090507 Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More a State-Of-The-Art Report Journal of European Social Policy

8/2/2019 090507 Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More a State-Of-The-Art Report Journal of European Social Policy

1/23

http://esp.sagepub.com

Journal of European Social Policy

DOI: 10.1177/09528720020120021142002; 12; 137Journal of European Social Policy

WIL Arts and John GelissenThree worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report

http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/137The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of European Social PolicyAdditional services and information for

http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/2/137Citations

at RITSUMEIKAN UNIV LIBRARY on April 12, 2009http://esp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/2/137http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/2/137http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/23

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

Wil Arts and John Gelissen*, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Article

Journal of European Social Policy 0958-9287 (200205)12:2 Copyright 2002 SAGE Publications, London, ThousandOaks and New Delhi, Vol 12 (2): 137158; 023114

Summary This paper surveys the debateregarding Esping-Andersens typology ofwelfare states and reviews the modified oralternative typologies ensuing from thisdebate. We confine ourselves to the classifica-tions which have been developed by Esping-Andersens critics in order to cope with the

following alleged shortcomings of his typol-ogy: (1) the misspecification of the Mediter-ranean welfare states as immature Continentalones; (2) the labelling of the Antipodeanwelfare states as belonging to the liberalregime type; (3) a neglect of the gender-dimension in social policy. We reconstructseveral typologies of welfare states in order toestablish, first, whether real welfare states arequite similar to others or whether they arerather unique specimens, and, second, whetherthere are three ideal-typical worlds of welfare

capitalism or more. We conclude that realwelfare states are hardly ever pure types andare usually hybrid cases; and that the issue ofideal-typical welfare states cannot be satisfac-torily answered given the lack of formal theo-rizing and the still inconclusive outcomes ofcomparative research. In spite of this conclu-sion there is plenty of reason to continue towork on and with the original or modifiedtypologies.

Key words comparative social policy

analysis, typology, welfare state regimes,worlds of welfare capitalism

Rsum Nous prsentons un tat des lieuxdes dbats qui ont entour la typologie desEtats providences propose par Esping-Andersen ainsi que des typologies modifies oualternatives qui ont t prsentes par la suite.Nous nous limiterons aux classifications quiont t proposes par les critiques du travail

dEsping Andersen qui visaient dpasser lesprtendues limitations de sa typologie.1)une mauvaise spcification des Etats Providencemditerranens comme des Etats providencescontinentaux inachevs 2) la labelisation desEtats providences des Antipodes commeappartenant au rgime de type libral 3) lanon prise en compte de leffet genre dans lespolitiques sociales. Nous avons reconstruit dif-frentes typologies dEtats Providences afindtablir, tout dabord si la ralit des EtatsProvidences est unique ou si certains sont fort

semblables et ensuite sil existe trois idal typedEtats providences ou davantage?Nous sommes arriv la conclusion que:

premirement les Etats providences rels sontrarement des cas purs mais constituent bienplus des hybridations. En deuxime lieu, on nepeut rpondre de manire satisfaisante la ques-tion de savoir le nombre didal types dEtatsProvidences du fait de labsence de thorisa-tion adquate et parce que les rsultats desrecherches comparatives ne permettent pas deconclure dans un sens ou un autre. Troisime-

ment, en dpit de cette conclusion, il existe demultiples raisons pour continuer travailler suret partir des typologies originales ou modifies.

* Author to whom correspondence should be sent: John Gelissen, Department of Sociology, TilburgUniversity, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.

http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepulications.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepulications.com/


3/23


4/23

means that typologies are only fruitful to anempirical science that is still in its infancy. Incontrast, a mature empirical science empha-

sizes the construction of theories and not theformulation of typologies. There are goodreasons to argue that the comparative macro-sociology of welfare states is still in statunascendi. Therefore the formulation of typolo-gies could be useful. Before answering thequestion of whether welfare state typologiesbased on ideal-types are not only useful butalso have explanatory value, we first considerwhat Esping-Andersen himself says about themethodological status of his typology.

He addresses the question of whether the

welfare state is merely the sum total of anations social policy repertoire, or whether itis an institutional force above and beyond agiven policy array. His answer is straightfor-ward: the welfare state cannot be regarded asthe sum total of social policies, it is more thana numerical cumulation of discrete programmes(Esping-Andersen, 1994: 712). Therefore, inthe relation between state and economy, hedefines welfare state regimes as a complex oflegal and organizational features that are sys-tematically interwoven. Esping-Andersen

(1990: 3, 26, 32) boldly suggests that whenwe focus on the principles embedded inwelfare states, variations are not linearly dis-tributed around a common denominator. Theyare clustered around three highly diverseregime-types, each organized according to itsown discrete logic of organization, stratifica-tion, and societal integration. Therefore, wecan identify three models, or ideal-types ofwelfare states: conservative, liberal and social-democratic. These ideal-types owe theirorigins to different historical forces and they

follow qualitatively different developmentaltrajectories. Contrary to the ideal world ofwelfare states, the real world is likely toexhibit hybrid forms. There are no one-dimen-sional nations in the sense of a pure case.Today, every country presents a system mix.Esping-Andersen (1997: 171) argues thatdespite this it is fruitful to construct ideal-types for the sake of economy: to be able to

