Soziale Sicherung im Krisenmodus (SoSiKri)

Climate Change and Inequality

A growing crisis and the role of eco-social security

Published on the 20th of January 2025

As climate change accelerates more and more, its effects are felt globally, but not uniformly. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, resource scarcity, and biodiversity loss strain societies, the eco-system and economies, exacerbating inequalities in the process. Climate change is increasingly recognized as a ‘threat multiplier’, amplifying existing social, economic and ecological vulnerabilities.

Inequality is a multidimensional concept. In economic terms, for example, it could refer to disparities in income or the distribution of wealth; in social terms, to differences in opportunities to participate in society; and in political terms, to differences in electoral rights between citizens and non-citizens. This blog post focuses on wealth inequality, as wealth or income has arguably the biggest impact on dealing with the effects of climate change at a societal and individual level. This includes all action taken to counteract the direct and indirect effects of climate change, ranging from compensation, preventive measures to preemptive actions or adaptive measures. At the societal level, economic capacities (and normative goals) determine how elaborate these actions can be, at the individual level, economic capacities determine the range of individual risk management practices.

From a social policy perspective, climate-related crises call for a rethink of how social security systems tackle inequality, since neither the effects of the crises nor the resources to deal with them are uniformly distributed. Classically, social security is broadly defined as the institutional and societal responses to certain pre-defined risks (or contingencies), which have historically evolved and manifested in a society. However, not all risks can be anticipated equally. For example, unemployment, health and work accidents can be unforeseen, yet are still deemed worthy of protection. Thus, by definition, the range of what social security covers can be adjusted or expanded. If ecological risks, which almost always influence the social sphere, are included in social security systems, social security can be advanced to facilitate a more equal society in adaption to modern risks.

The concept of eco-social policy, which combines environmental and social goals, constitutes an emerging approach to addressing these interconnected crises of ecology and inequality by creating resilient and protective systems across all socio-economic levels. Since social security systems are currently designed to protect against life course risks, new reforms are needed to shift their focus to environmental risks and their societal consequences. These dramatic changes can be addressed through eco-social security.

Climate change as a perpetuator of inequality for vulnerable groups

In many ways, the effects of climate change exacerbate social divides along the lines of wealth and well-being among many other categories.

First, disparities in vulnerability and exposure vary between regions and individuals. Wealthier populations often have the means to cope with the worst effects of climate change. For example, while rising sea levels and flooding displace low-income families in coastal regions or leave them with nothing, affluent communities may have resources to relocate to less impacted regions and retrofit or protect their properties. In contrast, marginalized communities, particularly those living in high-risk areas with inadequate infrastructure, bear the brunt of climate impacts without the buffer of financial security and therefore the ability to protect themselves and their possessions. Climate-induced migration and displacement influence inequality heavily. Climate-induced migration affects millions, particularly those from low-wealth or low-income regions that lack adaptive and preventive capacity. Migration pressures can strain social services and infrastructure in receiving areas, sometimes fostering social tensions and further marginalizing displaced communities. Wealthier people, though, are more likely to avoid displacement and, when they do relocate, often have the resources to reintegrate successfully.

Second, climate change can heavily influence health. Extreme heat, poor air quality, and increased disease prevalence disproportionately affect lower-wealth populations. Wealthier individuals may have access to air-conditioned environments, medical care, and other resources to alleviate health stressors, while vulnerable groups experience a worsening health crisis, leading to a vicious cycle of poverty and illness without the ability to access critical health services.

Third, economic instability and job loss is one of the main drivers of (wealth) inequality as these provide a foundation for all households. Climate disruptions affect sectors differently, often hitting low-wage jobs the hardest. For instance, agriculture, fishing, and tourism — industries with significant low-income employment — are highly sensitive to environmental changes. Job losses in these fields leave workers who are already vulnerable with limited options for alternative livelihoods, worsening economic disparities. Wealthier individuals, by contrast, are less dependent on these sectors and have access to more stable or diversified income sources.

