Comparative Social Structures and Welfare Week 4 Lecture

Comparative Social Structures and Welfare 2: How Do Welfare States Differ?

Session Objectives
To explore how welfare states differ
To examine key typologies of welfare
Consider key criticisms of typologies

The Welfare State...
Why do welfare states differ?
Many influences on growth of welfare state:
Economics
Politics
Demography
History
Culture
Geography
Fascinating topic for social scientists

Economic growth = Welfare State growth
affordability increases
changing demographics
new risks/social problems
Convergence Logic
laggards eventually catch up
Common Argument in 1960s & 1970s

Wilensky (1975):
‘ economic growth makes countries with contrasting cultural and political traditions more alike in their strategy for constructing the floor below which no one sinks’
‘ one of the major structural uniformities of modern societies’

...or Welfare State s ?
Case for convergence weakened over time
Korpi (1980):
different patterns of political conflict
different social and political institutions
= different political parties / unions etc
- different aims of social policies
= different welfare state types?
growth of welfare not automatic?
welfare state not a case of more or less?

Three Worlds of Welfare
Esping-Andersen (1990):
The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism
4,095 citations on Google Scholar!!!
Examined welfare in 18 rich countries
Strong philosophical underpinning:
what is the purpose of social policy?
what are the goals of social policy?

Social Rights:
Marshall’s Social Citizenship
Measure decommodification of labour
Stratification
Role in structuring social relations
Roles of State, Market and Family

Large scale statistical analysis:
Ranked nations by decommodification scores
Pensions, Sickness & Unemployment Benefits
Levels, coverage, qualification etc
Examined stratification data too
Nations broke into three clusters /worlds/regimes
liberal, social democratic, conservative/corporatist

1 - Liberal Regimes
means tested benefits predominate
benefits aimed mainly at poor
stigma often attached to state benefits
work ethic underpins system
private provision encouraged
decommodification effects minimised
two-tier society
Ideal type: USA

2 - Social Democratic Regimes
universal benefits predominate
benefits aimed at all classes
social rights of citizenship emphasised
full-employment a goal
private provision crowded out
decommodification effects strong
egalitarian society
Ideal type: Sweden

3 - Conservative/Corporatist Regimes
social insurance benefits predominate
benefits maintain class differentials
strong social rights - but attached to status
subsidiarity a key principle
strong role for community organisations
decommodification effects relatively strong
maintains traditional social divisions
Ideal type: Germany

No single dominant factor drives ‘choice’
working class power
cross-class coalitions
historical legacy of regime institutionalisation
Key point is that outcomes vary
‘ the variability of welfare-state evolution reflects competing responses to pressures for decommodification’
Long run differences between nations

Different Worlds of Welfare:
Different Paths of Development
Reflect History (and Politics) of Each Nation
Hard to ‘Switch’ Between
Are Welfare Regimes not Welfare States

‘ since [the worlds of welfare] are, in a sense, ideal types there are bound to be ambiguous cases…It is…possible that the criteria employed to demarcate a regime may err: if alternative attributes were considered, the classification might break down or, at least, require additional regimes’ (Esping-Andersen) Three Worlds of Welfare?

More than Three Worlds?
Australasian Critique (Castles & Mitchell)
low social expenditure
means tested benefits
low decommodification scores
liberal regime

misunderstanding of (labour) politics
wage & employment protections:
wage arbitration
import tariffs
controls on migrant labour
welfare through:
high levels of employment
social wage
‘wage earners welfare state’

cultural differences important
labour politics
labour markets
means test/wealth test
home ownership
‘families of nations’
geography
language
culture
history

More than Three Worlds? Liberal Conservative Radical Non-Right Hegemony Canada Switzerland US Germany Italy Netherlands Australia New Zealand UK Belgium Denmark Sweden

Time Frame?
1970s held firm
1980s eroded
‘ passage of time is pushing Australia – and certainly New Zealand – towards what appears as prototypical liberalism: minimal state and maximum market allocation of risks, and the market side of the coin appears increasingly genuinely market’
(Esping-Andersen)