see the forest rather than the myriad of uniquetrees. However, he warns of the danger thatthe resulting forest may bear little resemblance

to reality.Looking for a more detailed answer to the

question of the theoretical status of ideal-typesand typologies, we must return to the locusclassicus: Webers methodological essays.Weber (1949; 1968 [1922]) deals with twodifferent kinds of ideal-types, individualisticand holistic ones (cf. Hempel, 1965 [1952];Rogers, 1969; Watkins, 1969 [1953]). Esping-Andersens ideal-types of welfare state regimesare holistic. They propose to give a birds eyeview of the broad characteristics of a social or

historical situation. The ideality of such typeslies in their simplification and aloofness fromdetail. They emphasize the essential featuresof a situation considered as a whole. By com-paring an impure welfare state with an ideal-typical one both considered as a whole thedeviations of the former from the latter arethrown into relief. It is the simultaneousknowledge of both the ideal-type and the real-type that enables holistic ideal-types to beused as conceptual instruments for compari-son with and measurement of reality

(Watkins, 1969 [1953]: 4589).From a logical point of view (von Kempski,

1972), the general term welfare state is alabel for a certain class of democratic indus-trial capitalist societies, characterized bycertain properties (i.e. social citizenship or thefact that more or less extensive welfare provi-sions are legally provided, or, in still otherwords, the fact that the state plays a principalpart in the welfare mix alongside the market,civil society, and the family). Welfare stateshave seldom been established as a result of big

plans or big fights, but mostly as results ofcomplex processes and successive steps ofsocial and political engineering in the historyof democratic industrial capitalist societies. Inspite of the largely incremental emergence ofwelfare states, Esping-Andersen is of theopinion that this class of societies does notconsist of a great number of unique cases,but that they cluster together in three distinct

Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? 139

Journal of European Social Policy 2002 12 (2)

http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


5/23

subclasses. Each of the three types he identi-fies with a deep tradition in political mobiliza-tion and political philosophy (conservatism,

liberalism and socialism respectively) whichthen link to particular features of contempo-rary social policy (and broader politicaleconomy) configurations.

To determine the characteristics of thesesubclasses without going back in history, twoindicators are crucial: decommodification andstratification. Together they define a two-dimensional property-space. Although realwelfare states are most of the time not unique,they certainly are never completely similar.This means that they are almost always

impure types. The consequence is thatalthough they cluster together in three sub-classes it is not always easy to classify all casesunambiguously. In practice it is possible thatdifferent judges assign a particular welfarestate to different subclasses. Interjudge valid-ity can be accomplished by assessing whichideal-type the extreme limiting cases in thisordering they approximate best. By compar-ing impure real welfare states to ideal-types,the deviations of the impure real-types arecontrasted with the purity of the ideal-type.

This simultaneous recognizability of both theideal and the real-type make it possible to useholistic ideal-types as conceptual instrumentsfor comparison and for the empirical determi-nation of reality (Watkins, 1969 [1953]). Butaccurate ordering is not enough. After all,ideal-types are also instruments for providingexplanations. If we use them to satisfy thisobjective, they should not only be understoodas a conceptual system but also as a systemof theoretical statements. These shouldencompass testable, general hypotheses or, at

least, provide a framework for interpretation(Hempel, 1965 [1952]).

To what conclusion does the precedingreflection lead? In reply to Esping-Andersensfiercest critics, we can say that their criticismis unjust if certain conditions are met. Thefirst condition is that the typology is a validand reliable instrument for classifying welfarestates. Whether this condition holds will be

tested later on in this paper. The second con-dition is that the typology is a means to anend explanation and not an end in itself.

Esping-Andersen uses the regime types notonly as dependent variables but also as inde-pendent variables to explain cross-nationalvariations in dependent variables such associal behaviour and social attitudes. He alsouses the typology to postulate and explain theoccurrence of positive feedback loops. Accord-ing to him, existing institutional welfarearrangements heavily determine, maybe evenover-determine, national trajectories (Esping-Andersen, 1999: 4). This suggests path-dependency. This is because the stratification

outcomes of particular arrangements shapeclass coalitions, which tend to reproduce theoriginal institutional matrix and welfare out-comes. This means that policies provide incen-tives that encourage individuals and groups toact in ways that lock in a particular path ofpolicy development (cf. Pierson, 1993).

A third condition for accepting typologizingas a legitimate endeavour is that theory con-struction on welfare states is still in an earlystage. This is also true. Boje (1996: 18) arguesthat the present state of the art in most

welfare state research is characterized by alack of theory. Few theoretical alternatives areavailable. At the most, one can think ofmarxist explanations (see, for exampleTherborn, 1995) or de Swaans (1988) synthe-sis of rational-choice theories and figurationalsociology. The construction of ideal-types canbe fruitful under the condition that these willeventually lead to theories. We will return tothis issue in the final section.

Three worlds of welfarecapitalism . . .

The central explanatory questions Esping-Andersen (1990: 4, 105) asks are: Why is theworld composed of three qualitatively differ-ent welfare-state logics? Why do nations crys-tallize into distinct regime-clusters? Thesequestions demand a theoretical answer. Since

140 Arts and Gelissen


http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


6/23

he is of the opinion that the existing theoreti-cal models of the welfare state are inadequate,reconceptualization and retheorization are

necessary. In answering these questions hestarts with the orienting statement that historyand politics matter. Or, more specifically: Thehistorical characteristics of states, especiallythe history of political class coalitions as themost decisive cause of welfare-state variations,have played a determinate role in forging theemergence of their welfare-statism (1990: 1).

