus, Verzögerte Aufklärung, Vol.4: Philosophie in Österreich 1880–1920, Verlag Leben Kunst Wissenschaft, Klausen, pp. 161–192.
Sandgruber, R.: 1995, Ökonomie und Politik. Österreichische Wirtschaftsgeschichte vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Ueberreuter, Wien.
Sauer, W.: 1995, ‘Die verhinderte Kanttradition. Über eine Eigenheit der österreichischen Philosophie,’ in M. Benedikt et.al. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus, Verzögerte Aufklärung, Vol.3: Philosophie in Österreich 1820–1880,Verlag Leben Kunst Wissenschaft, Klausen, pp. 301–317.
Schmitz, W.: 1998, ‘Österreichs Schritte in Richtung Soziale Marktwirtschaft,’ in R. Mitterlehner et al. (eds.), Marktwirtschaft 2000. Soziale Marktwirtschaft als Ordnungsmodell der Zukunft?, Österreichischer Wirtschaftsverlag, Wien.
Schrank, F. and P.M. Zulehner: 1999, ‘Handeln wir. Solidarisch. Solidarcharta für Österreich,’ in St. Karner (ed.), Österreich Zukunftsreich. Denkpfeiler ins 21. Jahrhundert,Manumedia Verlag, Wien, pp. 47–62.
Snyder, F.: 1998, ‘EMU revisited: Are We Making a Constitution? What Constitution Are We Making?,’ in G. de Biirca and P. Craig (eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417–477.
Steininger, R.: 1997, ‘12.November 1918 bis 13. März 1938: Stationen auf dem Weg zum ‘Anschluss’,’ in R. Steininger and M. Gehler (eds.), Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert. Von der Monarchie bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, Vol.1,Böhlau, Wien, pp. 99–139.
Streeck, W.: 1996, ‘Neo-Voluntarism: A New European Social Policy Regime?,’ in G. Marks et al. (eds.), Governance in the European Union, Sage Publications, London-Thousand Oaks-New Dehli, pp. 64–94.
Talus, E.: 1981, Staatliche Sozialpolitik in Österreich. Rekonstruktion und Analyse, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, Wien.
Taos, E.: 1988, ‘Sozialpolitik 1938 bis 1945. Versprechungen — Erartungen — Realisationen,’ in E. Talus et al. (eds.), NS-Herrschaft in Österreich 1938–1945, Verlag fir Gesellschaftskritik, Wien, pp. 115–140.
Talus, E. (ed.): 1993, Sozialpartnerschaft. Kontinuität und Wandel, Verlag fir Gesellschaftskritik, Wien.
Talus, E. and K. Wörister: 1994, Soziale Sicherheit im Sozialstaat Österreich, Nomos, Baden-Baden.
Zulehner, P.M. et al.: 1997, Solidarität. Option für die Modernisierungsverlierer, TyroliaVerlag, Innsbruck-Wien.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Riekmann, S.P. (2001). Which Theories of Solidarity? From the Austrian Case to the European Context. In: ter Meulen, R., Arts, W., Muffels, R. (eds) Solidarity in Health and Social Care in Europe. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 69. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9743-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9743-2_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5887-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9743-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive