Which of Esping-Andersons Three Models of the Welfare State Is the Best - Literature review Example

Making a Case for the Social Democratic Welfare Model MAKING A CASE FOR THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC WELFARE MODEL Introduction Spicker (2010: p11) describes the welfare state as involving the transfer of funds from the state to provide services for its citizens, as well as directly to individuals in form of benefits. Welfare eligibility is dependent on various factors, including net and gross income, family size, and other individual circumstances like medical conditions, unemployment, homelessness, and pregnancy. Welfare states are grouped into three main clusters; social democratic welfare states, corporationist welfare states, and liberal welfare states. These welfare states, according to Andersen (1989: p26), are clustered according to the prevalent relationship between the state, the family, and markets. The corporationist welfare state is based on the subsidiarity principle, involving social insurance schemes, social stratification, and mid-level de-commodification (Janoski & Hicks, 2011: p32), while the liberal welfare state is based on private welfare provision and market dominance. Finally, the social democratic welfare state is grounded in the universalism principle and grants services and benefits to all its citizens (Spicker, 2010: p23). Therefore, because it provides its citizens with increased autonomy, whilst also reducing their reliance on the market and families, the social democratic welfare state emerges as the best option when contrasted with the liberal and corporationist welfare states. Discussion Anderson (1989: p26) contends that the different welfare states are clustered according to the type of regime present in the state, noting that the welfare state is defined by the different arrangements present between the market, the state, and the society or family. The first cluster identified is the liberal welfare state, which, despite some obvious attractions, offers fewer benefits to its citizens than the social democratic welfare state. Anderson (1989: p26) posits that this welfare system only offers means-tested assistance, while providing modest plans for social insurance. Benefits only cater for low-income citizens who, although designed as working class, are dependent on the state (Kuitto, 2011: p353). Therefore, social reform is overshadowed by liberal norms about work ethic, which, in turn, means that there is stigma attached to those on welfare due to the strictness of government rules on entitlement and the modest amounts given to deserving individuals (Anderson 1989: p26). However, the advantage with this model is its increased focus on markets, lower taxation, a more diverse array of services, and limited impact of demographic changes on welfare payments. Despite these advantages, this model sacrifices social rights and promotes an order of social stratification. While the liberal welfare state is a result of the protestant individualistic ethic, the Corporatist welfare state is more aligned to the traditional Catholic family-oriented ethic dominant in continental Europe. Unlike the liberal model, this model was upgraded from Catholic tradition to cater for emergent class structures during the post-industrial era (Anderson 1989: p27). This means that, unlike the liberal welfare state, there are fewer obsessions with commodification and market efficiency, instead focusing on social rights for its citizens. However, (Andersen 1989: p27) also claims that, as an alternative to the liberal welfare state, this model attaches rights to status and class, although the state displaces the role of markets in welfare provision. Alesina & Perotti (2014: p54) argue that, unlike the liberal welfare state, this model seeks to preserve the family according to traditional Catholic values, excluding unemployed mothers from welfare benefits. This results in little development with regards to family services like daycare. Although this model provides for private service systems and restrains from any rationing, while also allowing for a high level of public support for recipients to maintain income levels (Hemerijck, 2012: p205), the state only interferes when a family cannot support its members. The social democratic welfare model, on the other hand, extends de-commodification and universalism of social rights to the middle class citizens as the state seeks to pursue the promotion of equality, rather than equality of basic rights and needs as advocated by the liberal welfare state model (Rothstein, 2010: p66). This means that the state seeks neither to strike a balance between market and state, nor to balance the middle class and working class as with liberal and corporationist models respectively. Thus, equality guarantees the participation of the working class in the same social rights as the middle class, while benefits and services for the working class are upgraded to those enjoyed by the middle class. This welfare state model results in a hybrid of universalism and de-commodification programs, although Goodin (2011: p65) argues that these are still customized and differentiated according to the different expectations of the citizens. However, unlike the liberal welfare state, the social democratic welfare state reduces the market’s role, ensuring that all its citizens are obliged to contribute, are dependent on the welfare state, and benefit from the welfare state. In short, unlike the liberal and corporationist welfare state models, this model favors universal solidarity. There are various reasons why the social democratic welfare state is more effective than the other two models. Bridgen & Meyer (2009: p598) contend that it is able to address the traditional Catholicism-inspired family as advocated by the corporationist model, while also factoring in the markets as advocated by the liberal welfare state. Unlike the corporationist model, the social democratic model not only intervenes when the family is unable to support itself but also provides a safety net if the family’s costs become too high. Instead of maximizing the citizen’s dependence on traditional families, the social democratic model seeks increase the capabilities of citizens to be independent (Bridgen & Meyer, 2009: p599). Therefore, the welfare