The role of eco-social security in battling inequality

Given the interconnected nature of environmental and social vulnerabilities, eco-social security can play a critical role in fostering resilience, equality, and sustainability. Eco-social policies seek to integrate social and environmental objectives, aiming to build an equitable response to climate change and its impact. Eco-social security can thus be seen as the implementation of eco-social policies in social security systems.

Eco-social security influences different spheres of the climate change nexus. Advanced welfare states can provide climate-responsive eco-social security, while aiming at reducing potential inequalities through social redistribution. In some cases, inequalities occur because of the direct effects of climate change. In other cases, inequalities are due to the indirect effects of climate change, including the mitigation, compensation and adaptation measures implemented to combat climate change. Eco-social policy reforms can introduce new targeting mechanisms, new ways of selecting beneficiaries based on the identification of new needs, and institutional changes such as potentially new social security institutions.

To further cushion the blows of an increasing number of ecological crises, these new institutions could be introduced in addition to a wider range of eco-social policies. Eco-social policies that invest in green policies offer a way to protect societies and address economic inequalities. By investing in or securing future generations through institutionalised means, eco-social policies can actively shape a more equal and just society. For example, policies for a "just transition" ensure that, as economies move toward zero transition, low-income workers in high-emission industries receive retraining and job placement support in growing green sectors, such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and conservation. This transition not only reduces emissions but also builds economic resilience for vulnerable communities through our social security institutions – killing two birds with one stone.

Incorporating marginalized voices in policy-making and societal planning is crucial to ensure that climate adaptation is inclusive. Participatory eco-social policies guarantee that low-wealth, low-income and vulnerable communities are considered in decision-making processes around social security – but are also included in preventive measures. For instance, designing social security institutions that not only compensate for the negative effects of climate change-induced flooding, but also invest in prevention measures would support both climate adaptation and social equity. 

While there is a broad spectrum of opportunities for eco-social policy and eco-social security, the resulting effects need to diffuse to all levels of society. Potential policies or institutions could aim at various eco-social risks, many of which have significantly grown in their magnitude or distribution because of climate change. For example, regarding healthcare, universal access to climate-resilient health services could be provided. Climate change magnifies health risks, and equitable access to health services is essential to mitigate this impact. Eco-social security should prioritize universal healthcare access with specific programs focused on climate-vulnerable populations. This could include funding community health centers in at-risk areas, supporting mental health services for climate-affected individuals, and developing public health interventions to address emerging health risks associated with climate change through future-oriented policies. Another example of establishing climate-responsive eco-social security could include cash benefits during extreme weather events, or health interventions targeting climate-related diseases. By integrating climate resilience into social security, governments can buffer vulnerable populations from climate shocks, promoting economic stability and reducing inequality.

To summarise, eco-social security represents a shift from traditional welfare models to adaptive frameworks that account for the interconnectedness of social well-being and ecological stability. Key features address risk protection against ecological hazards that could connect benefits to eco-friendly practices, support a just transition, and show the political and societal will of a future-oriented fight against eco-social risks. By protecting vulnerable populations, promoting equity, and fostering sustainability, eco-social security offers a comprehensive response to 21st century challenges.

Current research shows that eco-social security is not implemented sufficiently, which leads to increasing inequalities through the inaction of politics. This may lead to a vicious circle in which inequality grows dynamically – possibly resulting in an eco-social crisis. A paper on exactly this topic – inequality through inaction – is currently in the making!

Moving forward: A call for integrated policy solutions and more action

The crises wrought by climate change require an integrative, eco-social approach to social security that addresses both immediate vulnerabilities and long-term resilience. Governments, policymakers, and stakeholders must view environmental and social issues not as isolated challenges but as intertwined. The expansion of social security through eco-social policies, eco-social institutions, and a new awareness of future-oriented concepts, such as intergenerational inequalities, can mitigate the cascading effects of climate change on inequality.

How futures are perceived play a major role in designing these eco-social policies. Dr. John Berten wrote a blogpost on ‘How the future impacts the present in social policy’ which dives into the implications of future-oriented concepts for policy making. You can learn more about that here. 