What are the historical and political forcesbehind the regime differences? According toEsping-Andersen (1990: 29), three interactingfactors are significant: the nature of class

mobilization (especially of the working class),class-political action structures, and the his-torical legacy of regime institutionalization.The provisional answer to his central ques-tions is therefore: If you look at the history ofso-called welfare states you find three ideal-typical trajectories, a liberal, a conservativeand a social-democratic one. Fortunately, onedoes not have to go back in history, however,in order to typify real welfare states. We cancharacterize them, as we have mentionedbefore, by looking at their positions on two

fundamental dimensions of welfare statism:

1. The degree of decommodification, i.e. thedegree to which a (social) service is ren-dered as a matter of right, and the degreeto which a person can maintain a liveli-hood without reliance on the market.

2. The kind of social stratification and soli-darities, i.e. which social stratificationsystem is promoted by social policy anddoes the welfare state build narrow orbroad solidarities?

What are the characteristics of the three dis-tinct regime-types to which the historicalforces lead? To answer this question, Esping-Andersen (1990: 73) argues that although thebefore-mentioned dimensions are conceptuallyindependent, according to his theory hewould expect that there is sufficient covaria-tion for distinct regime clusters to emerge. In

accordance with this theoretical expectation,he succeeds in empirically identifying threeclosely paralleled models ideal-types of

regime-types on both the stratification and thedecommodification dimension. There appearsto be a clear coincidence of high decommodi-fication and strong universalism in theScandinavian, social-democratically influencedwelfare states. There is an equally clear coinci-dence of low decommodification and strongindividualistic self-reliance in the liberalAngloSaxon nations. Finally, the ContinentalEuropean countries group closely together ascorporatist and etatist, and are also modestlydecommodifying (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 77).

In spite of anomalies such as theNetherlands and Switzerland, the overallpicture is convincing, at least at first glance.This empirical success permits a more exten-sive description of these three worlds ofwelfare capitalism. First, there is the liberaltype of welfare capitalism, which embodiesindividualism and the primacy of the market.The operation of the market is encouraged bythe state, either actively subsidizing privatewelfare schemes or passively by keeping(often means tested) social benefits to a

modest level for the demonstrably needy.There is little redistribution of incomes withinthis type of welfare state and the realm ofsocial rights is rather limited. This welfareregime is characterized by a low level ofdecommodification. The operation of theliberal principle of stratification leads to divi-sion in the population: on the one hand, aminority of low-income state dependants and,on the other hand, a majority of people ableto afford private social insurance plans. In thistype of welfare state, women are encouraged

to participate in the labour force, particularlyin the service sector.

Second, there is a world of conservative-corporatist welfare states, which is typified bya moderate level of decommodification. Thisregime type is shaped by the twin historicallegacy of Catholic social policy,2 on the oneside, and corporatism and etatism on theother side. This blend had three important





7/23

consequences in terms of stratification. In thefirst place, the direct influence of the state isrestricted to the provision of income mainte-

nance benefits related to occupational status.This means that the sphere of solidarityremains quite narrow and corporatist.Moreover, labour market participation bymarried women is strongly discouraged,because corporatist regimes influenced bythe Church are committed to the preserva-tion of traditional family structures. Anotherimportant characteristic of the conservativeregime type is the principle of subsidiarity: thestate will only interfere when the familyscapacity to service its members is exhausted

(Esping-Andersen, 1990: 27).Finally, Esping-Andersen recognizes a

social-democratic world of welfare capitalism.Here, the level of decommodification is high,and the social-democratic principle of stratifi-cation is directed towards achieving a systemof generous universal and highly distributivebenefits not dependent on any individual con-tributions. In contrast to the liberal type ofwelfare states, this model crowds out themarket and, consequently, constructs anessentially universal solidarity in favour of the

welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 28).Social policy within this type of welfare stateis aimed at a maximization of capacities forindividual independence. Women in particular regardless of whether they have children ornot are encouraged to participate in thelabour market, especially in the public sector.Countries that belong to this type of welfarestate regime are generally dedicated to fullemployment. Only by making sure that asmany people as possible have a job is it possi-ble to maintain such a high-level solidaristic

welfare system.

. . . Or more?

In the Introduction, we indicated the tremen-dous impact of Esping-Andersens work oncomparative social policy analysis. Since then,several authors have developed alternative

typologies or added one or more types toexisting classifications for greater empiricalrefinement. From this vast array of welfare

state typologies we have selected six classifica-tions, which we think draw attention to inter-esting characteristics of welfare states notdirectly included in Esping-Andersens classifi-cation. All these typologies and their maincharacteristics are summarized in Table 1.

These alternative classifications relate tothree important criticisms of Esping-Andersens classification (for these and otherpoints of critique see Schmidt, 1998; Gough,2000b).3 First, the misspecification of theMediterranean welfare states; second, labelling

the Antipodean welfare states as belonging tothe liberal welfare state regime; and finally,the neglect of the gender-dimension in socialpolicy. In the following sections, we willdiscuss these criticisms in more detail andpresent some of the alternative classificationsdeveloped by his critics.

