Thematic Review: Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?

Abstract

The seminal work by Esping-Andersen (1990) has transformed and inspired social policy research over the past two decades. Various contributions have confirmed his typology, while others have challenged, and expanded, it from substantive and methodological perspectives. This article contributes to this debate in two ways. First, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the different typologies proposed in the literature, employing the concept of 'ideal types'. Second, it elaborates new directions for research along three dimensions: (1) improving measurement validity by linking macro and micro data to overcome assumptions, largely based on the average (production) worker; (2) assessing the reliability of typologies over time; (3) systematically integrating both the workwelfare as well as the care-welfare dimensions. Keywordswelfare regimes, ideal types, comparative social policy, three worlds of welfare capitalism 1 See Stephens (1979) and Korpi (1983). For an analysis of the Christian-democratic welfare state, see Van Kersbergen (1995). 2 Lewis (1992) criticised Esping-Andersen's sole focus on the traditional social risks of unemployment, sickness and old age, as he ignored the important care-welfare nexus and thus established a regime typology based on the social protection for the industrial male worker. Esping-Andersen (1999) incorporated Lewis' criticisms in his subsequent work. 3 The debate on regime theory has been summarised in the

Examining the Association of Welfare State Expenditure, Non-profit Regimes and Charitable Giving

“…The conclusions to be drawn from more than a decade old data might be somewhat limited, particularly because the welfare state regimes we refer to have shown major shift in the respective period of time (see for example Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011, discussing the reliability of the typologies over time). We strongly suggest further studies to apply more current data-as soon as they are available-and reinvestigate if welfare regimes still can help explain individual giving patterns in the second decade of the new millennium.…”

“…4 The classification of countries and the reliability of typologies over time is intensively discussed in the literature, not only because some countries have shown major shifts in the last decades, but also because some do not clearly classify into one regime type but are a hybrid (e.g. Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011). This has to be kept in mind when interpreting our findings.…”

Proteção social na América Latina e Caribe: mudanças, contradições e limites

“…A tipologia proposta por Esping-Andersen 29 para um conjunto de países da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE), inspirada no trabalho clássico de Titmuss 30 , permanece emblemática e tem servido de referência para diversos trabalhos posteriores, que a tem validado, desafiado ou expandido 31,32,33 29 .…”

Sosyal Harcamaların Yoksulluk Üzerine Etkileri: Ampirik Bir İnceleme

“…Nitekim eğitim harcamalarının gayri safi katma değer içerisindeki payın-da bir artış gerçekleşmesi, bireylerin beşeri sermaye donanımını ve niteliğini artırarak yoksulluk oranının düşmesine yol açmaktadır. Bu yönüyle eğitim harcamaları, beklediği ve literatürdeki diğer çalışmalarda da görüldüğü gibi (Ferragina ve Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011;Patrinos ve Psacharopoulos, 2011;Schmitt ve Starke, 2011;Lange ve Topel, 2006;Çalışkan, Civan ve Karakuyu, 2011: s.7), yatırım harcamalarının etkileri ile benzer sonuçlar vermektedir.…”