| Abstract: | This response deals with Atherton's objections in so far as they are relevant and restates the importance of clarity about the content of the term "welfare state". It suggests that the term be restricted to states which offer a minimum real level of living to all their citizens, and shows that it is possible in both principle and practice to compress income inequalities to a point where poverty is effectively abolished. The article discusses some of the logical and semantic problems that have arisen as terms such as "welfare state" and "welfare regime" have been adapted to make international comparisons. |