The Mediterranean

One important criticism of Esping-Andersens

classification is that he did not systematicallyinclude the Mediterranean countries.Specifically, in The Three Worlds of WelfareCapitalism Italy belongs according to him to the family of the corporatist welfare stateregimes, whereas Spain, Portugal and Greeceare not covered by his typology. Although headmits that these countries have some impor-tant characteristics in common i.e. aCatholic imprint (with the exception ofGreece) and a strong familialism (Esping-Andersen, 1997: 180) he seems to include

them in the continental/corporatist model. Hisomission of a systematic treatment of theMediterranean has brought about a livelydebate about the existence of a Southern orLatin Rim model of social policy. Forexample, Katrougalos (1996) supportsEsping-Andersens position by arguing thatthe Mediterranean countries do not form adistinct group but rather a subcategory, a



http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


8/23
http://esp.sagepub.com/


9/23

Journalof

EuropeanSocialPolicy200212(2)

Table 1 continued

Types of welfare states and their characteristics Ind

2. Bismarck: strong link between work position (and/or family state) and social entitlements; Bbenefits proportional to income; financing through contributions; reasonably substantial socialassistance benefits; insurance schemes mainly governed by unions and employer organizations

3. Scandinavian: social protection as a citizenship right; universal coverage; relatively generous Ffixed benefits for various social risks; financing mainly through fiscal revenues; strongorganizational integration

4. Southern: fragmented system of income guarantees linked to work position; generous benefits Owithout articulated net of minimum social protection; health care as a right of citizenship;particularism in payments of cash benefits and financing; financing through contributions andfiscal revenues

Bonoli (1997) 1. British: Low percentage of social expenditure financed through contributions (Beveridge); low Bsocial expenditure as a percentage of GDP m

2. Continental: High percentage of social expenditure financed through contributions (Bismarck);high social expenditure as a percentage of GDP

3. Nordic: Low percentage of social expenditure financed through contributions (Beveridge); high Qsocial expenditure as a percentage of GDP

4. Southern: High percentage of social expenditure financed through contributions (Bismarck);low social expenditure as a percentage of GDP

Korpi & Palme (1998) 1. Basic Security: Entitlements based on citizenship or contributions; application of the flat-ratebenefit principle

2. Corporatist: Entitlements based on occupational category andlabour force participation; use of Bthe earnings-related benefit principle

3. Encompassing: Entitlement based on citizenship andlabour force participation; use of the flat- Brate and earnings-related benefit principle4. Targeted: Eligibility based on proved need; use of the minimum benefit principle G5. Voluntary State Subsidized: Eligibility based on membership or contributions; application of the

flat-rate or earnings-related principle

atRITSUMEIKAN

UNIVLIBRARYonApril12,2009


Downloadedfrom
http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


10/23

variant of the Continental model. They aremerely underdeveloped species of theContinental model, welfare states in their

infancy, with the main common characteristicsbeing the immaturity of the social protectionsystems and some similar social and familystructures (Katrougalos, 1996: 43). However,according to other commentators (Leibfried,1992; Ferrera, 1996; Bonoli, 1997; Trifiletti,1999) it seems logical to see the SouthEuropean countries as a separate cluster.They have developed classifications ofEuropean welfare states which try to show theexistence of a separate southern model ofsocial policy.

Leibfried (1992) distinguishes four socialpolicy or poverty regimes within the countriesof the European Community: the Scandina-vian welfare states, the Bismarck countries,the AngloSaxon countries and the Latin Rimcountries. These policy regimes are based ondifferent policy models modern, institu-tional, residual and rudimentary in whichsocial citizenship has developed in differentand sometimes incomplete ways. Within thesepolicy regimes, welfare state institutions havea different function in combating poverty.

However, it is particularly important thatLeibfried adds a fourth category the LatinRim countries to Esping-Andersens originalclassification. He emphasizes as an importantcharacteristic of these countries the lack of anarticulated social minimum and a right towelfare.

Ferrera (1996) also argues explicitly for theinclusion of a Southern model of socialpolicy (1996: 47). He concentrates on fourdimensions of social security systems: the rulesof access (eligibility rules), the conditions

under which benefits are granted, the regula-tions to finance social protection and, finally,the organizational-managerial arrangementsto administrate the various social securityschemes. Based on these dimensions, he makesa distinction between the Scandinavian,AngloSaxon, Bismarckian and Southerncountries. The Scandinavian countries arecharacterized by universal coverage for the

risks of life. The right to social protection isattributed on the basis of citizenship. TheAngloSaxon family of welfare states is also

characterized by a highly inclusive social secu-rity coverage, but only in the area of healthcare can one speak of fully universal risk cov-erage. Also flat-rate benefits and means testingplay an important role. In the third group ofcountries, the relationship between socialsecurity entitlements, a persons labour marketstatus and role within the family (breadwinneror not) is still clearly visible. Contributionsplay an important role in financing thevarious schemes. Almost everybody has socialinsurance coverage through their own or

derived rights. Finally, the social protectionsystems of Southern countries are highly frag-mented and, although there is no articulatednet of minimum social protection, some bene-fits levels are very generous (such as old agepensions). Moreover, in these countries healthcare is institutionalized as a right of citizen-ship. However, in general, there is relativelylittle state intervention in the welfare sphere.Another important feature is the high level ofparticularism with regard to cash benefits andfinancing, expressed in high levels of clien-

telism. The most important features of eachtype are summarized in Table 1.

