See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243774920
The Three Worlds Of Welfare Capitalism
Article · January 2008
CITATIONS
READS
10,659
101,608
1 author:
Gosta Esping-Andersen
University Pompeu Fabra
158 PUBLICATIONS 33,240 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
bargaining in couples View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gosta Esping-Andersen on 11 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The Three Worlds of Welfare
Capitalism
Gosta Esping-Andersen (1990)
in Cambridge: Polity Press, pg. 9-54
Anastassiya Valeyeva, Luca Christen, Innokenty Smorchkov
April 19, 2011
Main Statements
The development of the welfare state systems is based on the
historical background of the political activities. Due to the
lack if interest in studying the WS systems, there is only less
of information provided.
Essential criteria for defining welfare states have to do with the
quality of social rights, social stratification, and the
relationship between state, market, and family. Distinct
regime clusters: ‘liberal’, ‘corporatist’ and ‘social
democratic’.
De-commodification in the conservative, liberal and socialist
regimes is implemented differently. Empirical data suggests
different clusters developing from 1973 to 2002.
2
Agenda
1 Introduction to Political Economy by Esping-Andersen
2 Three Types of Political Economies of the Welfare-State
3 De-Commercialization in Light of the Three Regime Types
3
1 Introduction
4
The Legacy of Classical Political Economy
Liberal economists Reformed liberal
(Adam Smith)
economists
(J. S. Mill)
Conservative and
Marxist
economists
Socialists (Lenin)
• Market =
Abolition of
class, inequality
and privilege
• Opponent to
laissez-faire
• Believed that
social reforms
could not
response to the
desire of the
working classes
for
emancipation
• Supported
laissez-faire
• Rejected social
protection
• Accepted min.
intervention of
the state
• Favored the
• Attacked the
perpetuation of
governmental
patriarchy and
repressions of
absolutism as a
freedom/enterp
shell for
rise
capitalism
without
struggle
5
The Political Economy of the Welfare State
Welfare State: Two
main Approaches
System/Structuralist
Approach
Institutional
Approach
6
Welfare State: Definition
Therborn
(1983)
• Historical transformation of state´s activities:Daily routines
of the state must be devoted to servicing the welfare needs
of the households
Titmuss
(1958)
• Distinction btw. residual and institutional welfare states
• Welfare state should not only seek its commitments to
marginal and deserving social groups, but adress the entire
population
Day & Myles
(1978/1984)
• Criteria to judge types of welfare states by comparing
actual welfare state effect to some abstract model - scoring
programs of entire welfare state
7
A Re-Specification of the Welfare State
• Core idea of welfare state (Marshall): social citizenship as basic concept
• Social rights and social stratification are parts of social citizenship
• De-Commodification: „Describes a process when a service is rendered as a
matter of right, and when a person can maintain a livelihood without
reliance on the market“.
• Social assistance and insurance do not necessarily ensure de-
commodification
8
Welfare State as a System of Stratification
Welfare state
orders social
relations
Welfare state does not
correct social relations
Hence the welfare state is a system of stratification itself
9
10
2 Three Types of Political Economies
11
Variations in Welfare-State Regimes
International variations in social rights and stratification:
different arrangements between state, market, and family.
MARKET
SOCIAL RIGHTS
STATE
STRATIFICATION
FAMILY
12
Welfare-State Regimes Types
“Comparing welfare states on scales of more or less – of better
or worse – will yield highly misleading results”
13
‘Liberal’ Welfare-State
Modest universal transfers or modest social-insurance plans.
Low-income clientele, working class, state dependents.
Traditional, liberal, work-ethic norms: limits of welfare equal the
marginal propensity to opt for welfare instead of work.
Small de-commodification effect; Contains realm of social rights.
Erects order of stratification that is a blend of a relative equality
of poverty among recipients, market-differentiated welfare
among the majorities and a class political dualism between
the two.
State encourages the market (passively or actively): guaranteeing
minimum or subsidizing private welfare schemes.
14
‘Corporatist’ Welfare-State
Historical corporatist-statist legacy – upgraded “post industrial”
class structure.
Liberal obsession with market efficiency and commodification
was never preeminent – granting of social rights never
contested.
Preservation of status differentials: social rights attached to
class. Redistributive impact is negligent.
State ready to displace market – private insurance marginal.
Preserving traditional family-hood. State will only intervene
when family’s capacity is exhausted (Church influence)
15
‘Social Democratic’ Welfare-State
Principles of universalism and de-commodification of social
rights extended to middle class – tailored to expectation.
No dualism between state and market: promotes equality of the
highest standards.
Services upgraded to new middle class, guaranteeing workers full
participation in quality of rights enjoyed by the better-off.
Fusion between liberalism and socialism: preemptively socialize
family costs for individual independence.
Fusion of welfare and work: guarantees and entirely dependent
on full employment.