state, rather than benefiting family heads and trusting them to take care of their families, directly supports children, as well as the helpless and the pensioners. In fact, Taylor-Gooby (2011: p27) describes this welfare state as a hybrid of socialist ideology and liberal ideology, although he is also careful to note that this hybrid leads to a heavy social burden socially for the state in supporting the needs of families, while also allowing women to seek for employment instead of taking care of families. According to Fourage & Layte (2009: p47), the most important advantage of the social democratic welfare state is its integration of welfare and employment in a more efficient manner than liberal and corporationist models. While this model is committed to ensuring that its citizens are gainfully employed, it is totally dependent on its citizens being employed (Fourage & Layte, 2009: p47). This means that this welfare state model is equally committed to respecting the rights of its citizens to be gainfully employed, as well as their right to expect income protection. In addition, the welfare state is obliged to ensure that its citizens are working, while only a manageable number depend on support from social benefits (Kettunen & Petersen, 2010: p49). This is because the state is aware that this welfare system with its de-commodification and universalistic ideals comes at enormous costs to the taxpayer. The much lauded equality that the social democratic welfare state is able to achieve is funded by higher rates of taxation, especially among high earning citizens (Põder & Kerem, 2011: p62). As a result, unlike other welfare states that create highly unequal societies, Scandinavian countries have the world’s lowest levels of income inequality. Finally, neither the liberal nor the corporationist welfare state gives much emphasis to the need for full employment as being integral to the efficiency of the welfare state. In deed, Heckman & Smith (2012: p50) point out that the corporationist model, in its discouragement of gainful employment for women, preferring that they raise their families instead, denies more resources to the welfare state that could have been gained from taxing working mothers. A similar argument can be made about the liberal welfare state’s ignorance of women’s role in sustaining the welfare state, instead focusing solely on the importance of an efficient market that disadvantages women. By establishing, a welfare state that is blind to gender and class, benefiting both middle class and working class men and women, the social democratic model has seen tremendous success in the past fifty years. This, however, would have been impossible if it was not for the relatively under-developed nature of private welfare in Scandinavian countries after WWII, as well as the capacity of these states to provide adequate luxury within the welfare state to satisfy a more developed and cognizant public (Moses, 2011: p829). It is this point that explains why Scandinavian countries have the highest spending on welfare in the world. Conclusion In the discussion above, the paper has attempted to show why the social democratic welfare state is better than the liberal and corporationist welfare states. From this discussion, however, it is clear is that the social democratic welfare state is not a pure welfare state but, rather, a hybrid of socialism and liberalism. In fact, the Scandinavian model also integrates various elements from the liberal model. The same is true for liberal welfare states, such as the US, which also borrows some elements from social democracy, for example, during the initial stages of the New Deal. The corporationist welfare state has also borrowed lightly from its other alternatives. However, the social democratic model possesses several critical advantages over the other models, including highly differentiated benefits and services, support of the entire population with lower incidence of social class stratification, and active government stimulus for its citizens to be gainfully employed. References Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (2014). The welfare state and competitiveness. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research. Bridgen, P., & Meyer, T. (2009). The politics of occupational pension reform in Britain and the Netherlands: the power of market discipline in liberal and corporatist regimes. West European Politics. 32(3), 586-610 Esping-Andersen, G. (1989). The three political economies of the welfare state. Canadian Review of Sociology, 26(1), 10-36. Fourage, D., & Layte, R. (2009). Welfare regimes and poverty dynamics: The duration and recurrence of poverty spells in Europe. SAGE Public Administration Abstracts. 33(4), 43-54 Goodin, R. E. (2011). The real worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press. Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (2012). Evaluating the welfare state. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research. Hemerijck, A. C. (2012). The welfare state after the great recession. Intereconomics. 47, 200-229. Janoski, T., & Hicks, A. M. (2011). The comparative political economy of the welfare state. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Kettunen, P., & Petersen, K. (2010). Beyond welfare state models: transnational historical perspectives on social policy. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Kuitto, K. (2011). More than just money: patterns of disaggregated welfare expenditure in the enlarged Europe. Journal of European Social Policy. 21(4), 348-364 Moses, J. W. (2011). Is Constitutional Symmetry Enough? Social Models and Market Integration in the US and Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 49(4), 823-843. Põder, K., & Kerem, K. (2011). "Social models" in a European comparison: convergence or divergence? Eastern European Economics. 49(5), 55-74. Rothstein, B. (2010). Just institutions matter: the moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge, U.K., Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Spicker, P. (2010). The welfare state: a general theory. London, Sage Publications. Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Security, equality and opportunity: attitudes and the sustainability of social protection. Journal of European Social Policy. 21(2), 150-163 Read More