Welfare typologies Flashcards
What is a typology?
Classification device which, according to certain criteria and dimensions, places all empirical cases uniquely into a ‘type’
How does Esping-Andersen measure decommodification?
- Pensions
- Unemployment benefits
- Sickness benefits
Benefits of welfare typologies
- Provide simplification of real-world complexity
- Easier to compare and contrast regimes
- Allows empirical testing
- Highlights underlying patterns
Arts and Gelissen (2002)
Welfare typologies reduce complexity, simplifying and giving broad, bird’s eye view of key, general characteristics
Welfare typologies reduce complexity, simplifying and giving broad, bird’s eye view of key, general characteristics
Arts and Gelissen (2002)
Ferragina and Seelieb-Kaiser (2011)
TYPOLOGIES FACILITATE COMPARATIVE RESEARCH
(i) Classify welfare regimes into smaller no. groups based on key dimensions, providing broad comparative ‘lens’
RELIABILITY OF WELFARE TYPOLOGIES
Meta-analysis:
- Welfare state typologies relatively reliably classified most countries
- Majority of countries classified >80% of the time in same regime type across different studies
(i) UK classified as a liberal regime in 78% of studies - Perennial problem cases = Switzerland and the Netherlands
Example of similarity between ‘liberal’ UK and US welfare states?
- Means-tested unemployment benefits
2. Means-tested benefits targeted at low-income earners
Goodin et al (1999)
Use TWWC typology to test outcomes of each of different welfare state types
- Various success criteria - e.g. efficiency, stability, equality, poverty reduction),
- Social democratic welfare regime uniquely well-placed to realise goals identified
Example of use of TWWC typology to conduct empirical research into outcomes of different welfare regimes
Goodin et al (1999)
Use TWWC typology to test outcomes of each of different welfare state types
- Various success criteria - e.g. efficiency, stability, equality, poverty reduction),
- Social democratic welfare regime uniquely well-placed to realise goals identified
Emmenegger et al (2015)
Typologies help to highlight underlying patterns
- Esping-Andersen argued against conventional wisdom that portrayed welfare states as responses to social, economic, and demographic change
- EA used typology to argue that strength of left-wing parties (linked to distinctive underlying political ideologies) was crucially important to type of welfare state that developed
- Typologies help to highlight underlying patterns
2. Example?
- Emmenegger et al (2015)
2a. Esping-Andersen argued against conventional wisdom that portrayed welfare states as responses to social, economic, and demographic change
2b. EA used typology to argue that strength of left-wing parties (linked to distinctive underlying political ideologies) was crucially important to type of welfare state that developed
Examples of criticisms of EA’s TWWC typology that it is not exhaustive
- Leibfried (1992) - 4th Latin Rim category
- Ferrera (1996) - 4th Mediterranean type
- Castles and Mitchell (1998) - ‘Antipodean’ type for NZ + Australia
Leibfried (1992)
Argues for addition of 4th Latin Rim category to TWWC typology
Castles and Mitchell (1998)
- Argue for addition of ‘Antipodean’ type for NZ + Australia to TWWC typology
- Reason - redistribution via labour market institutions themselves, pre-taxes/transfers
Ferrera (1996)
Argues for addition of 4th Mediterranean type to TWWC typology
Fundamental problem with criticisms of exhaustiveness of EA’s TWWC typology?
Continually adding regimes to typology to better fit individual cases defeats point of having typologies
Schubert et al (2009)
- Welfare regimes too complex to be captured by any typology
- Typologies unlikely to be useful because detailed, idiosyncratic analysis required to understand full complexity of welfare states
- Welfare regimes too complex to be captured by any typology
- Typologies unlikely to be useful because detailed, idiosyncratic analysis required to understand full complexity of welfare states
Schubert et al (2009)
Example of ‘hybrid’ case that Esping-Andersen found difficult to classify according to his TWWC typology?
Netherlands “enigma”
Problem with criticism of typologies that they don’t make sense of full complexity of reality?
Kersbergen and Vis (2015)
- “misses the point of what a typology is all about”.
- Typology aims to reduce complexity, so will necessarily overlook many details and struggle to classify borderline cases
Kersbergen and Vis (2015)
RESPONSE TO CRITICISM THAT TYPOLOGIES DON’T MAKE FULL SENSE OF COMPLEXITY OF REALITY
- “misses the point of what a typology is all about”.
- Typology aims to reduce complexity, so will necessarily overlook many details and struggle to classify borderline cases
Kasza (2002)
- Questions concept of welfare regime type at all because few welfare systems likely to have internal consistency required
- Most countries have disjointed set of welfare policies due to:
(i) Path dependency of welfare policies
(ii) Diverse policy histories in different fields
(iii) Involvement of different actors
(iv) Variations in policy-making process
(v) Influence of foreign welfare models
Why does Kasza (2002) argue that most countries have a disjointed set of welfare policies, questioning the concept of a welfare regime ‘type’?
