'Sifting the Wheat from the Chaff': A Two-dimensional Discriminant Analysis of Welfare State Regime Theory

Welfare state modelling has long been an important strand within comparative social policy. However, since the publication of Esping‐Andersen's ‘Worlds of Welfare’ typology, welfare state classification has become particularly prominent and a multitude of competing typologies and taxonomies have emerged. Each of these is based on different classification criteria, and each is trying to capture what a welfare state actually does. The result is that the literature is in a state of confusion and inertia as it is unclear which of these rival systems is currently the most accurate and should be taken forward, and which are not and should perhaps be left behind. This article extends Bonoli's two‐dimensional analysis of welfare state regimes by using multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis to compare and contrast the various classifications on universal criteria. It also examines the usefulness of the two‐dimensional approach itself and suggests how it can be enhanced to benefit future attempts at holistic welfare state modelling. The article concludes that there are some welfare state classifications that are more useful than others, especially in terms of reflecting a two‐dimensional analysis: it thereby ‘sifts the wheat from the chaff’ in terms of welfare state regime theory.     

The Argentine welfare state: enduring and resisting change

Isuani EA. The Argentine welfare state: enduring and resisting change
Int J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 104–114 © 2009 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. It is widely accepted that during the 1990s, the Argentine state experienced a general retrenchment. This article shows that, though this may have been true in the economic realm, this retrenchment did not take place in the diverse arenas of social policy. While privatisations and labour market flexibility dismantled the foundations of Keynesianism, the components of the welfare state experienced substantial growth. At the same time, the changes experienced by the welfare state in the past quarter century have not included a transformation of its basic principles, despite the profound changes experienced by Argentine society during this period.     

Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis

The role of gender as a source of social stratification within and between welfare states is increasingly being paid attention to in the welfare state regimes debate. Defamilisation has emerged as a potentially important concept in this context, as it enables the comparison and classification of welfare states in terms of how they facilitate female autonomy and economic independence from the family. However, the methodology used, or the understanding of the concept, limits existing defamilisation typologies. These typologies have therefore been unable to provide an accurate examination of welfare state variation using this concept and, indeed, have in some ways undermined and devalued the usefulness of defamilisation. This article uses cluster analysis to build upon previous research and resurrect the concept of defamilisation. In contrast to existing work in this area, the analysis produces a five-fold typology of welfare state regimes. This typology differs in many ways from existing models of welfare state regimes, although some core countries emerge as regime ideal types. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of cluster analysis, and defamilisation, for welfare state modelling and future research in this area.     

Protective legislation: The “third pillar” of the welfare state

Welfare states are built upon three central social policy pillars: (1) income programs, including an assortment of income maintenance and security benefits; (2) social services, comprising a diverse constellation of provisions, which furnish care such as health care and education, and “in kind” benefits; and (3) protective legislation, encompassing a dense web of proactive and preventative laws, rights, and entitlements, such as health and safety legislation, minimum wage laws, child protection acts, rent controls, and laws governing evictions and foreclosures. Despite its centrality to the welfare state and to our well‐being, this third pillar has received considerably less attention in comparative social policy research. The dominant welfare state typologies have focused almost exclusively upon income measures and, more recently, on social services, to construct their welfare state categories or “worlds” of welfare while largely neglecting this crucial third pillar. A greater focus on protective welfare legislation can help sharpen the distinctions among welfare states within and across the welfare worlds, which is particularly valuable in light of the ongoing erosion of the other two pillars over the past few decades.     

The forgotten half: analysing the politics of welfare services

Jensen C. The forgotten half: analysing the politics of welfare services Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 404–412 © 2010 The Author(s), International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. This article discusses the welfare state and argues that the service component has been neglected in the mainstream literature. A main reason for the neglect is the lack of theorising on the distinction between the politics of welfare services and the politics of transfers. An analytical framework that may help overcome this problem is presented.     

