Industrial welfare history presents important challenges to developmental state theories in "late" industrialization. This article expands the debate by examining how nation-states create statutory welfare by addressing institutional variety beyond markets. It is simplistic to argue linear growth of national welfare or of states autonomously regulating markets to achieve risk-mitigation. I contend that welfare institutions emerge from the state's essential conflict and collaboration with various alternate institutions in cities and regions. Using histories of Europe, India, and Karnataka, I propose a place-based, work-based, and work-place based welfare typology evolving at differential rates. Although economic imperatives exist to expand local risk-pools, it is precisely the alternate institutional diversity that makes late industrial nation-states unable or unwilling to do so. This results in institutionally "thin," top-down industrial welfare. Ultimately, theories that overly depend on histories of small nations, homogenous nations, or city-states, provide weak tests of the economics of industrial welfare.
The state in late industrial welfareThe study of capital accumulation has generated the most influential state theories of the twentieth century. In most, the state is posed against markets and acts as the development institution of last resort in specifying cost structures and mitigating risks during industrial transformation. This article examines the evolution of industrial welfare during "late" industrial development. I analyze the historical record of how states institute welfare and regulate markets, thus managing conflicts between production and redistribution. I consider several questions: Are traditional models of linear growth of welfare institutions appropriate for late industrializing states? What is the appropriate scale of the "state": nation, city, or region? Finally,