In conclusion, addressing these complex challenges demands proactive engagement from all stakeholders — not just waiting for political solutions. Now is the time to move forward with innovative proposals, develop future-oriented solutions, and introduce fresh ideas that tackle issues of climate change and inequality head-on. By steering the discourse with a commitment to equality, we can shape a more inclusive future and ensure that emerging eco-social solutions are integrated into our (eco-)social security system.

How the Future Impacts the Present in Social Policy

Published on the 29th of September 2024

We live in turbulent times. Policymakers and bureaucrats are thus seemingly in crisis mode, aiming to manage immediate crisis effects. But this affects not only the economy in general. A number of institutions that have been built to provide safety and security for the population are also feeling the heat of increasing pressures from a number of crises – crises that have multiple dimensions, are frequently global in scope, and are increasingly interrelated. These pressures also affect the welfare state and the institutions of social security that it operates. In other words, the future sustainability and functioning of these institutions seems endangered as well. It is an open question whether social security institutions will perform well in a crisis-ridden future or if (and, if so, how) they should be reformed.

Answers to these questions, which policymakers are eager to address, are complex and thus require a wide range of expertise. Various actors contribute scenarios, outline potential courses of action and their effects, or otherwise engage in the making of “futures” to satisfy the need of the state to know about possible and probable developments on the horizon and prepare accordingly. But how does this anticipation of futures influence policymaking? How can we understand the role of anticipations in times of crisis in general – (how) does it affect decisions and the welfare state at large? The project “Social security in crisis mode” aims to find this out. This blog post delves deeper into the question of how the future enters the present of social policymaking.

Here, I argue that anticipating futures of crisis has indeed more far-ranging consequences than just helping policymakers to orient themselves in light of a complex world and the challenges to come. In fact, anticipation can potentially shape both the policymaking process at large and what (reform) alternatives to consider as a response.

First, crisis anticipation puts new options on the table, but it also makes others seem less appropriate in light of risks or threats on the horizon. As a particular imagination of the future becomes more credible, policymakers may find themselves constrained to at least engage with the possibility of its realisation. Therefore, crisis anticipation – even where it just presents potential developments or options – can shape what problems policymakers care about, what issues to address, and what policies to consider.

Second, crisis anticipation changes the general character of policymaking. There is a range of scholarship that delves into how crises are threatening situations that are characterised by enormous uncertainty, while at the same time demanding for urgent responses. The anticipation of future crises can equally lead to changes in the time horizons of policymaking, meaning that actors feel a heightened sense of the need for timely action. This can affect how decisions are reached, how quickly policies are implemented, and who is included (and excluded) in policymaking processes.

Third, crisis anticipation influences what has been called ‘rationales’ of policymaking. Traditionally, social security is engaged in offering compensation and providing services when it comes to particular contingencies, such as the loss of jobs, ill health, or an accident at the workplace. What we can observe when actors are influenced by futures charactersied by challenges or even threats is that there is much more emphasis on preventive or precautionary action. In other words, policymakers aim to prepare for the anticipated development, or even pre-empt it from happening altogether.

Fourth, crisis anticipation already results in policymakers discussing and implementing reforms to social security institutions that make them more resilient. Resilience is a booming concept in current crisis-ridden times, because it promises strengthened resistance to adverse effects, to not become affected by them, but rather quickly return to “normal”. At the same time, in its application to social security, the concept of resilience can be criticised, because it may make the individual or household affected by crises responsible for their own situation – just aiming to help them reduce risks – instead of tackling the often engrained structural problems that are at the root of their vulnerability. Resilience, here, is just one example for a number of reform concepts that can be elevated by a discourse shaped by crisis anticipations.

To date, the role of these and other effects of crisis anticipation on social security reforms in particular and social policymaking in general has not entered academic debates – and even less so public discussions. The project “Social Security in Crisis Mode” aims to produce answers to how we can understand and conceptualise crisis anticipation in its political effects, but also how, ultimately, crisis anticipation can productively be used to make better decisions in social security policymaking.