Giving money to strangers: European welfare states and social trust

Jensen C, Svendsen GT. Giving money to strangers: European welfare states and social trust Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 3–9 © 2009 The Author, Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. Why would you give money to strangers? That is the fundamental question posed by a new body of research into the relationship between social trust and willingness to accept high taxes and extensive welfare states. The literature argues that generalised trust causes and upholds universal welfare state institutions, an entirely plausible explanation of the Scandinavian social democratic welfare states. However, it cannot explain the presence of very large welfare states in Continental Europe, where the level of generalised trust is much lower than in Scandinavia. The article adds to the existing literature by arguing that the ‘bumblebee’ of conservative welfare states is characterised by particularistic trust and familiaristic welfare institutions, which are functional equivalents to the mechanisms found in Scandinavia. Future research into the trust–welfare state relationship should therefore focus on the trust profile of a country to understand how the welfare state provides its citizens with benefits.     

Has the Nordic Welfare Model Been Transformed?

The Nordic welfare model is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Using Denmark we show how a universal welfare state model is gradually being transformed into an emergent multi‐tiered welfare state. Whereas the Danish pension system's having become multi‐tiered in the 1990s, with private schemes – collective and individual – supplementing public schemes is well documented, scant attention has focused on more recent developments in other areas of the welfare state. This article shows how the multi‐tiered welfare state spread in the 2000s to policies for families, the unemployed and the sick. Although Denmark still offers universal coverage in core welfare state areas, the increased use of occupational and fiscal welfare as well as changes in public schemes has gradually transformed the nation into a multi‐tiered welfare state that is more dualistic and individualistic, with participation in the labour market becoming still more important for entitlement to benefits. These profound changes have taken place in such a way that although core characteristics are still in place, new structures and understandings of the welfare state are also developing. Thus classical typologies need revision, so that they include more focus on this combination of universality and institutional attachment to the labour market. Moreover, measures of what welfare comprises should include not only public but also private elements.     

From welfare state to welfare society: toward a viable system of welfare in Japan and England

Laratta R. From welfare state to welfare society: toward a viable system of welfare in Japan and England
Int J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 131–141 © 2009 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. This article compares the impact that public welfare reforms during the 1980s and 1990s had, and are still having, on the relationship between statutory organisations and the non‐profit sector in two developed countries, England and Japan. The author argues that the failure of these reforms clearly shows that, although non‐profit organisations may not be able to effectively replace the state in the provision of welfare services, they can contribute, working closely with the statutory organisations, to the shaping, financing and delivery of public services in a variety of ways. It is also interesting to note that, while the public welfare reforms of the late 1990s in England produced a shift away from a culture based on privatisation and contracting‐out toward a partnership culture of collaboration between state and non‐profit entities, similar reforms in Japan have resulted instead in an uncertain area of deregulation and privatisation.     

How does economic globalisation affect the welfare state? Focusing on the mediating effect of welfare regimes

In recent years the impact of globalisation on the welfare state has become a major issue in comparative policy studies. Some empirical studies demonstrate a negative relationship between globalisation and the welfare state, while others show adverse findings or a non-significant relationship. The impact of globalisation, however, can be neither uniform nor unidirectional because of the differences in the political economies of individual welfare states. Welfare regimes reflect qualitative differences in arrangements of welfare institutions and the associated enduring configuration of the welfare nexus, suggesting that welfare regimes may influence the impact of globalisation on the welfare state. We scrutinise the relationship between globalisation and the welfare state by sampling 18 affluent countries from 1980 to 2001 and concentrating on the mediating effect of three welfare regime types. Our study provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between globalisation and the welfare state using a state-of-the-art analytical technique – the mixed-effect model. Findings suggest that welfare regimes respond differently to the impact of globalisation and therefore mediate the relationship between globalisation and the welfare state. Globalisation negatively affects the welfare state in a social democratic regime, while it marginally affects the welfare state in liberal and conservative regimes.     

