Three worlds’ typology: Moving beyond normal science?

Abstract

There is no doubt that Esping-Andersen's three worlds' typology has been extremely valuable.However, the literature inspired by it shows signs of Kuhnian normal science, which is impairing empirical and theoretical progress. We explain normal science, demonstrate that it characterizes recent empirical regime studies and ask why this has come about. We show that the welfare regime literature has a tendency to confuse the terms 'typology' and 'ideal-types'. This has prevented the emergence of anomalies that are needed for progress. We argue that normal science is fostered by the combination of researchers' tendency to prefer certainty (e.g. to address solvable research problems) and the environmental pressures they face (especially the 'publish or perish' culture and the need to frame research problems in terms of variation rather than similarity). In the discussion section, we suggest several routes by which the welfare state literature can move beyond normal science.

Polarization or “Squeezed Middle” in the Great Recession?: A Comparative European Analysis of the Distribution of Economic Stress

“…We see that in 2008 the variation in mean equivalised disposable income across countries and welfare regimes was very much in line with expectations, The range across countries is from €39,000 for Norway down to under €12,000 in Portugal, while 12 For a detailed discussion of different use of the welfare regime approach see van Kersbergen and Vis (2015). 13 For a detailed discussion of the basis for distinguishing these regimes see Whelan and Maître (2010).…”

Welfare through regulatory means: eviction and repossession policies in Singapore

“…Discussion of the welfare state has focused on social spending, social insurance and direct provision of welfare: first on how much the state spends (cf. Wilensky, 1975) and later on how, why and through which institutional arrangements the state spends or provides (Esping-Anderson 1990, 1999Arts & Gelissen, 2002;Danforth, 2014;Emmenegger et al, 2015;Kersbergen & Vis, 2015). More recently, changes in spending and provision have been discussed through the lens of retrenchment in social spending and privatization of services.…”

The Lost and the New ‘Liberal World’ of Welfare Capitalism: A Critical Assessment of Gøsta Esping-Andersen'sThe Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalisma Quarter Century Later

“…At the same time, there is an ongoing debate in the literature over the number of ‘worlds’ and the types of countries that might (or might not) cluster within them, as predicted or otherwise, at a particular point in time (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011; van Kersbergen and Vis, 2015). Typologies and country arrangements are largely dependent on normative judgements, as Danforth (2014) illustrates (to do with the selection of countries, methodological techniques and the assemblage of macro-level indicators gathered together).…”

“…Australia is the strongest example of a country using the 'Robin Hood' approach to the Welfare State, relying more heavily on income-testing and directing a higher share of benefits to lower-income groups than any other OECD country. (Whiteford, 2013: 65, emphasis added) At the same time, there is an ongoing debate in the literature over the number of 'worlds' and the types of countries that might (or might not) cluster within them, as predicted or otherwise, at a particular point in time (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011;van Kersbergen and Vis, 2015). Typologies and country arrangements are largely dependent on normative judgements, as Danforth (2014) illustrates (to do with the selection of countries, methodological techniques and the assemblage of macro-level indicators gathered together).…”