Esping-Anderson's Three Models Of the Welfare State - Essay Example

Esping-Andersons Three Models Of the Welfare Esping-Andersen is a sociologist who specialized in the welfare and the position it held in capitalist economies. He came up with the three main types of welfare states. These welfare states are the basis on which modern capitalist nations cluster. The essay shall explore the three types of welfare states individually citing their modalities and then figure out which type best applies to the capitalist nations. There are three main types of welfare states and they include social democratic, liberal and corporatist welfare. These three categories have very little to do with the contemporary labels of American politics instead the three types of traditional welfare states are the United States which specialized in the liberal model. Germany opted for the corporatist-statist model while Sweden went with the social democratic model. The Mediterranean model although not that popular was taken up by Italy, Greece and Spain. This model advocates for a system whereby the family network is important in providing welfare. There are conflicting statements from other sociologists who claim that Esping`s work is outdated and not necessary in the modern world, but others support it and have even applied it in real life situations. Majority of politicians and political analysts are attracted to Esping`s work due to its simplicity (Caramani, 2014, 371). Corporatism is the coming together of social-political organizations who share common interests on various fields. These fields include scientific and military affiliations, agriculture, business and ethnic affiliations. It states corporation is somehow based on the interpretation of the community as an organic, cohesive body. Corporation is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism since social interaction is common within groups such as families and clans. Several ideologies support the corporation model. They include capitalism, fascism, socialism and conservatism. Sometimes corporatism is referred to as tripartism, which involves negotiations between labor and state interest groups to establish an economic policy. This model is referred to as neo-corporatism (Yerkes, 2011, 7). Some of the characteristics of corporation welfare states include a weak, liberal tradition. The establishment of conservative, strong states, there is status caution between the middle and artisan classes. There is a strong presence of the Catholic Church within the corporation welfare states. Some of the advantages of the corporate welfare system include it allows for private service system without rationing, for example, in gaining access to a health facility. The corporation welfare system enjoys public support since people feel comfortable when in a social setting. The benefits increase as contributions continues to increase. It also allows benefit recipients to maintain their level of income (Hoekstra, 2010, 165). The main reasons why it is unpopular include maintaining and reinforcing of social cleavages. The system penalizes the individuals who are in unstable, non-traditional or part-time job situations. It tends to drive up labor costs and registers low wage unemployment in welfare groups. Individuals who live outside the system do not experience the benefits that come with being in the system (Castles, 2007, 187). The social democracy welfare system according to Esping-Andersen is a system that was established to from the democratic socialism. Social democracy is the policy regime that involves universal collective bargaining schemes that are within the framework of a capitalist economy. This model is usually used to refer to Western and Northern Europe economies during the latter half of the 20th century. It also refers to the social models and economic policies prominent during the 20th century. The most dominant force in politics and in all aspects of people’s lives is a social democracy welfare system (Nijkamp, 2011, 142). This model has enhanced the concept of social rights because enjoyment of benefits and services is least dependent on another person’s performance in the market. The social democracy welfare state is characterized by its extensive service orientation. Critics state the system incurs many costs resulting in very high tax burdens encompassing bureaucracy because the level of taxation is high and the processes of conducting business become more and more complicated. Studies have proven that the social demographic welfare is likely to be less vulnerable to job losses and cuts in the low-skill sector than the continental mode since the former is less dependent on taxes. The social democratic welfare state came about because the difference in status between the working class and the poor evolved into a bigger model that could not accommodate everyone. The properties of the social democracy system include the good cooperation between working and peasant social classes. It brought about the origin of the leftist parties who later became the dominant faction in the political arena. It ensures that protestant and liberal traditions are safe guarded with great regard for equality and individualism (Huber, 2009, 85). Advantages of the social democracy welfare system include. The system has high benefits in the various differentiated services that are offered. The system improves the employment effects and in turn reduces social cleavages associated with the system. The system