Traits of a representative welfare state: the Swedish example

Järkestig Berggren U, Blomberg S, Petersson J. Traits of a representative welfare state: the Swedish example Int J Soc Welfare 2010: 19: 402–411 © 2009 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. The care manager reform and the case manager reform are new reforms in the social care services in Sweden, which are evolving during the 2000s. Together they shape the social care services introducing a new way of decision‐making where representatives for the organisation (care manager) and the users (case manager) negotiate. The reforms have been analysed in two studies with results presented in this article. Using the concepts of role, orientation, function and assignments, it is argued that the managers come to the negotiations on rights from different positions that are both conflicting and complementary. They further mediate the development towards a welfare mix, where the market, social networks and users interact to obtain the public welfare provision. Through this negotiated rights model, it is argued that traits of a representative welfare state emerge, with the distinction of moving the focus to the administrative practices and their differences away from political ideologies.     

Indications of Social Policy Convergence in Europe

This paper explores the extent to which, and the ways in which, it might be justified in talking of a movement towards convergence of social policy within Europe. It reviews definitions and typologies of the welfare state as a prelude to discussion of the different theoretical types and possibilities of social policy integration, which itself leads into consideration of supranational EU developments. The empirical data presented in respect of “social protection” expenditures (and taxation regimes) in general and of “active” and “passive” labour market expenditures in particular, lend support to the notion not merely that the welfare state is not yet over in Europe, but that forms of social policy convergence are in evidence already.     

The Role of Distributional Coalitions in Welfare Regimes: Chile, Costa Rica and El Salvador

Do social policies in Latin America promote or discourage distribution? And if they do promote distribution, are coalitions a prerequisite? Drawing from a typology of welfare regimes elaborated for 18 Latin American countries, this article explores responses to these questions by addressing three emblematic cases: Chile, Costa Rica and El Salvador – that is, countries where the management of social risks primarily revolves around markets, states and families, respectively. Although the article is exploratory, findings suggest that societal coalitions have been, and are likely to continue to be, weak in market welfare regimes, strong in state welfare regimes and contingent to policy sectors in familialistic welfare regimes.     

Determinants of welfare service provision after the Golden Age

Jensen C. Determinants of welfare service provision after the Golden Age Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 125–134 © 2009 The Author, International Journal of Social Welfare © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. The welfare state literature exhibits a ‘transfer bias’ in the sense that very little research exists on welfare services or benefits in‐kind. This article presents one of the first systematic studies on the determinants of welfare service provision since the end of the Golden Age of welfare expansion. The article concludes that partisan factors do not drive change, although historically they may have been pivotal. Instead, new factors, including deindustrialisation, female labour force participation and rising public attention appear to be highly significant. It is argued that new studies need to take seriously both the individual characteristics of services as well as the changing social demands that the services are supposed to meet.     

How to Design a "Liberal" Welfare State: A Comparison of Canada and the United States

My aim in this paper is to show how differences in the programmatic design of two otherwise "liberal" welfare regimes have generated substantially different patterns of welfare state retrenchment and distributive outcomes since the 1970s. Welfare regimes are distinguished by the principles and rules that regulate transactions between the three institutional nuclei from which individuals derive their "welfare" in modern capitalist societies—the state, the market, and the family. Liberal regimes are characterized by a preference for market solutions to welfare problems. While Canada and the United States both represent paradigmatic instances of the liberal regime type, there are long-standing differences in methods both of financing and distributing benefits. Differences in programme design led to substantially different retrenchment strategies from the end of the 1970s, which in turn produced dramatically different distributive outcomes: rising inequality and poverty rates in the United States compared to relative stability in the distribution of income among Canadian families.     

日本地域福利体制研究

二战后,高速经济增长促进了日本福利国家体制的形成。但进入20世纪90年代后,经济发展停滞与人口老龄化加剧,使福利国家体制面临严重挑战。地域福利作为代替福利国家的新的理念登场。日本开始探索从福利国家体制到地域福利体制的转变。地域福利以居民为福利主体,调动社会福利协会等福利组织,形成新兴的"地域共同体",及时有效地为地域社会中需要帮助的对象提供多样化的福利服务。本文主要分析了地域福利的形成过程及地域福利的理念及内容、地域福利实施体制,并对地域福利的核心老年人地域福利进行了阐述。地域福利作为一种协作模式,将对中国发展社区福利也具有启示作用。     

The Contributions of the Health Decommodification Typologies to the Study of the East Asian Welfare Regime