Bonoli (1997) uses the Mediterranean coun-tries among others to develop the finalclassification we wish to discuss in thissection. He is especially critical of the decom-modification approach. According to him, itdoes not allow one to discriminate effectivelybetween the Bismarckian and the Beveridgeanapproaches to social policy. As an alternative,he combines two approaches to the classifica-tion of welfare states. One concentrates on

the how much dimension (emphasized in theAngloSaxon literature) and the other on thehow dimension of social policy (emphasizedin the Continental-European or French tradi-tion). As an empirical indicator of the firstdimension, he uses social expenditure as a pro-portion of GDP, and of the second dimensionthe percentage of social expenditure financedthrough contributions. These indicators lead





11/23

him to identify four types of countries: theBritish countries, the Continental Europeancountries, the Nordic countries and the

Southern countries, thus giving credit to theproposal of a Southern model.

Upon examining the combined argumentsof Leibfried, Ferrera and Bonoli, as presentedin Table 1, it appears that a strong similarityexists among their first three types and thoseof Esping-Andersen. However, all threeauthors add a fourth Mediterranean typeof welfare state regime to the original Esping-Andersenian classification. Using empiricalevidence, they argue that this is a prototyperather than a subcategory of the continental/

corporatist model.

The Antipodes

Esping-Andersen also discusses the Antipodeancountries (i.e. Australia and New Zealand) asrepresentatives of the liberal welfare stateregime. This is because of their marginal com-mitment to public welfare and strong relianceon means testing. However, according toCastles (1998), Australia and New Zealand

have a more particular and a more inclusiveapproach to social protection than the stan-dard liberal form. Thresholds are set at com-paratively high levels, so that a large part ofthe population receives some means-testedbenefits. The result is that the Antipodesexhibit the worlds most comprehensive systemsof means-tested income support benefits.Redistribution has been traditionally pursuedthrough wage controls and employment secu-rity rather than social programmes. Incomeguarantees, realized by using market regulation

thus play an important role in the institutionalset-up of these welfare states. It therefore seemsthat the Antipodean countries represent a sep-arate social policy model. It led Castles andMitchell (1993) to question whether socialspending is the only route to greater incomeredistribution, implying that there may be otherways than income maintenance by which statesmay mitigate the effects of market forces.

In a discussion of their study, Hill (1996)points out that Castles and Mitchells critiqueof Esping-Andersens work essentially follows

two lines. In the first place, they draw atten-tion to the fact that political activity from theLeft may have been introduced into thosecountries in the achievement of equality inpre-tax, pre-transfer income rather than in thepursuit of equalization through social policy.Second, they argue again about Australiabut also with relevance to the United King-dom that the Esping-Andersen approach dis-regards the potential for income-relatedbenefits to make an effective contribution toredistribution. Australian income maintenance

is almost entirely means-tested. It uses anapproach that neither concentrates on a liberal-type redistribution to the very poor, norresembles the more universal social-democraticand hierarchical solidaristic conservativeideal-types highlighted in Esping-Andersensstudy (Hill, 1996: 46). This is the reason whyCastles and Mitchell develop an alternative,four-way classification of welfare states:Liberal, Conservative, Non-Right Hegemonyand Radical. This utilizes the level of welfareexpenditure (i.e. household transfers as a per-

centage of GDP); average benefit equality; andincome and profit taxes as a percentage ofGDP.

Other evidence for the exceptional positionof the Antipodean countries, specificallyAustralia, is found when countries are classi-fied according to the typology developed byKorpi and Palme (1998). This is based oninstitutional characteristics of welfare states.They try to investigate the causal factorswhich influence the institutional aspects of thewelfare state on the one hand, and the effects

of institutions on the formation of interests,preferences and identities as well as on thedegree of poverty and inequality in a society on the other hand. They argue that institu-tional structures can be expected to reflect therole of conflicts among interest groups, whilethey are also likely to form important frame-works for the definitions of interests and iden-tities among citizens. They can thereby be





12/23

expected to influence coalition formation,which is significant for income redistributionand poverty. As the basis of their classifica-

tion, Korpi and Palme take the institutionalstructures of two social programmes old agepensions and sickness cash benefits whichthey consider to lie at the heart of the welfarestate. The institutional structures of the twoprogrammes are classified according to threeaspects: the bases of entitlements, the princi-ples applied to determine benefit levels (towhat extent social insurance should replacelost income), and the governance of a socialinsurance programme (whether or not repre-sentatives of employers and employees partici-

pate in the governing of a programme). Basedon these three aspects, they discriminateamong five different ideal-types of institu-tional structures: the targeted (empiricallyexemplified by the Australian case), voluntarystate subsidized, corporatist, basic securityand encompassing model. In Table 1, theseideal-types and their most important featuresare delineated. Again, the Esping-Andersenmodel stands. However, a number of countriesare no longer considered to belong to a sub-category of his three prototypes, but to a new

prototype.