Social Security in Crisis Mode

Introduction to the project

Published on the 29th of September 2024

Kicking off in the first half of 2024, the junior research group “Social Security in Crisis Mode” („Soziale Sicherung im Krisenmodus - SoSiKri“) led by Dr. John Berten and funded by the Fördernetzwerk Interdisziplinäre Sozialpolitikforschung (FIS) sets out to analyse eco-social policy reforms in social security systems with an emphasis on crisis anticipation and futures.

With ecological crises ever-worsening, the social implications of these developments become more and more visible. Fueled by climate change, inequality is on the rise across the globe, showing the interconnection of the social and ecological spheres.

The SoSiKri project is situated in this intertwined field of eco-social policy, divided into four pillars which will be shortly introduced in the following paragraphs.

Pillar A: Impact of eco-social crises on reform proposals of the German social security system – Power and agenda setting on the national level

Historically, Germany has been at the forefront of the implementation of social security. In the 1880s, Otto von Bismarck systematically introduced social insurance in Germany as a response to changes in society and labour, setting the earliest foundation for a modern welfare state. Fast forward 140 years later, the German social security system is confronted by new challenges. The eco-social crisis – climate change and its implications for inequality – highly influence social policy. Additionally, issues like national demographic developments or recent political upheavals – such as election results – seem to be pace-setting for eco-social policy and social security reforms.

In this time of crisis, eco-social policy reforms need to be introduced to tackle the aforementioned challenges in the fairest way possible. In Germany’s case (and all over the world!), policy proposals for potential reforms are highly contested. Classical actors in these policy fields are, for example, political parties or labour unions. In recent developments, new eco-social alliances, e.g. Attac or Fridays for Future, emerge at all stages of the policy cycle and push for different goals while building new networks and coalitions.

This pillar of the project highlights the different actors of reform proposals, identifies who sets the agenda, and evaluates how power is used to push specific agendas on the stage of political decision-making. In particular, the recognition of futures and crisis anticipation emerge as new topics in the interconnected fields of politics and sociology. Therefore, futures and crisis anticipation lie at the core of the whole project. Methodology-wise, Pillar A focuses on interviews with experts, a document analysis and an overarching discourse network analysis.

Pillar B: International comparison of social security system reforms

The welfare state and social policy are poised to play crucial roles in the urgent and comprehensive social-ecological transformation. The concept of ‘sustainable welfare’ and theories of human need provide a theoretical backdrop for this new wave of state engagement and social policy.

Given the transnational nature of eco-social policy, this pillar focuses on examining crisis phenomena not just within their national and political contexts but also through an internationally comparative lens. This approach seeks to move beyond the European-centric focus on social security, incorporating perspectives from the Global South.

Traditional Western welfare models, long used to study social policy in the Global North, have struggled to fully explain the complex social protection systems in other regions, particularly in the Global South. Alternative models, such as those from the Asian Tigers and the emerging donor-recipient frameworks, remain under-researched and offer rich areas for further study.

The aim of this pillar is to deepen our understanding of welfare and well-being in the context of crises and to capture the resulting social changes. To achieve this, we will conduct a comprehensive literature review and gather data on existing social security system reforms worldwide. A systematic analysis will then map the distribution of these reforms across different countries, leading to the development of a system of indicators and a typology of reform proposals.

Methodologically, this pillar will employ statistical techniques through a quantitative large-n analysis. This approach enables a detailed international comparison of social security systems and reforms, providing valuable insights for researchers of eco-social security policy as well as for stakeholders interested in reforming social security schemes and systems. As such, the results of this comparative analysis may ultimately also contribute to the creation of new models for social security system reforms.

Pillar C: Agenda-setting and problem formulation at the global and world-regional level

With roots tracing back to late 19th century Germany, it was the emergence of global crises in the early 20th century which sparked the acceleration of social security systems. The devastation of the Great Depression and World War II, for example, called for the expansion of welfare states, particularly in Western Europe and the U.S.

In the Global South, social security systems have evolved through a mix of colonial legacies, economic challenges and social movements. Early initiatives, often modeled on European systems, were however limited in terms of scope and accessibility. In South America, countries like Argentina and Brazil pioneered pension schemes, while post-colonial Africa and Asia introduced social security programmes as part of nation-building. Despite challenges like limited coverage and funding, recent decades have seen a shift toward more inclusive policies, with nations like South Africa, India and Brazil expanding access to address poverty and inequality.