(i) Path dependency of welfare policies
(ii) Diverse policy histories in different fields
(iii) Involvement of different actors
(iv) Variations in policy-making process
(v) Influence of foreign welfare models
- Questions concept of welfare regime type at all because few welfare systems likely to have internal consistency required
- Most countries have disjointed set of welfare policies due to:
(i) Path dependency of welfare policies
(ii) Diverse policy histories in different fields
(iii) Involvement of different actors
(iv) Variations in policy-making process
(v) Influence of foreign welfare models
Kasza (2002)
Esping-Andersen response to Kasza (2002)?
“There is no single pure case” that is totally internally coherent/consistent
Evidence that most welfare states reliably classified as same regime types across different studies?
Ferragina and Seelieb-Kaiser (2011)
Meta-analysis:
- Welfare state typologies relatively reliably classified most countries
- Majority of countries classified >80% of the time in same regime type across different studies
- Perennial problem cases = Switzerland and the Netherlands
Key economic and social pressures on welfare states in recent years
- Economic
(i) Globalisation
(ii) De-industrialisation - Social:
(i) Ageing population
(ii) Entry of women into labour force
Pierson (2001)
- Liberal welfare states able to respond more quickly to economic + social developments
- No evidence of ‘liberal rollbacks’ in healthcare or pensions due to path-dependency
- Common theme of welfare state responses = reforms to improve work incentives
Why might liberal welfare states be able to more quickly respond to external pressures?
- Means-testing – divides beneficiaries from tax-payers, limiting broad support
(i) Korpi & Palme (1998)
(ii) Coalition protection of NHS spending shows difficulty in cutting spending for key universalistic element of UK welfare state - Market alternatives – institutionalisation of market alternatives weakens middle-class attachments to public provision
- Size – welfare states often smaller, so ‘core’ support constituency smaller
Example of area of British welfare state that is heavily path-dependent
- Pensions – Britain locked into PAYG pension system because reform would involve painful + unpopular ‘double burden’ for transitional generation
Kersbergen et al (2014)
DIFFERENT RESPONSES OF WELFARE REGIMES TO ENTRY OF WOMEN INTO LABOUR FORCE
- Measure – develop ‘maternal employment policy’ index (policies to reconcile work and family life)
- Results:
(i) Liberal welfare states have least developed policies
(ii) Conservative regime scores have middling scores (but high variation)
(iii) Social democratic welfare states have most developed policies
Evidence that different welfare regimes responded differently to entry of women into the labour force?
Kersbergen et al (2014)
- Measure – develop ‘maternal employment policy’ index (policies to reconcile work and family life)
- Results:
(i) Liberal welfare states have least developed policies
(ii) Conservative regime scores have middling scores (but high variation)
(iii) Social democratic welfare states have most developed policies
Evidence of relatively under-developed ‘maternal employment’ policies in UK
Taylor-Gooby (2004)
Example = childcare
- Provision limited and largely privately provided
- Mothers more likely than other nations to move from full-time to part-time employment
- Childcare strategy reliant on expansion of private provision and targeted tax credits (characteristic of liberal welfare state response)
Taylor-Gooby (2004)
UK CHILDARE POLICY
Example = childcare
- Provision limited and largely privately provided
- Mothers more likely than other nations to move from full-time to part-time employment
- Childcare strategy reliant on expansion of private provision and targeted tax credits (characteristic of liberal welfare state response)
CONSERVATIVE REGIMES EXCLUDE WOMEN
- Policies in conservative regimes tend to reinforce traditional labour market and family structures, compounding exclusion of women
RESPONSES TO POST-INDUSTRIALISM
- Nordic countries - increased spending on activation policies more than any other welfare regime type, w/greater emphasis on support + training
- Liberal regimes - greater emphasis on encouraging work incentives via in-work subsidies + sanctions
Policies in corporatist regimes tend to reinforce traditional labour market and family structures, compounding exclusion of women
Taylor-Gooby (2004)
Evidence of attempts to improve work incentives in UK social policy
New Labour:
- JSA – unemployment benefit conditional on active job search
- ‘Make work pay’ – introduction of NMW and targeted support through tax credits (e.g. working family tax credit)
Nordic countries increased spending on activation policies more than any other welfare regime type, w/greater emphasis on support and training
Taylor-Gooby (2004)
Evidence of distinctive responses to post-industrialism by welfare regime type
Taylor-Gooby (2004)
- Nordic countries increased spending on activation policies more than any other welfare regime type, w/greater emphasis on support + training
- Liberal regimes - greater emphasis on encouraging work incentives via in-work subsidies + sanctions
Problems with grouping welfare states by total social spending as % of GDP
- High pending may be high due to other factors (e.g. ageing population, recession)
- Reveals little about content of spending, type of provision, basis of entitlement, priorities, composition etc
What characterises the liberal welfare regime in EA’s typology?