Gender, familialism and late femalemobilization

By explicitly incorporating gender, severalauthors have tried to reconceptualize thedimensions of welfare state variation. Sub-jecting the mainstream welfare state typolo-gies to an analysis of the differential places ofmen and women within welfare states would,

according to them, produce valuable insights.This does not mean, however, that the charac-teristics used to construct the typologies areexhaustive (Sainsbury, 1996: 41). Genderanalysis suggests that there are whole areas ofsocial policy that Esping-Anderson simplymisses. What seems to be particularly lackingis a systematic discussion of the familys placein the provision of welfare and care. Not only

the state and the market provide welfare, butalso families. A further omission is that thereis no serious treatment of the degree to which

women are excluded from or included in thelabour market.4 Instead of employing the all-or-nothing words inclusion and exclusionto gender differences, it seems sensible tostress the importance of partial citizenship(Bulmer and Rees, 1996: 275). Womenobtained full civil and political rights a consid-erable time ago, but with regard to socialrights, women are still discriminated against,sometimes formally, and nearly always infor-mally because of different labour market posi-tions, linked to different gender roles.

According to many feminist authors, it is thesexual division of paid and unpaid work especially care and domestic labour thatneeds incorporating in the typology (Lewis,1992; OConnor, 1993; Orloff, 1993;Sainsbury, 1996; OConnor et al., 1999).

With respect to another issue, social care,Daly and Lewis (2000: 289) argue that differ-ent styles of social policy have incorporatedthe key element of social care differently. Theyidentify certain tendencies concerning care inspecific welfare states. For example, the

Scandinavian countries form a distinct groupin that they have strongly institutionalizedcare for both the elderly and children. In theMediterranean welfare states, care tends to beprivatized to the family whereas, in Germany,it is seen as most appropriately a function ofvoluntary service providers. In France, astrong distinction is made between care forchildren and for the elderly, with a strong col-lective sector in the former and little voluntaryinvolvement. Another form is found in theBeveridge-oriented welfare states Great

Britain and Ireland where a strong distinc-tion is also made between caring for childrenand caring for (elderly) adults. In the former as opposed to the latter little collectivizationhas taken place. Although they do not reallyclassify welfare states into actual clusters,Daly and Lewis make a strong case for usingsocial care as a critical dimension foranalysing variations.



http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


13/23

As far as the gender gap in earnings is con-cerned, Gornick and Jacobs (1998) found thatEsping-Andersens regime-types do capture

important distinctions among contemporarywelfare states. Their results showed thatthe size of the public sector, the extent ofthe public-sector earnings premium and theimpact of the public sector on gender differen-tials in wages all varied more across regimesthan within them. In this way, they showedthe fruitfulness of emphasizing the gender per-spective in Esping-Andersens classification ofwelfare states. Moreover, Trifiletti (1999)incorporated a gender perspective into Esping-Andersens classification by showing that a

systematic relationship exists between thelevel of decommodification and whether thestate treats women as wives and mothers or asworkers. The latter is also an importantdimension identified by Lewis (1989).

Finally, Siaroff (1994) also argues that theexisting literature does not pay enough atten-tion to how gender inequality is embedded insocial policy and welfare states. In order toarrive at a more gender-sensitive typology ofwelfare state regimes, he examines a variety ofindicators of gender equality and inequality in

work and welfare. He compares the workwelfare choice of men and women (i.e.whether to partake in the welfare state or toengage in paid labour) across countries. Thisallows him to distinguish among a Protestantsocial-democratic, a Protestant liberal, anAdvanced Christian-democratic and a LateFemale Mobilization welfare state regime.Although the labels suggest otherwise, thistypology also shows a strong overlap with theEsping-Andersenian classification. Only thelatter type the Late Female Mobilization

welfare state regime is an addition, whichresembles the previously distinguishedMediterranean type of welfare states.

Ideal and real-types

In Table 1, we ordered the types discussedabove broadly in accordance with the worlds

of welfare capitalism as defined by Esping-Andersen. For example, Bonolis Continentaltype is very much like Esping-Andersens

Conservative type; in both types contributionsplay a rather important role. Equally, Castlesand Mitchells Non-Right Hegemony typeshows a large amount of congruence withEsping-Andersens Social-democratic type,because of the high degree of universalism andequalization in social policy. We could go on,but we would like to raise another issue.

One may wonder whether, if the relation-ship among the different typologies is asstrong as we assume, this close correspon-dence of types will also be apparent in the

actual clustering of countries. Although notevery classification developed by these authorscovers the same nations, there is a rather largeoverlap which makes it possible to answer thisquestion. For that purpose, Table 2 shows theextent to which the ideal-types constructedby Esping-Andersens critics coincide withhis own ideal-types. We then added the ideal-types, proposed by these critics, placingrelated ideal-types, when possible, under oneheading. This results in five instead of theoriginal three worlds of welfare capitalism

and answers our original question. Next, inTable 2 we arranged the real-types accordingto the different ideal-types, thereby followingthe suggestions of the different authors.

It appears that, even when one uses differ-ent indicators to classify welfare states, somecountries emerge as standard examples,approximating certain ideal-types. The UnitedStates is, according to everyones classifica-tion, the prototype of a welfare state whichcan best be denoted as liberal (with or withoutthe suffix: Protestant, AngloSaxon or basic

security). Germany approaches theBismarckian/Continental/conservative ideal-type and Sweden approximates the social-democratic ideal-type (Scandinavian/Nordic).

