Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism - Book Report/Review Example

Critically Assess the Merits and Limitations of Esping-Andersen’s Typology of Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Gøsta Esping-Andersen is a Danish sociologist who has written prolifically on the welfare states and capitalism. He is most widely acknowledged for his book The Three Worlds of Welfare Criticism. The book, published in 1990, remains the most prominent publication on capitalist economies and welfare states. The reason why Esping-Andersen felt the need for a new typology was because he was of the view that the approach to study and analyze welfare states and capitalist economies that relies completely on social expenditure is not adequate. Esping-Andersen propose a typology that is essentially concerned with cross-national differences that occur in three aspects; these include the association of the state with the market in the provision of welfare, the stratifying impact of welfare states and the value of social rights (Dale 2002). Using cross-national differences that occur along these aspects, Esping-Andersen classified welfare states into three main types. These three types were referred to as the three worlds of welfare: social democratic, liberal and corporatist. The social democratic welfare states encompassed the countries of the Scandinavian region, whereas the liberal welfare states included the countries from the Anglo-Saxon areas. The conservative corporatist welfare state was dominant in Central Europe (Dale 2002). For instance, the German welfare system is considered as a conservative-corporate regime because of its salient social policy features (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz 2001). The three worlds of typology opened new frontiers for the interpretation of comparative welfare state research. The typologies have fueled extensive debate, theoretical criticisms and had led other sociologists to propose their own typologies to understand the social welfare dynamics (Dale 2002). In fact, criticism against the typology surfaced right after the time that the typology was proposed, which has resulted in the development of a series of typologies for welfare states. One of the most significant contributions of the Esping-Andersen typology lies in the fact that it was the first of its kind to initiate the process of researching welfare states from a novel perspective. Before the typology was proposed, much of the research on welfare states was conducted on the comparison between the values of degree outcomes and the quantitative worth of social security expenditures. The essence of the second cluster of welfare state typologies encompasses the connection between paid work and welfare as well as the implications and effects of state-market nexus (Boca & Wetzels 2007). There are different approaches that can be adopted to gain an understanding of the laws and rules of welfare states. Amongst these approaches, Esping-Andersen typology is considered to be the most significant typology for comparative welfare state research (Boca & Wetzels 2007). There are four main concepts that are inherent to the notion of three welfare worlds. These concepts include de-commodification , defamilialisation, social stratification and the state-market nexus (Boca & Wetzels 2007). The range of de-commodification is associated with the quality of social rights in a welfare state. De-commodification refers to the “degree to which individuals or families can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independent of market participation” (Dale 2002). , Esping-Andersen regards de-commodification as the extent to which welfare states can function to deteriorate the cash nexus by giving away entitlements regardless of the involvement of the market (Boca & Wetzels 2007). On the contrary, a familialistic offers the greatest amount of welfare obligations to the household. As a result, defamilialisation can be defined as the process of introducing policies that decrease the dependency of the individual on his or her family and giving greater economic freedom to the individuals irrespective of familial or conjugal reciprocities (Boca & Wetzels 2007). Stratification is the process deemed as the unjust distribution of rights and perquisites of an array of positions in the society. The fourth concept, the state-market nexus, illustrates the combination of state and market resources within the context of welfare programs. The typology can be praised for the detailed scrutiny that forms its basis and has been used for the purpose of classification of the regimes. The plethora of measures that have been employed to differentiate between the types of welfare regimes is representative of the concern and attention that Esping-Andersen paid to the qualitative differences that existed between states. This attribute sets the work of the Danish sociologist at a different level than works by previous theorists. Esping-Andersen particularly stressed on the term regime for the purpose of classification. This tends to emphasize upon the fact that he regarded the welfare state as a component of the integrated system which reflected specific policy logic (Daly & Rake 2003). This understanding of the concept of regime positioned the work of Esping-Andersen in a separate category than previous works on state and society. The works of the past adhered to the idea that factors were responsible for causing similar effects in different countries. On the contrary, Esping-Andersen typology refuted this notion and bolstered the view that variation is embedded in a welfare regime, and there it cannot be said with surety that globalization would render the regime types to converge. Therefore according to Daly and Rake (2003), the most significant contribution of the work of Esping-Andersen is that “welfare state variation is not distributed in a linear fashion, but is instead clustered”. The notion of welfare state regimes relates to the institutional arrangements, rules and laws that further affect social policy decisions, the management of expenditure, problem definitions and the response-and-demand structure of the people living in the country and welfare customers (Fenger 2007). The reactions that the typology got could be divided into three types. One of the reactions to the three worlds typology was the development of alternative typologies; these typologies were based on different aspects and provided dimensional analysis from a different perspective than the typology of Esping-Andersen. Some of the critics were of the point of view that the proposed typology should be modified to inculcate the more types of welfare such as East Asian, Mediterranean and Antipodean (Fenger 2007). Lastly some critics completely denied the notion of a general typology (Kasza 2002). Since the publication of the Esping-Andersen typology in 1990, the concept has been subject to profound approval as well as extensive criticism. The importance of the typology is that it provides sociologists and other allied figures to make an empirical assessment of the post-communist countries and the progress that they are making. The approach gives particular significance to gaining an insight into how development occurs in such countries, with specific references to the institutional pathway dependency theories and the theories of policy diffusion (Fenger 2007). Backstrom, Davie