16
Overview
LIBERAL
SOCIAL Contains realm
RIGHTS of social rights
CORPORATE
SOC-DEM
Never
contested –
social classes
Universal
SOCIAL Blend of relative
STRATIFICATION poverty and
majorities
Class Hierarchy
All strata
STATE Market
MARKET
FAMILY differentiated
welfare
Traditional
family
Emancipation:
market and
family
17
The Causes of the Welfare-State Regimes
• Nations similar with regard to all but the variable of workingclass mobilization.
• Three factors: (a) nature of class mobilization, (b) class
political coalition structures and (c) historical legacy of regime
institutionalization.
• Trade unionism and party development: will decisively affect
political demands.
• Structure of class coalition is decisive.
• Institutionalization of middle-class loyalty.
18
Specific Causes: The Three Regime Types
Determined on whichever force “captured” the farmers – pre
World War II politics shaped by rural classes
•
Scandinavia – state aid dependent; red-green alliance
•
USA – “New Deal”; opposition from the South
•
Continental Europe – “reactionary” alliances of farmers
Consolidation of welfare states after World War II depend on
political alliances of the new middle class.
•
Scandinavia – tailored to middle classes but retained
universal rights; expanded middle class.
•
Anglo-Saxon – retained residual welfare state model
because middle class were not wooed from market to state.
•
Continental Europe – conservative forces institutionalized a
middle-class loyalty.
19
Overview
LIBERAL
CORPORATE
SOC-DEM
PRE North – South
WORLD
WAR II dispute
‚Reactionary‘
alliances
Broad red-green
alliance
POST Market
WORLD
WAR II dominance and
dualism
Preservation
and institutionalization
Tailored and
expansion
20
Conclusions
Alternative to a simple class mobilization theory.
Shifting to interactive approach.
Distinctive regime clusters.
Pattern of working class political foundations.
Political coalition-building in the transaction rural to middle class.
Past reforms contributing to institutionalization.
Risk of welfare back-lash: class character of welfare.
21
3 De-Commodification
22
Commodification: Three Social Regimes
Conservatism
Commodification of humanity will hazard authority and social
integration
Liberalism
Alternatives to pure cash-nexus create disturbances to
equilibrium of supply and demand
Socialism
Real human welfare is only possible with total abolition of wage
labor
23
Conservatism: Three Main Models
Feudal
Employer is responsible for social security of its workers and
their families
Corporativist
Guilds and fraternal associations take care of disabled
members and their families
Etatist
The state is very important and the boundary between the
right and the obligation to work is often blurred
24
Liberalism: Two Answers to a Dilemma
Means-tested social assistance
A way of ensuring that non-market income is reserved for those
who are unable to participate in the market anyhow
Charity or voluntarily insurance
Insurance agreements are contractual and actuarial thus saving
the cash-nexus principle
25
Socialism: Two Main Confusions
Difference between socialists and conservatives is not that
deep on the question of social rights.
Two main confusions of implementation of social policy:
•
Interpretation of ‘ability-needs’ nexus
•
Clientele for de-commodification
26
Espring-Andersen Index of De-Commodification
•
•
•
Pensions
Sickness
Unemployment
The Esping-Andersen Index of De-Commodification according
to the SSIB data files.
Capturing degree of market-interdependence: The higher the
score, the greater it the degree of de-commodification.
27
Espring-Andersen index
of de-commodification
Australia
USA
New Zealand
Canada
Japan
Ireland
UK
Italy
France
Germany
Finland
Switzerland
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Pensions
5,0
7,0
9,1
7,7
10,5
6,7
8,5
9,6
12,0
8,5
14,0
9,0
11,9
15,0
10,8
15,0
14,9
17,0
Sickness
4,0
0,0
4,0
6,3
6,8
8,3
7,7
9,4
9,2
11,3
10,0
12,0
12,5
8,8
10,5
15,0
14,0
15,0
Unemployment
4,0
7,2
4,0
8,0
5,0
8,3
7,2
5,1
6,3
7,9
5,2
8,8
6,7
8,6
11,1
8,1
9,4
7,1
Total
13,0
14,2
17,1
22,0
22,3
23,3
23,4
24,1
27,5
27,7
29,2
29,8
31,1
32,4
32,4
38,1
38,3
39,1
28
45
40
35
30
25
CMED
20
SSIB
15
10
5
0
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
DNK
FIN
FRA
GER
IRE
ITA
JAP
NET
NEZ
NOR SWE
SWI
UK
US
29
Development of the De-Commodification Index
according to CMED from 1973 to 2002
What does this show with respect to the three types of welfare
regimes? Does this support or go against EspingAndersen?
Low Index
High Index
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
The End – Thank you very much
61
Discussion
“The risks of welfare-state backlash depend not on spending, but
on the class character of the welfare state. Middle-class welfare
states, be they social democratic or corporatist forge middle-class
loyalties. In contrast, the liberal, residual welfare states depend on
the loyalties of a numerically weak, and often political residual,
social stratum”
In this sense, the class coalition in which the three welfare state
regime-types were founded, explain not only their past evolution
but their future progress.
What is their future progresses?
62
View publication stats