The Illusion of Welfare ‘Regimes’

Kasza, Gregory J.

doi:10.1017/s0047279401006584

Cited by 209 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Section six concludes the paper. This categorization has been criticized in respect of the range of countries and regimes, the overemphasis on cash benefits and the absence of gender implications (see Bambra (2006); Kasza (2002); Leibfried (1992) Ferrera (1996) and Bonoli (1997). According to Ferrera (1996) southern countries are inter alia characterized by a highly fragmented and polarized welfare regime with generous pensions paired with substantial gaps in the social safety net, a departure from the corporatist tradition in the field of health care, a highly collusive mix between public and private institutions in the welfare sphere and the persistence of clientelism in the distribution of cash subsidies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The debate has included a variety of different critiques: the range (Leibfreid, 1992;Castles and Mitchell, 1993;Ferrera, 1996), the methodology (Kangas, 1994;Ragin, 1994;Shalev, 1996;Pitruzzello, 1999), the omission of gender (Lewis, 1992;Orloff, 1993;Borchost, 1994;Daly, 1994;Sainsbury, 1999), and most recently, the central conceptwelfare state regimes -itself (Kasza, 2002). This paper, through the presentation of a defamilisation index and a subsequent typology, critically engages with the latter two aspects of this debate; the critique that the 'worlds of welfare' typology is gender blind, and Kasza's assertions about the 'illusory nature' of welfare state regimes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?

Bambra¹

2004

Social Policy & Society

142

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature of welfare state regimes has been an ongoing debate within the comparative social policy literature since the publication of Esping-Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990). This paper engages with two aspects of this debate; the gender critique of Esping-Andersen's thesis, and Kasza's (2002) assertions about the ‘illusory nature’ of welfare state regimes. It presents a gender-focused defamilisation index and contrasts it with Esping-Andersen's decommodification index to illustrate that, whilst individual welfare states have been shown to exhibit internal variety across different policy areas, they are both consistent and coherent in terms of their policy variation by gender. It concludes, in contrast to both the gender critique of Esping-Andersen, and Kasza's rejection of the regimes concept, that the ‘worlds of welfare’ approach is therefore neither gender blind or illusory, and can, if limited to the analysis of specific areas such as labour market decommodification or defamilisation, be resurrected as a useful means of organising and classifying welfare states.

show abstract

“…Some suggest that welfare regimes may exhibit significant variations across different areas (Bambra, 2004;Kasza, 2002). They emphasize that countries may differ in their commitment to the provision of defamilisation measures, but disagree that these differences between these countries necessarily reflect the typology put forward by Esping-Andersen (1990) and Korpi (2000).…”

Section: Challenges To the Welfare Regimes Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defamilisation measures and women's labour force participation – a comparative study of twelve countries

Chau

Foster

et al. 2017

J. int. comp. soc. policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(150 words)This paper examines the relevance of two interpretations of defamilisation (the 'freedom of family' and the 'freedom of women from the family') to the search for effective measures for strengthening women's participation in the paid labour market. Based on these two interpretations, two types of defamilisation measures (care-focused and women's) are identified. Two defamilisation indices are developed respectively covering twelve countries.The importance of the two types of defamilisation measures in assisting women to access employment are discussed from two angles. The input anglerefers to the extent to which countries are committed to the provision of these two defamilisation measures. The output angle is about the relationship between the two defamilisation measures and the degree of women's participation in the paid labour market. Through conducting these analytical tasks, this paper also contributes to the examination of the relationship between types of welfare regimes and the provision of defamilisation measures.

show abstract

The Illusion of Welfare ‘Regimes’

Cited by 209 publications

References 18 publications

Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries

Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries

The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?

Defamilisation measures and women's labour force participation – a comparative study of twelve countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About