Since Esping‐Andersen presented the three worlds of welfare typology thesis, the study of the classification of welfare regimes has been dominated by his work and the debates surrounding it. This article is concerned with two important responses to his work. The first response is the development of welfare typologies based on the principle of decommodification. The second response is the concern that East Asian countries are underrepresented in the 18 members of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) studied by Esping‐Andersen. As a result, there are calls for expanding the scope of the studies on the classification of welfare regimes to those in East Asia. This article makes contributions to these two responses by presenting two analytical tasks. The first task is to develop two health decommodification typologies based on two different methods (cluster analysis and Esping‐Andersen's index‐based regime construction). Both of them cover the 18 OECD members studied by Esping‐Andersen and four tiger economies (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore). The second task is to demonstrate that the two health decommodification typologies provide important information for the debate on the existence of two essential preconditions for the development of an all‐encompassing East Asian welfare regime, namely the existence of significant differences in the welfare systems between the East Asian countries and the 18 OECD countries studied by Esping‐Andersen (1990 ) and the existence of significant similarities in the welfare systems between East Asian countries.     

Hong Kong: workfare in the world's freest economy

Chan CK. Hong Kong: workfare in the world's freest economy Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 22–32 © 2009 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. Workfare was introduced in many countries to suppress welfare dependency and reduce social security expenditures. However, workfare was launched in Hong Kong when there was only a relatively small social security budget and its citizens still strongly adhered to the ideologies of self‐reliance. It was found that workfare has performed several functions in Hong Kong. First, by forcing unemployed claimants to give up benefits, Hong Kong has been able to save on social security expenditures. Second, workfare has combined with Hong Kong's semi‐democratic polity so that extremely stigmatising welfare measures have been implemented. Third, it has pushed poor citizens into the labour market without having any protection over wages and working hours. Thus, the combination of workfare and a semi‐democratic polity has successfully suppressed Hong Kong's welfare demands and strengthened its self‐help spirit. As a result, Hong Kong's minimal social security scheme and its low tax policy have been maintained.     

Welfare program participation among rural‐to‐urban migrant workers in China

Xu Q, Guan X, Yao F. Welfare program participation among rural‐to‐urban migrant workers in China Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 10–21 © 2010 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare. An estimated 225 million Chinese people have migrated to cities from China's rural areas over the past two decades. These rural‐to‐urban migrant workers have greatly challenged China's welfare system. The pre‐reform welfare system was a duel scheme with an urban–rural distinction in which rural residents were not covered by state‐run welfare programs and had to rely on their families and rural collectives. The development of employment‐based social insurance programs in 1999 made social welfare programs available for rural‐to‐urban migrant workers. Using an anonymous survey conducted in seven cities across China in 2006, we found that social insurance program participation rates were low among rural‐to‐urban migrant workers. Individual factors, including lack of knowledge of welfare programs and of a willingness to participate, and macro‐level factors, including type of employer and industry, are critical in determining migrant workers' participation in welfare programs. Implications for policies and practice are discussed.     

Class and gender inequalities in different types of welfare states: the Social Citizenship Indicator Program (SCIP)

Korpi W. Class and gender inequalities in different types of welfare states: the Social Citizenship Indicator Program (SCIP) Int J Soc Welfare 2010: ??: ??–??© 2010 The Author(s), Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare. This article considers the role of legislated welfare state institutions as mediators of effects of political and structural forces on citizens' levels of living of relevance to inequalities in health and mortality. The focus is on institutional structures of welfare state programmes relevant to class inequality, as indicated by income inequalities, and to gender inequality, conceived of as differences in agency. I introduce the Social Citizenship Indicator Program, a database providing quantitative and qualitative information on structures of main social insurance programmes in 18 countries from 1930 to 2000, on about 300,000 data points. It is used to delineate types of distributive institutions of relevance for income inequality. Institutions relevant for gendered agency inequality affect choices by women, especially mothers, between unpaid and paid work. Driving forces behind the emergence of differences in distributive institutions are discussed, and patterns of class and gender inequalities are outlined.