Esping-Andersens Welfare Regime Model - Essay Example

? Esping-Andersen’s Welfare Regime Model al affiliation: Esping-Andersen’s Welfare Regime Model Introduction The setting of a s welfare is decisive to the operation of the state and the health of the citizens. It is vital to discuss the differences in state welfare regimes. This helps in understanding the differences in state operations and the health of its population among countries. Esping-Andersen came up with the most relevant typology for welfare states. Esping-Andersen using classical European political economy approach differentiates between three types of welfare regimes (Edwards, 2003). Esping-Andersen differentiates the state welfare regimes on three major principles. These principles are social stratification, deco-modification and the public private mix. Deco-modification refers to the extent to which the welfare of the individual is independent of the market. It also refers to the individual’s ability to receive social services as a right. Social stratification describes the welfare state role in matters concerning structure of the society according to Schildt (2010). Lastly, public-private mix focuses on roles played by the state, the market, family and the voluntary sector in the particular welfare regimes. Espin-Andersen identifies three main types of welfare regimes: the conservative, social democratic and the liberal welfare regime models as noted by Edwards (2003). Liberal Welfare Regime The liberal model incorporates free market maximization for the market maintenance. It makes the assumption that all people are able to participate in the market. The underlying idea in market participation leads to freedom of competition. It emphasizes on public and private sector partnership. The workers in liberal model are unlikely to be fully co-modified, however they advocate for cash compensation. According to Annamari (2009), the liberal model of state welfare regime is found in countries like England and the United States of America Conservative Welfare Regime The conservative welfare regime is popular in countries like Germany, France and Belgium among others. It promotes social assistance and provides for extensive welfare services for all the population. This model perceives the state as a minimal interventionist. Esping-Andersen argues that categorizing the European welfare states as part of the conservative model can be viewed as pejorative (Edwards, 2003). Social Democratic Welfare Regime Social democratic welfare is popular with Nordic countries. It is also referred to as Nordic Model. The social democratic model espouses individualism thus removing individual reliance on the family and it is associated with expensive taxes. This model has an element of egalitarianism which depicts the practice of universalism. The model is also individual oriented as it promotes their well-being (Larsen, 2006). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Comparing Welfare States Using Esping-Andersen’s Welfare Regime Esping-Andersen model has been of importance in as far classification of states according to welfare regimes. The model has several advantages which makes it remain more relevant compared to other welfare regimes. In as far as the social democratic welfare regime is concerned; it is redistributive in terms of the states wealth. Universal welfare and systems of benefits are used as rights and there is public provision of the universal welfare services. Esping-Andersen’s social democratic model depends on high employment levels and thus offers women employment. It also provides less emphasis on the family’s responsibility for its members’ welfare as opposed to other models. The state therefore assumes most of the family responsibility (Larsen, 2006). The elements of egalitarianism depict in Esping-Andersen’s model the practice of universalism as suggested by Mann (2001). The advantage here is that every citizen enjoys same benefits and rights as well regardless of whether they are rich or not. This means that there is equal provision of services without discrimination. This model also actively promotes individual well-being of the individual and their life chances. Since the model is equated with egalitarianism, there is redistribution and poverty elimination Edwards (2003). In liberal regime, one of its advantages of Esping-Andersen model is that it focuses on minimizing the state’s role as well as promoting market solutions. It also seeks to promote private and public sector partnership as suggested by Petrie (2006). The neo-liberal regimes view the welfare in terms of mending the bad risks resulting from market failure. Another advantage is that special services are offered to those who present a social risk as resources and have other insufficient family materials. According to Esping-Andersen model, the Liberal regime has seen private care services development. There is a policy to increase the standards of staff qualification and the regulation of the welfare services of the children by the government. Individual proprietors are able to apply their workforce requirements and this is one of the benefits of the model Edwards (2003). In Esping-Andersen’s conservative welfare regime model, there is extensive welfare services including those of children care according to Allen (2004). The welfare services are voluntarily delivered and the same applies to organizations and religious services that are supported by the state. Just like in liberal welfare regime, in conservative regime there is emphasis on social assistance as opposed to universal rights in as far as welfare services and benefits are concerned. In this model, Esping-Andersen intents to show their dominant