Abstract

The welfare state literature is characterized by a healthy methodological debate on how best to measure differences in welfare effort among advanced industrialized nations. Since Esping-Andersen noted that it is “difficult to imagine that anyone struggled for spending per se”, a consensus has emerged in the methodological community that spending data is a poor proxy of cross-national differences in welfare effort. Social spending is arguably only able to capture one element of welfare effort, namely the size of the budget, whereas entitlement criteria and benefit type are not adequately captured. This paper brings some needed nuance to this consensus. It argues that the existing methodological literature, which almost exclusively studies old-age pensions, sickness insurance and unemployment protection, has inferred its conclusions to all welfare programs. This is misguided because welfare programs like health care and education exhibit much less cross-national variation in either entitlement criteria or benefit type. When studying cross-national differences in the willingness of decision-makers to promote these kinds of programs, social spending is in fact the most adequate measure.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.