Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report

Abstract

This paper surveys the debate regarding Esping-Andersen's typology of welfare states and reviews the modified or alternative typologies ensuing from this debate. We confine ourselves to the classifications which have been developed by EspingAndersen's critics in order to cope with the following alleged shortcomings of his typology: (1) the misspecification of the Mediterranean welfare states as immature Continental ones;(2) the labelling of the Antipodean welfare states as belonging to the 'liberal' regime type; (3) a neglect of the genderdimension in social policy. We reconstruct several typologies of welfare states in order to establish, first, whether real welfare states are quite similar to others or whether they are rather unique specimens, and, second, whether there are three ideal-typical worlds of welfare capitalism or more. We conclude that real welfare states are hardly ever pure types and are usually hybrid cases; and that the issue of ideal-typical welfare states cannot be satisfactorily answered given the lack of formal theorizing and the still inconclusive outcomes of comparative research. In spite of this conclusion there is plenty of reason to continue to work on and with the original or modified typologies.Key words comparative social policy analysis, typology, welfare state regimes, worlds of welfare capitalism Résumé Nous présentons un état des lieux des débats qui ont entouré la typologie des Etats providences proposée par EspingAndersen ainsi que des typologies modifiées ou alternatives qui ont été présentées par la suite. Nous nous limiterons aux classifications qui ont été proposées par les critiques du travail d'Esping Andersen qui visaient à dépasser les «prétendues» limitations de sa typologie.1) une mauvaise spécification des Etats Providence méditerranéens comme des Etats providences continentaux inachevés 2) la labelisation des Etats providences des Antipodes comme appartenant au régime de type «libéral» 3) la non prise en compte de l'effet «genre» dans les politiques sociales. Nous avons reconstruit différentes typologies d'Etats Providences afin d'établir, tout d'abord si la réalité des Etats Providences est unique ou si certains sont fort semblables et ensuite s'il existe trois idéal type d'Etats providences ou davantage?Nous sommes arrivé à la conclusion que: premièrement les Etats providences réels sont rarement des cas purs mais constituent bien plus des hybridations. En deuxième lieu, on ne peut répondre de manière satisfaisante à la question de savoir le nombre d'idéal types d'Etats Providences du fait de l'absence de théorisa-tion adéquate et parce que les résultats des recherches comparatives ne permettent pas de conclure dans un sens ou un autre. Troisième-ment, en dépit de cette conclusion, il existe de multiples raisons pour continuer à travailler sur et à partir des typologies originales ou modifiées.

When and where did the great recession erode the support of democracy?

“…Although there is no consensus on these types, it is generally accepted that most countries in the main regions of Europe have similar welfare state regimes. This is reflected in the names which are being given to these clusters, like Nordic welfare states, Southern welfare states, East European welfare regimes etcetera (see for an overview of the debate on welfare regime differences: Arts and Gelissen 2002). These countries resemble each other in the degree of universalism, egalitarianism and de-commodification (EspingAndersen 1990).…”

“…Most countries with similar welfare states have similar levels of social and economic welfare, cultural heritage and traditions and phase of democratic development (Bodor et al 2014). The vast amount of literature of welfare state classifications provides an excellent source of the main socioeconomic similarities and differences between these regimes (see for an overview: Arts and Gelissen 2002). These characteristics may make countries more or less vulnerable to the effects of the Great Recession.…”

Welfare Regimes and Education Regimes: Equality of Opportunity and Expenditure in the EU (and US)

“…Thus, Esping-Andersen (1990), using scores of decommodification 5 in three social programmes (pensions, sickness and unemployment cash benefits), distinguished three 'regimes': the liberal, typified by individualism and the primacy of the market; the conservative corporatist, typified by a moderate level of decommodification; and the social-democratic, with high decommodification and a universal, highly distributive system of benefits. Much debate and critique has followed relating to the applicability, type and number of regimes (e.g., Lewis, 1992;Bonoli, 1997;Arts and Gelissen, 2002). Limited research has addressed services (e.g., Anttonen and Sipilä, 1996).…”

Untitled

“…In fact, the single most consequential choice of the study is to look at the tax-transfer aspects of countries' welfare regimes rather than at other equally important regime characteristics. Although issues of typologies and classification remain highly controversial (see Arts and Gelissen 2002), it is only because of this, that the Dutch welfare state could be portrayed as the archetypical social democratic welfare state, where other studies (e.g. van Kersbergen 1995; would classify the Netherlands either as a Christian democratic or at most a hybrid welfare state (on the Dutch welfare state, see Visser and Hemerijck 1997;Hemerijck, Unger and Visser 2000).…”