political thrust. In the conservative model, those who are employed together with their families have special incentives. For instance their risks are protected by a social insurance which is compulsory (Allen 2004). The Esping-Andersen model though used in public policy research activities it has many disadvantages compared to the advantages. The limitations lie under theoretical issues, methodology and empirical validity. For instance, methodological disadvantages are identified in the deco-modification indexes and it relates to their character. The empirical validity of the model is questionable in as far as its calculation leading to poor categorization of countries is concerned. Esping-Andersen welfare regime model has been criticized of using three model welfare regimes as other scholars think that they should be several of them Allen (2004). Different scholars have advocated for a wider model as they argue that this one does not apply to all states as suggested by Larsen (2006). The disadvantage with the Esping-Andersen model is that it has focused on a limited number of states. Another theoretical disadvantage is that Espin-Andersen fails to take into account the women’s role in welfare state regimes. The concept of deco-modification is criticized of being gender biased. It ignores gender as part and type of the structure of the society. The conservative model in Esping-Andersen’s model regimes rejects the issue of individualism stressing on the protection of the society. This is a disadvantage in that all individuals are not equal in terms of resource ownership. Therefore some individuals will end up serving at the expense of others. According to Caramani (2008), this is a weakness as it upholds societal stratification promoting the hierarchical structure of the society. This in turn leads to existence of gap between the rich and the poor. Another disadvantage is that government is always at the intervention periphery. Esping-Andersen’s conservative model does not focus on the children as part of the society and are not capable of participating in the market. States applying the conservative model provide minimal assistance to individuals when pressured to leave work. They also provide very little support over equality or on the eradication of class divisions (Caramani, 2008). Focusing on Esping-Andersen view of liberal model, application of the model in social policy context, makes the word liberal paradoxical. The underlying idea in market participation leads to freedom of competition. This is a disadvantage as it leads to stratification of the society between the rich and the poor. This is because in every competition there is always the winner and the loser. The freedom to compete will incorporate insecurity which is likely to cause poverty. This freedom is therefore seen as a paradox as it contains elements of poverty. Some liberal states perceive welfare in terms of less assistance according to Caramani (2008). According to Bleijenbergh (2005), the weakness of the Esping-Andersen’s liberal model is the incorporation free market maximization for the market maintenance. It makes the assumption that all people are able to participate in the market. Another disadvantage of Esping-Andersen model is that in the liberal regime, the worker is unlikely to be fully co-modified, however they advocate for cash compensation. The liberals also reject the idea of intervention likely to interfere with the stratification brought about by the market. The liberal state model policies do not offer the same market entrance for competition. In as far as the conservative regime model is concerned it allows minimal labor deco-modification. Conclusion Generally, the three welfare regime models offer an important tool for analyzing social policy. The models employ an interdependent manner in which welfare is provided and distributed. Welfare delivery is distributed between the market, state and the non-profit or voluntary sector. In the liberal model there is justification of freedom. The worker is able to make choice between different alternatives. These alternatives are in terms of jobs, leisure time, utilities and employers. The advantage is that in a model free market, employees can freely make decisions without facing negative ramifications. There are many various welfare state models that exist and Esping-Andersen has categorized them into three state welfare regimes. References: Allen, J. (2004). Housing and welfare in Southern Europe. New Jersey : Wiley-Blackwell. Annamari, K. (2009). Civic Mind and Good Citizenship. Tampere: University of Tampere. Bleijenbergh, I. (2005). Citizens who care: European social citizenship in EU-debates on childcare and part-time work. Netherlands: Rozenberg Publishers. Caramani, D. (2008). Comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, E. (2003) "Revisiting Esping-Andersens "Three Worlds" Using Cluster Analysis" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia. Larsen, C. (2006). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: how welfare regimes influence public support. Farnham UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Mann, K. (2001). Approaching retirement: social divisions, welfare, and exclusion. Bristol UK: The Policy Press. Petrie, P. (2006). Working with children in care: European perspectives. Maidenhead UK: McGraw-Hill InternationaI. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Development of culture, welfare states and women's employment in Europe, Volume 2003. Farnham UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Schildt,J. (2010). The Welfare Regime Debate and Health Care Provision: Do We Need a Southern Regime Type? Munich: GRIN Verlag. Read More