However, consensus seems to end here. Forexample, according to some, Italy can best beassigned to the second, corporatist/continen-tal/conservative type, but belongs, accordingto others, along with Greece, Spain and





14/23

JournalofEuropeanSocialPolicy200212(2)

Table 2 Classification of countries according to seven typologies

Type

I II III IV

Esping-Andersen Liberal Conservative Social-democratic(Decommodification)

Australia Italy Austria Canada Japan Belgium

United States France Netherlands New Zealand Germany Denmark Ireland Finland Norway United Kingdom Switzerland Sweden

Leibfried AngloSaxon Bismarck Scandinavian Latin Rim United States Germany Sweden Spain Australia Austria Norway Portugal New Zealand Finland Greece United Kingdom Denmark Italy

France

Castles & Mitchell Liberal Conservative Non-Right Hegemony Ireland West-Germany Belgium Japan Italy Denmark

Switzerland Netherlands Norway United States Sweden

Siaroff Protestant Liberal Advanced Christian-democratic Protestant Social-democratic Late Female Mobi Australia Austria Denmark Greece Canada Belgium Finland Ireland New Zealand France Norway Italy United Kingdom West-Germany Sweden Japan United States Luxembourg Portugal

Netherlands Spain Switzerland

Ferrera (Europe only) AngloSaxon Bismarckian Scandinavian Southern United Kingdom Germany Sweden Italy Ireland France Denmark Spain

Belgium Norway Portugal Netherlands Finland Greece Luxembourg Austria Switzerland

atRITSUMEIKAN



Downloadedfrom
http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


15/23

Journalof


Table 2 continued

Type

I II III IV

Bonoli (Europe only) British Continental Nordic Southern United Kingdom Netherlands Sweden Italy Ireland France Finland Switzerland

Belgium Norway Spain

Germany Denmark Greece Luxembourg Portugal

Korpi & Palme Basic Security Corporatist Encompassing Canada Austria Finland Denmark Belgium Norway Netherlands France Sweden New Zealand Germany Switzerland Italy Ireland Japan United Kingdom United States

Note: Underlined countries indicate a prototype.

atRITSUMEIKAN



Downloadedfrom
http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


16/23

Portugal to a distinctive Mediterranean type.The same holds for Australia which mayeither be classified as liberal or is the proto-

type of a separate, radical welfare state.Nevertheless, as far as these countries andtypes are concerned, consensus is strongerthan was initially assumed. One must,however, recognize that discussions are mainlyconcerned with whether certain types ofwelfare states are either separate categories orare subgroups of certain main types.

Hybrid cases are a bigger problem. TheNetherlands and Switzerland are clear exam-ples of this. If we take, for example, a closerlook at the Dutch case, we see that Esping-

Andersen (1990) originally assigned theNetherlands to the social-democratic type,whereas Korpi and Palme see it as liberallyoriented; the basic security type. However,most authors place the Netherlands in thesecond category of corporatist/continental/conservative welfare states. This is also thechoice of Visser and Hemerijck (1997),perhaps the foremost specialists on the Dutchwelfare state. Curiously enough, this is doneusing Esping-Andersens work as a constant,positive reference. If we have another look at

Esping-Andersens work, this is not as surpris-ing as one would expect. It is true that theNetherlands is rated relatively high on social-democratic characteristics, but not exception-ally low on liberal and conservativecharacteristics. Recently, Esping-Andersen hascalled the Netherlands the Dutch enigmabecause of its Janus-faced welfare regime(1999: 88). The Netherlands is indeed more ahybrid case than a prototype of a specificideal-type. If one attaches more importance tocertain attributes than to others and adds

other characteristics or substitutes previousones then it is easy to arrive at different clas-sifications.

Empirical robustness of the three-wayclassification

Esping-Andersen claims that if we rate real

welfare states along the dimensions of degreeof decommodification and the modes of strati-fication, three qualitatively different clusters

will appear. Alongside the more fundamentalcriticism of his three-way classification thatEsping-Andersen employs faulty criteria todemarcate a regime the empirical fit of histhree-way classification has also been ques-tioned. Several authors have tested the good-ness-of-fit of the three-way regime typology.In the following, we discuss their findings,which are presented in Table 3.

In an effort to evaluate the possible extentto which quantitative techniques OLSregression and cluster-analysis suggest the

same conclusions as alternative qualitativeapproaches such as BOOLEAN compara-tive analysis Kangas (1994) found somesupport for the existence of Esping-Andersensdifferent welfare state regimes. Specifically,cluster-analyses of data on characteristics ofhealth insurance schemes in OECD countriesin 1950 and 1985 corroborated his conjec-tures. However, the results also showed theexistence of two subgroups within the groupof liberal welfare states, which largelyaccorded with the classification of Castles and

Mitchell (1993).Ragin (1994) also tested Esping-Andersens

claim of a three-world classification. By apply-ing a combination of cluster-analysis andBOOLEAN comparative analysis to charac-teristics of pension systems, he determinedwhich, if any, of Esping-Andersens threeworlds of welfare capitalism each countryfitted best. His cluster analysis suggested theexistence of a social-democratic cluster, a cor-poratist cluster and, finally, a rather largespare cluster, which accommodates cases that

do not conform to Esping-Andersens threeworlds. On the basis of his findings, Raginconcludes that the three-worlds scheme doesnot capture existing diversity as adequately asone would wish.

