Common Legacy, Divergent Paths: Explaining the Transformation of Post-Yugoslav Welfare States

In the past decades of political and economic transition, welfare systems in the countries of former Yugoslavia have experienced tremendous change. Bearing a common institutional legacy of a welfare regime that combined social insurance and the family as the main safety nets with universal provision of education and health, countries have opted for diverging reform pathways. While some have, for instance, introduced private pension pillars and rigorous means-testing of social transfers, others reformed their public pension schemes only incrementally and have preserved more generous benefits. Scholars who study the transformation of welfare in the Western Balkans have highlighted the importance of variables such as the level of democratic consolidation or the influence of external actors in effecting change (e.g. see Deacon and Stubbs, 2007; Stambolieva, 2014). This paper builds upon previous efforts by seeking to understand the nature of institutional transformation in different welfare sectors in four countries of former Yugoslavia, as well as to explain under which configurations of conditions such transformation has occurred. Understanding the processes behind institutional change in the welfare realm in the Western Balkans region may shed light on the root causes of outcomes such as inequality and poverty, as well as on the feasibility of current and future social policy proposals for countering such outcomes. The nature of institutional transformation is considered through dimensions such as the scope, sequencing and pace of change (Capano, 2013). Important characteristics of welfare institutions (e.g. entitlement criteria, benefit generosity) from the break-up of Yugoslavia to present are considered. Drawing on neo-institutionalist literature, institutional change is conceptualized as a process that may be fuelled by conditions such as actors' interests and preferences; ideas and discourses that shape reforms; formal and informal rules and norms as opportunity structures to pursue reform; as well as socioeconomic conditions (e.g. see Schmidt, 2010, Cerami, 2009, Streeck and Thelen, 2005). In order to understand which configurations of hypothesized sets of conditions work together to produce a specific outcome, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is applied. Process tracing is used to identify the mechanisms or processes that link conditions to outcomes (Cerami, 2009). The paper applies comparative case study method and a most similar case design, as four countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia) are hypothesized to have a similar institutional legacy but different reform outcomes in the sectors of family policy, employment policy and old-age pension systems. As such, it relies on empirical work, including interviews with stakeholders, analysis of institutional and legal frameworks, as well as socioeconomic data.