Today, social security systems vary widely, shaped by each country's unique political, economic and cultural context, aiming to transform uncertainties into calculable lifecourse risks and provide support and protection to its citizens.

However, eco-social policy research stipulates that these traditional lifecourse risks are complicated by ecological crises leading to the emergence of “new” risks which may require social security reform to protect citizens directly and indirectly impacted by the negative effects of climate change.

Historically, international organisations (IOs), such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the World Bank have played pivotal roles in shaping global social security policy. Recognised as experts, they have used their agenda-setting power to advocate for universal coverage, set international standards, and provide technical assistance to countries in the Global South. Their influence has helped to align national policies with global norms and encouraged the expansion of social protection as a key tool for poverty reduction and sustainable development.

This pillar of the project is concerned with:  1. pinpointing when exactly social security reforms started addressing ecological crises, and how these ideas have evolved over time; 2. which regional and transnational actors are shaping ecological crisis expectations, and how they problematise social security systems; and 3. how future expectations influence (the) idea(s) of social security.

Initial insights show that IOs are not acting alone, but rather in co-operation with development and humanitarian agencies to propose reforms to social security systems. Examples such as adaptive social protection (ASP) and shock-responsive social protection (SRSP) aim to anticipate and adapt to new risks posed by climate change.

With such a variety of organisations and key actors to consider, opinions of the reform of global social security policy are deeply divided. The complexity of the issue is compounded by vertical and horizontal inequalities, as well as differing interpretations of responsibility, which challenge the very concept of what "global" means in this context. This raises important questions about the future of global social security policy which this subproject will specifically address through the use of discourse analysis and expert interviews.

Pillar D: Reflection

Crises and uncertainty are omnipresent in today’s political landscape. In this context, actors increasingly resort to crisis anticipation to legitimise and frame social security reform proposals. In an overarching theorisation pillar, this subproject  systematises main concepts of the project as a whole.

The main focus lies on different types of crisis anticipation and their effects, such as forecasts and scenarios. How do (future) ideas become relevant? And how are crisis expectations translated into reform drafts? This subproject examines forms of crisis anticipation, as well as their political significance and impact on eco-social security reforms.

The subproject also aims at evaluating the role of crisis anticipation compared to other factors that shape eco-social policy reforms, such as political dynamics or entrenched institutions. The role of different ideas, interests and preferences may vary depending on the context. In this regard, the focus is on understanding how anticipatory ideas are translated into reform plans to achieve political goals.

Additionally, this subproject analyses general transformations of social security in the face of crises. Pillar D collaborates with other project pillars to explore trends like the increased focus on preventive measures, the connection of social and ecological aspects in reform proposals, as well as  general developments in social security, such as towards a possible ‘securitisation’ of welfare state institutions due to crisis threats.

Methodologically, this subproject relies on theoretical perspectives from political science such as diffusion studies and policy analysis, as well as sociological theories on the political role of futures and anticipation, which are empirically approached through a qualitative content analysis. Regarding crisis anticipation, Pillar D analyses reform proposals through the concept of policy learning, which involves past policy experiences and evaluations of their outcomes, complemented by anticipations of future crisis effects.

Conclusion and outlook

With this project we show how social security reform approaches emerge from perceptions of uncertainty and crisis, enabling social security systems to react, preempt and prevent the effects of crises at an individual and a societal level. Through the various subprojects, theoretical focal points are established and analyses are conducted at the national (Germany), international and global level in order to provide a comprehensive and multidimensional picture of social security in times of crisis.

Our short-term goal – apart from conducting exciting and new scientific research – is to publish several blog posts as well as podcasts to ensure you are kept up-to-date on our project and its implications for society.

Parallel to this initial blog post, Dr. John Berten has published a second post specifically addressing the topic of futures and anticipation in social security which you definitely won’t want to miss.

Stay tuned for more!