Mediterranean Critique
Leibfried:
‘ rudimentary Latin model’
‘ Latin rim regime’
Portugal, Spain, Greece
Italy?
Ferrara, Bonoli also

Low expenditure on social protection
Weak last-resort safety net
Fragmented income protection
Client particularism
Universal health care

Liebfried:
E-A: partial differences – not a regime
Anglo-Saxon (Residual) Biskmark (Institutional) Scandinavian (Modern) Latin Rim (Rudimentary) UK Ireland Germany France Belgium Netherlands Sweden Denmark Norway Finland Spain Portugal Greece Italy

East-Asian Critique
Growing interest:
rapid economic growth
expanding welfare policies
how do they compare with west?
Confucian model?

‘ Conservative corporatism without (Western style) worker participation; subsidiarity without the Church; solidarity without equality; laissez-faire without libertarianism: an alternative expression for all this might be ‘household economy’ welfare states – run in the style of a would-be traditional, Confucian, extended family’
(Finer Jones)

Kwon :
state regulates rather than provides
little significant financial transfer
little redistribution of income
conservative political forces dominate
economic growth often key objective
productivist world of welfare

The East Asian Fourth World
E-A:
liberal elements
conservative elements
not unique – a hybrid

‘ Hidden’ Worlds Within?
Gender Critique
state, market & family
Lewis: E-A focuses on state-market nexus
Stratification = class inequalities.
Private provision = market provision
De-commodification
gender blind
obscures gender variations in social rights

Strong male-breadwinner regime
Ireland, Germany
Modified male-breadwinner regime
France
Weak male-breadwinner regime
Scandinavia

EA: weakness in decommodification index
Presupposes individuals are commodified
Market dependency & family dependency exist
(Female) independence necessitates ‘defamilializing’ welfare obligations
Developed a new ‘Defamilization Index’

EA concludes:
New indicators do not suggest a fourth world
Existing trichotomy captures differences well
Soc Dem regimes defamilialize most strongly

Are Typologies Useful?
‘ there will always be slippery or ambiguous cases, and one programme does not define a regime. The real problem is how to deal with systematic deviants. The issue here is whether a three-way typology adequately exhausts the variance. If there are cases that follow a wholly different underlying logic, we would have to construct yet another, separate ideal-type – a fourth ‘world of welfare capitalism’
(Esping-Andersen)

Are Typologies Useful?
Allow greater analytical parsimony
forest v trees
Help identify underlying logic
Help generate and test hypotheses

How Do Welfare States Differ?
Case for difference is well made
BUT:
Indicators we use
Focus of our investigations
Theoretical assumptions
ALSO:
Regimes subject to change
globalisation, ‘information revolution’
future may not follow the past...

Esping-Andersen’s Decommodification Index 13.0 Australia 13.8 USA 17.1 New Zealand 22.0 Canada 23.3 Ireland 23.4 UK 24.1 Italy 27.1 Japan 27.5 France 27.7 Germany 29.2 Finland 29.8 Switzerland 31.1 Austria 32.4 Belgium 32.4 Netherlands 38.1 Denmark 38.3 Norway 39.1 Sweden

Esping -Andersen’s Decommodification Index 13.0 Australia 13.8 USA 17.1 New Zealand 22.0 Canada 23.3 Ireland 23.4 UK 24.1 Italy 27.1 Japan 27.5 France 27.7 Germany 29.2 Finland 29.8 Switzerland 31.1 Austria 32.4 Belgium 32.4 Netherlands 38.1 Denmark 38.3 Norway 39.1 Sweden

Esping-Andersen’s Decommodification Index 13.0 Australia 13.8 USA 17.1 New Zealand 22.0 Canada 23.3 Ireland 23.4 UK 24.1 Italy 27.1 Japan 27.5 France 27.7 Germany 29.2 Finland 29.8 Switzerland 31.1 Austria 32.4 Belgium 32.4 Netherlands 38.1 Denmark 38.3 Norway 39.1 Sweden

Comparative Social Structures and Welfare Week 4 Lecture

by johnhudson

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 40

Statistics