- Minimal decommodification
(i) Limited benefits by right
(ii) Many means-tested benefits, targeted at low-income earners
(iii) Strict entitlement rules
(iv) Few universal transfers - High stratification
(i) Due to means-testing
(ii) Market-differentiated welfare among majority
(iii) Class divide
What characterises the conservative/corporatist welfare regime in EA’s typology?
- Rights attached to class/status (“status differentiating” welfare)
- Generous spending, but preservation of status differentials means only moderately decommodifying
- Often shaped by Church and so committed to preservation of traditional family
What characterises the social democratic welfare regime in EA’s typology?
- Principles of universalism and decommodification extended to new middle class
- Pursuit of equality, not just provision of minimal needs
Dimensions by which EA assesses decommodification indicators for unemployment insurance, pensions and sickness benefits?
- Eligibility rules and entitlement restrictions
- Levels of income replacement
- Range of entitlements
How does financing of benefits differ across 3 welfare regime types?
- Social democratic = taxation
- Conservative = social insurance contributions
- Liberal = taxation
How does nature of benefits differ across 3 welfare regime types?
- Social democratic = flat and universal
- Conservative = earnings/contribution-related
- Liberal = means-tested
How does benefit eligibility differ across 3 welfare regime types?
- Social democratic = citizens
- Conservative = workers/insured
- Liberal = poor
EA’s typology is limited to the work-welfare nexus, but what other aspects should (maybe) be considered?
- Care-welfare (Lewis 1992)
- Education
- Healthcare
What is the trilemma of the service economy
Iversen and Wren (1998)
Trilemma of service economy – productivity slowdown due to shift to service economy means policy-makers can’t maintain high levels of:
(1) employment
(2) wage equality
(3) fiscal discipline
How have different welfare regimes dealt with the trilemma of the service economy?
Iversen and Wren (1998)
- Social democrats – internalise adjustment costs through large budgets to preserve wage equality and employment
- Christian democrats – maintain equality and fiscal discipline, whilst allowing growing unemployment
- Liberal – allow increasing wage inequality, whilst maintaining fiscal discipline and low unemployment
Iversen and Wren (1998)
SERVICE ECONOMY TRILEMMA
Productivity slowdown due to shift to service economy means policy-makers can’t maintain high levels of:
(1) employment
(2) wage equality
(3) fiscal discipline
Responses:
- Social democrats – internalise adjustment costs through large budgets to preserve wage equality and employment
- Christian democrats – maintain equality and fiscal discipline, whilst allowing growing unemployment
- Liberal – allow increasing wage inequality, whilst maintaining fiscal discipline and low unemployment
- What ‘nexus’ does EA focus on in TWWC typology?
2. Why is this problematic from gender perspective?
- Work-welfare nexus
2. Ignores unpaid work/welfare relationship, which is gendered due to unequal division of unpaid work
- What, according to EA, is necessary for the political mobilisation of workers?
- How is this problematic from a gender perspective?
- Decommodification
2a. Political mobilisation of workers may depend just as much on unpaid female household labour
2b. Worker EA has in mind = male
In what % of studies is the UK classified as a liberal welfare regime?
Ferragina and Seelieb-Kaiser (2011)
78%
Conceptually, what is decommodification?
Ability to exist/subsist independently of the market (i.e. extent to which welfare based on rights-based approach)
- What does the concept of decommodification assume?
2. Why is this problematic from a gendered perspective?
- Assumes that you’re already commodified (engaged in wage/market relations)
- Women want to be commodified
Lewis’ (1992) gendered welfare regime typology
- Strong male-breadwinner (e.g. Britain)
- Modified male-breadwinner (e.g. France)
- Weak male-breadwinner (e.g. Sweden)
Why does Ferrera (1996) argue for the addition of a 4th Mediterranean welfare regime type?
Pervasive use of social benefits for purposes of political clientelism
Why does EA (1999) argue against addition of extra welfare regime types?
Might add extra precision and nuance, but ultimately East Asian or Antipodean types are variations within a distinct overall logic, NOT the foundations of a totally new logic
Key subjective variable within EA’s typology?
Decommodification
Esping-Andersen (1999)
- Argues against addition of regime types:
(i) Might add precision or nuance, but analytical parsimony valuable
(ii) East Asian or Antipodean types, for example, are variations within a distinct overall logic, NOT the foundations of a totally new logic
- Significantly more targeted assistance in liberal welfare states, incl. UK (though less in UK relative to USA, Australia, NZ)
- Argues against addition of regime types:
(i) Might add precision or nuance, but analytical parsimony valuable
(ii) East Asian or Antipodean types, for example, are variations within a distinct overall logic, NOT the foundations of a totally new logic
- Significantly more targeted assistance in liberal welfare states, incl. UK (though less in UK relative to USA, Australia, NZ)
Esping-Andersen (1999)
Key conceptual ‘gender-based’ critiques of TWWC?
- Gender-blind concept of decommodification
- Unawareness of role of women/family in welfare provision
- Lack of consideration given to gender as a form of social stratification