Shalev (1996) applied factor analysis to 14pension policy indicators collected by Esping-Andersen, to test for the presence of liberal,social-democratic and corporatist regime-





17/23

Journalof


Table 3 Empirical robustness of the three-worlds typology

Number of clusters and cluster assignment Method

Kangas (1994) 1. Liberal: United States, Canada Cluster a2. Conservative: Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands3. Social-democratic: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden4. Radical: Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom

Ragin (1994) 1. Liberal: Australia, Canada, Switzerland, United States BOOLEA2. Corporatist: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy3. Social-democratic: Denmark, Norway, Sweden4. Undefined: Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand,

United Kingdom

Shalev (1996) 1. Liberal: United States, Canada, Switzerland, Japan Factor an2. Conservative: Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Ireland3. Social-democratic: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland4. Undefined: Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia,

New Zealand

Obinger & Wagschal (1998) 1. Liberal: United States, Canada, Japan, Switzerland Cluster a2. European: Belgium, Germany, Finland, Ireland, United Kingdom,

the Netherlands3. Conservative: France, Italy, Austria4. Social-democratic: Denmark, Norway, Sweden5. Radical: Australia, New Zealand

Wildeboer Schut et al. (2001) 1. Liberal: United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom Principal2. Conservative: France, Germany, Belgium3. Social-democratic: Sweden, Denmark, Norway4. Undefined: the Netherlands

atRITSUMEIKAN



Downloadedfrom
http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/


18/23

types. This factor analysis showed that theintercorrelations among these social policyindicators were dependent on two dimensions.

The first factor measured the level of social-democratic features, whereas the seconddimension measured corporatist features ofwelfare states. Based on the assignment offactor scores to individual nations, Shalevconcluded that his findings were in close cor-respondence with Esping-Andersens charac-terizations of the three welfare state regimes.He admitted, however, that some countries aredifficult to classify.

Using cluster-analysis, Obinger and Wagschal(1998) tested Esping-Andersens classification

of welfare state regimes using the stratifica-tion-criterion. After a detailed re-analysis ofEsping-Andersens original data on stratifica-tion, they concluded that these data are bestdescribed by five regime-clusters. In additionto Esping-Andersens conservative, liberal andsocial-democratic types, they distinguish aradical and a hybrid European cluster.

The most recent attempt to empirically cor-roborate Esping-Andersens classification hasbeen undertaken by Wildeboer Schut et al.(2001). This study examined the actual simi-

larities and differences among the welfarestate regimes of the countries originallyincluded in Esping-Andersens classification.For these countries, 58 characteristics of thelabour market, tax regime and social protec-tion system at the beginning of the 1990s werecollected. These were submitted to a non-linear principal component-analysis. Theresults largely confirmed the three-regimetypology of Esping-Andersen.

Summing up, Esping-Andersens originalthree-worlds typology neither passes the

empirical tests with flying colours, nor dis-mally fails them. The conclusion is, first, thathis typology has at least some heuristic anddescriptive value, but also that a case can bemade for extending the number of welfarestate regimes to four, or even five. Second,these analyses show that a significant numberof welfare states must be considered hybridcases: no particular case can ever perfectly

embody any particular ideal-type (Goodin etal., 1999: 56). Third, if one looks at othersocial programmes than the ones applied by

Esping-Andersen, it becomes clear that theydo not conform so easily if at all to hiswelfare regime patterns (Gough, 2000a: 4).

Conclusion and discussion

Before we reach our conclusions, let usexamine how Esping-Andersen himself hasreacted to the various attempts to amend histypology. The problem is that after consider-able discussion it seems impossible for him to

make up his mind once and for all. Initially,Esping-Andersen (1997) reacted, for example,positively to Castles and Mitchells proposalto add a fourth type a radical welfare stateregime to his typology. He recognized thatthe residual character and the matter of ameans test are just one side of the coin of theAntipodean welfare states. However, he feltthat a powerfully institutionalized collectionof welfare guarantees, which operate throughthe market itself, could not be neglected. Lateron, however, he argued that the passage of

time is pushing Australia, Great Britain andNew Zealand towards what appears to beprototypical liberalism (Esping-Andersen,1999). At first he also partially supported theproposal to add a separate Mediterraneantype to his typology (Esping-Andersen, 1996:66; 1997: 171). He acknowledged the some-times generous benefits which are guaran-teed by certain arrangements, the near absenceof social services and, especially, the Catholicimprint and high level of familialism. Fromthe feminist critics he learned not so much the

overarching salience of gender as the analyti-cal power that a re-examination of the familycan yield. Recently he argued that the acid testof a distinct Mediterranean model depends onwhether families are the relevant focus ofsocial aid, and whether families will fail justas markets and states can fail (Esping-Andersen, 1999: 90).

All in all, Esping-Andersen is very reluctant



http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://esp.sagepub.com/http://

Documents

090507 Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More a State-Of-The-Art Report Journal of European Social Policy