incorporates universality, which in turn act as encouragement and support of the population. Some of the disadvantages include (Hinnfors, 2006, 135). The system is very complex to administer and operate. It is also expensive and bureaucratic and has a high tax burden that is shouldered by the public. The social democratic system exerts a lot of pressure on the budget due to the high cost of running a business (Sejersted, 2011, 328). The liberal welfare states according to Esping-Andersen were the acts of social laws passed by the British liberal party after the 1906 elections. They shifted their standpoint from laissez-faire system to a more collectivist approach. The split led to the emergence of the modern liberalism and the classical liberalism, which led to a change of fortune for the liberal party. This system caters to a clientele made up of low income and the working class people. The liberal welfare system is supported by contemporary state policies, for example, tax credits and tax shelters. There are only two issues wrong with the liberal system. First, it creates a two-class society, the poor public who can barely afford to feed themselves and the middle class who enjoy much better services that are provided by the market. Then it excludes the most voters from enjoying welfare benefits. These actions make the welfare programs unpopular and in the long run will turn the people against the system. The characteristics of the liberal system welfare include liberal and anti-state political traditions. It gave rise to the powerful middle or working class. The system also consolidates its dominant position of the market. The system provides for a weak state and the protestant tradition that must be upheld. The advantages include the least sensitive to demographic changes in the population. The system incurs low rates while conducting business. Various differentiated services stimulate growth especially in low-skilled sector (Jansson, 2012, 371). The disadvantages of the liberal welfare system include high inequality and great social cleavages. There is a low level for uncertainty among the poor people. The liberal welfare system is politically unpopular and not suitable for application anywhere. There is negative a stigma towards the system and its users due to the nature of the benefit recipient. This system creates a new model in which universal benefits and services were expanded by a paternalistic state (Paul, 2007, 259). There are several branches of the liberal welfare system. They include The Neo-Liberal Critique of the Welfare State. The characteristics of this system include it is bureaucratic. It means that this system is expensive and can lead to social control. It also denies people their freedom, in that an individual is not allowed to choose what happens to his or her money or belongings. This system is immoral because it takes taxes from workers and uses the money to pay for someone else’s debts. Its main disadvantages include inefficiency. This is because governments cannot respond to issues as quickly as the market. When something happens within the market, the response is slow since it is incompetent and does not care about its people. It is uneconomic in that, this model destroys the incentive to work and it also creates a poverty trap. The welfare state has not abolished poverty and it renders the system as ineffective to application. Characteristics of the poverty trap include only the very poor people in the society receive welfare payments. These payments are sometimes usually higher than the low wages that they receive. They are paid so they can sustain themselves since they cannot afford to start working. Therefore, the welfare state becomes a disincentive to work or as some people call it a vicious circle begins. In my opinion, I would endorse the social demographic welfare system since it provides an atmosphere whereby there is interaction among people. It also enables for the establishment of a family unit where individuals have something or somewhere in common. The social demographic system has been proven to work within society as witnessed in countries like Norway. Bibliography Caramani, D. (2014). Comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University. Castles, F. G., & Pierson, C. (2007). The welfare state reader. Cambridge [u.a.], Polity Press Hinnfors, J. (2006). Reinterpreting social democracy: a history of stability in the British Labour Party and Swedish Social Democratic Party. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Hoekstra, J. (2010). Divergence in European welfare and housing systems. Amsterdam, Delft University Press. Huber, E., & stephens, J. D. (2009). Development and Crisis of the Welfare State Parties and Jansson, B. S. (2012). The reluctant welfare state: engaging history to advance social work Nijkamp, P., & Siedschlag, I. (2011). Innovation, growth and competitiveness dynamic regions in the knowledge-based economy. Berlin, Springer. Paul, E. F. (2007). Liberalism: old and new. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press. Policies in Global Markets. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. practice in contemporary society. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Sejersted, F., & Adams, M. B. (2011). The age of social democracy: Norway and Sweden in the twentieth century. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press Yerkes, M. A. (2011). Transforming the Dutch welfare state. Bristol, Policy Press. Read More