'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.     

Weathering the Storm

Abstract

Esping-Andersen's 'three worlds of welfare' typology has been the subject of an intensive and unrelenting academic debate for the past decade. This debate has been fairly extensive in its, overwhelmingly negative, evaluation but it has ignored what is arguably the most important aspect of the assessment of the typology: its robustness and validity over time. This paper provides such an assessment by presenting an updated version of Esping-Andersen's decommodification index. It compares the new index with Esping-Andersen's original and uses it to judge both the continuing validity of the 'three worlds of welfare' and broader theories that have been circulated about the convergence of welfare states.     

Thirty years of the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A review of reviews

In the 30 or so years since the publication of Gosta Esping-Andersenapos;s Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a number of rival welfare state typologies have emerged. This article has two broad aims. First, we review the reviews of welfare state typologies, pointing to issues of often unclear case selection and a wide range of concepts, variables, and methods, resulting in a variety of worlds of welfare and their constituent nations. We show that there is a great variety in the welfare modelling business at two different levels. Reviews vary significantly in terms of the number and composition of included studies, which has made it difficult to sum up the “state of the art.” Individual studies included in the reviews also vary significantly in terms of issues such as aims, concepts, variables, and methods. Second, we produce a new review, which adds value as it is based on a clearer search strategy, and includes more recent material that was not available in earlier reviews. This finds that there is a great variety in terms of process (concepts, variables, methods, and number of countries) and findings (the number and composition of “worlds”). We argue that the country classification seems to show less consensus that previous reviews, with fewer “pure” nations (i.e., agreement between studies). We suggest that in order to provide a clear point of engagement, future reviews need to pay more attention to a clear and explicit search strategy, including issues such as inclusion criteria.