and Edgardh (2010) assert that the typology that was put forward by Esping-Andersen was attributed to have not only clarifying but also sensitizing power. They observe that after twenty years since the time it was put forward, the typology still commands a lot of influence on welfare state research. The tripolar typology that has been put forward by Esping-Andersen is the subject of both development and criticism (Fenger 2007). Typology has been regarded as the “lowest form of intellectual endevaor” (Fenger 2007). Criticisms have been leveled against the Esping-Andersen typology from various dimensions. One such aspect that the critics have highlighted is the value of these typologies. Critics were quick to show skepticism about the theoretical and empirical value of a state according to the normative models of welfare states that the typology suggested. In counterargument, it was debated that the ideal models that were made by Esping-Andersen were not essentially goals in themselves. The reason why the typology did not regard the ideal-types it created as a goal because the comparative macrosociology of the welfare states was still in its nascent years. The ideal-types represented a reality that was still to be implemented be converted into laws. According to Boca and Wetzels (2007), the welfare states are characteristic of an absence of theory and the ideal-types that the Esping-Andersen typology documents would help these states to overcome their shortcomings. One of the criticisms that were leveled against the typology was that it was based on a male standard (Dale 2002). This issue aspect of the typology was specifically highlighted by feminists. Some critics adhered to the view that the typology did not encompass the gender issue. It was argued that they lacked the capability to give due regard to gender equality when labeling the states as either liberal, social and corporatist (Fenger 2007). Later on attempts were also made to use the typology for other purposes beyond the original, European roots that it has. Along with the limitations of the typology approach, some of critics completely denied that the existence of welfare regimes. One of these critics is Kasza (2002). His arguments center on the idea that much of the welfare work that had occurred in countries is largely due to the endeavors of the government. The Esping-Andersen’s typology was also criticized for the way that it dealt with the means-tested welfare programs. When some critics set about to change the original indicators to investigate whether means-testing was done primarily to include the poor or to include everyone except for the richest, there was a discrepancy that they encountered in the liberal regime type. The critics recognized this discrepancy as a split, and came to the conclusion that there is a fourth category of the three divisions. There is a new radical world of welfare states that was left out by Esping-Andersen. The case exemplifies how sensitive the typology was to the choice of the indicators for the purpose of classification and to the choices of operationalization (Ferrarini 2006). The typology is inherently weak in the fact that the causes and effects, combined with the regulations and their consequences, are partially conflated (Ferrarini 2006). The idea appears specifically in assumption made by the typology that institutions and the results of the study both are included for the purposes of classification. Therefore, Ferrarini (2006) contends that “since the explanadum is constitutive of the typology”, grave issues can arise if the typology is drawn upon for the purposes of explanation. Another critic was quick to modify the Titmuss/ Esping-Andersen’s tripartite typology. He added another cluster defined as a rudimentary type of welfare state that can be seen in Southern Europe; the Southern Europe is a region of the world that was not given much attention by the theorists who presented their typologies. Therefore, Esping-Andersen’s typology also failed to acknowledge the welfare regimes that were in existence in Southern Europe and so overlooked the presence of the rudimentary type of welfare state. Another criticism that was put forward was that although the Esping-Andersen’s typology is dependent on indicators collectively representing causes, intervening factors and the results, it fails to be productive for the purpose of explanation. This follows that when the researcher uses the typology for the purpose of description, he can describe with relative ease. However when he has “explanatory ambitions”, the typology is not very fruitful (Ferrarini 2006). These critics suggested that indicators derived from completely institutional domains of social insurance systems should be used instead for building a typology. Thus in conclusion, Gösta Esping-Andersen has received both praise and criticism for the publication of his three worlds of state welfare regimes. The typology brings together not only the historical and theoretical basis of the current welfare regimes but also suggests a method for classifying welfare states into liberal, corporatist and social democratic (Allmänt 2010). The most significant contribution of the typology is that it provides a comparative analysis of welfare states, and so can be used to explain how a comparative analysis of European welfare states can help to understand the changing social situation (Oboulo.com 2009). According to Backstrom, Davie and Edgardh (2010), the typology has been criticized for being too static. It has also failed to provide explanations for the variations that exist between countries belonging to the same type of regime. Sainsbury is of the view that the typology fails to incorporate several aspects of social policy and has focused excessively on income maintenance and paid work (Backstrom, Davie & Edgardh 2010). The typology has also been criticized for not being inclusive of the voluntary sector and certain aspects of social care. However, it still remains an influential typology for comparative research. Reference List Allmänt 2010, Understanding the Welfare State: Basic Typology, pt.1, Systemism, viewed on 15 December, 2010, Backstrom, A, Davie, G & Edgardh, N 2010, Welfare and religion in 21st century Europe: Configuring the connections, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Boca, DD & Wetzels, C 2007, Social policies, labour markets and motherhood: a comparative analysis of European countries, Cambridge University Press. Cochrane, A, Clarke, J & Gewirtz, S 2001, Comparing welfare states, 2nd edn, Sage Publications in association with the Open University. Dale, A 2002, The gender dimension of social change: the contribution of dynamic research to the study of women's life courses, The Policy Press. Daly, M & Rake, K 2003, Gender and the welfare state: care, work and welfare in Europe and the USA, Wiley-Blackwell. Fenger, HJM 2007, Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology, CIISS, viewed on 15 December, 2010, Ferrarini, T 2006, Families, states and labour markets: institutions, causes and consequences of family policy in post-war welfare states, Edward Elgar Publishing. Kasza, GJ 2002, ‘The Illusion of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 271-287. Oboulo.com 2010, In which way can the Esping-Andersen theory help us into doing a comparative analysis of the European social systems? Oboulo.com, viewed on 15 December, 2010, Read More