Abstract
Over the past decades, the geography of comparative welfare state research has transformed. Whereas scholars used to focus on a limited number of advanced industrialised democracies, they now increasingly study developments in Europe’s periphery, East Asia, and Latin America. So, does this mean that the welfare state has spread around the world? To answer this question, we analyse different ways to measure welfare states and map their results. With the help of International Labour Organization and International Monetary Fund data, we explore measurements based on social expenditures, social rights, and social security legislations and show that each of them faces serious limitations in a global analysis of welfare states. For some measurements, we simply lack global data. For others, we risk misclassifying the extent and quality of some social protection systems. Finally, we present a measurement that is grounded in the idea that the welfare state is essentially about universalism. Relying on a conceptualisation of the welfare state as collective responsibility for the wellbeing of the entire population, we use universal social security as a yardstick. We measure this conceptualization through health and pension coverage and show that a growing number of countries have become welfare states by this definition. Yet, it is possible that at least some of these cases offer only basic levels of protection, we caution.
Highlights
Over the past decades, the “geography of comparative welfare state research” (Hort, 2005) has transformed
We show that these approaches, based on social expenditures, social rights, and social security legislations, all face serious limitations when applied in a global analyses of welfare states
We explored whether the welfare state—a European invention—has spread around the world
Summary
The “geography of comparative welfare state research” (Hort, 2005) has transformed. We analyse different ways to conceptualise and measure welfare states and map their results. We explore how different understandings are related to different approaches to measure welfare states We show that these approaches, based on social expenditures, social rights, and social security legislations, all face serious limitations when applied in a global analyses of welfare states. This, in turn, is measured through coverage indicators which have long been employed in welfare state research (Flora & Alber, 1981) This focus on universal social security as a yardstick for welfare stateness resonates well with the recent global emphasis on “leaving no one behind” in the Sustainable Development Goals (International Labour Organization [ILO], 2017). We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the different measurements and discuss the implications of our findings
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.