Different Types Of Welfare States Research Articles

What Welfare States Do: A Disaggregated Expenditure Approach

AbstractThis article suggests that an alternative to a social rights of citizenship approach to comparing welfare states is to use disaggregated programme expenditure data to identify the diverse spending priorities of different types of welfare state. An initial descriptive analysis shows that four major categories of social spending (cash spending on older people and those of working age; service spending on health and for other purposes) are almost entirely unrelated to one another and that different welfare state regimes or families of nations exhibit quite different patterns of spending. The article proceeds to demonstrate that both the determinants and the outcomes of these different categories of spending also differ quite radically. In policy terms, most importantly, the article shows that cross-national differences in poverty and inequality among advanced nations are to a very large degree a function of the extent of cash spending on programmes catering to the welfare needs of those of working age.

Ideas and policies on active ageing in Norway and the UK

This article raises two questions: first, which active ageing ideas and policies/programmes can be identified in Norway and the UK? Second, do the two countries act differently, and if so why? The analysis is divided into four parts. First, we formulate an institutional framework for analysing active ageing policies. We then briefly map the demographic and social challenges in both Norway and the UK. The third part presents an empirical description of active ageing ideas and policies in the two countries. Finally, the findings are discussed and conclusions drawn. Based on secondary literature and commissioned reports in both countries, country‐specific statistics, interviews with Norwegian key policy actors, and a Norwegian expert panel debate, the article demonstrates that Norway and the UK belong to different types of welfare states and political economies and consequently adhere to and promote different conceptualisations and policies of active ageing. However, the analysis also finds parallel policy positions in terms of an increasing focus on the labour market and activation measures and a stronger normative linkage between contributions and benefits. These policy developments indicate that we also have to take into consideration the diffusion of ideas, ideologies, and policy solutions across national boundaries. In addition, institutional landscapes may change.

Do Welfare Regimes Mediate the Effect of Socioeconomic Position on Health in Adolescence? A Cross-National Comparison in Europe, North America, and Israel

This article examines whether different types of welfare states mediate the effect of socioeconomic position on adolescents' health. The authors' main hypothesis is that countries with stronger redistributive policies will be more effective in weakening the association between socioeconomic position and health, thus reducing health inequalities. Analyses were carried out for Israel and 32 countries of Europe and North America. Data in the 2001-2002 Health Behavior in School-aged Children survey were collected through self-administered questionnaires distributed in schools to boys and girls 11, 13, and 15 years old. Socioeconomic position was measured with the Family Affluence Scale, based on reported consumption in the family. Health indicators were perceived health, general well-being, symptom load, and health behaviors. Social welfare regimes were classified using an expanded Esping-Andersen classification. The analysis supports the authors' hypothesis, at least partially. Social democratic and conservative welfare regimes rank lowest in the strength of association between low socioeconomic position and poor health, followed by liberal and other regime types, but it is more difficult to interpret data from Mediterranean and post-communist countries.

Human resources policies compared

PurposeTo compare in a fruitful way the human resources (HR) policies that exist in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA). Nowadays, the world is evolving to a situation in which big economic spaces like Brazil, Russia, India, China, Japan, the EU and the USA are becoming dominant. Those spaces can learn from one another on how to guide their HR policies. The comparison between the EU and the USA is further justifiable because the EU seeks to become the world leader by 2010, and is facing a strong “neo‐liberal” ideological trend.Design/methodology/approachHaving in mind the known theories on HR, the various types of welfare states that may underlie HR policies and also some basic questions regarding the practical organization of those policies are analyzed.FindingsThe EU comprises five different types of welfare states, the USA one. Regarding specific aspects of HR policies, for example, the role of the Federal authority, redistribution, eligibility and policy priorities and the evaluation procedures, the USA has the edge over the EU.Research limitations/implicationsThis is an initial work. Further analysis could be made both enlarging the analysis to another cases (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Japan) and trying to find more specific and actual data on all the questions addressed.Practical implicationsMuch caution should be taken in comparing HR practices, and transferring them, because E&T systems have historic roots and depend on the economic characteristics of the country in question. The EU should increase and improve its role in the command of HR policies in Europe.Originality/valueAn original study on the way of looking at the EU's HR policy framework and on the way of dealing with the question of the “Americanization” of the world, namely in the HR field.

Commonality of Social Policy on Homelessness: Beyond the Different Appearances of Japanese and English Policies

This paper aims to explore the commonality of social policies on homelessness between Japan and England and to discuss the role of social policy in response to the recent emergence of homelessness throughout the world. Japan and England are regarded as different types of welfare state, and policies towards homelessness in both countries contrast sharply with each other. In some important areas, however, their approaches to homelessness coincide. There is a common 'style' of 'main bypass' policy with a diverse and often subjective implementation. This commonality can be interpreted as a result of the application of some general principles of the welfare state such as work requirement, family principles, moral requirement as a good citizen of the welfare state as well as the narrow and often stereotypical understanding of a person's 'place to live' in a society. Policies concerning homelessness in this common 'style' have not responded satisfactorily to the global emergence of homelessness. Instead, they ha...

Different Types of Welfare States? A Methodological Deconstruction of Comparative Research

Research on modern welfare states has been strongly influenced by the theory that they develop according to patterns, which form distinct regimes liberal, corporatist, and social democratic. These regimes are characterized by several key variables, among which the decommodification of labor is heavily weighted. This article examines the operational assumptions, measures, and calculations used in the most widely cited empirical study around which distinct regime theory has developed over the last decade. The findings reveal critical methodological weaknesses in the conceptualization and quantification of decommodification measures, which form the empirical cornerstone of distinct regime theory.

The Humanitarian Foundation of Public Support for Social Welfare

We explore the impact of prosocial orientations on a domain of American public opinion that has puzzled many-attitudes toward social welfare policies. We focus on the orientation of humanitarianism, i.e., a sense of obligation to help those in need, and find that this value can explain support for a wide variety of social welfare policies. We argue that humanitarianism is an important element of the American sociopolitical ethos, although it has received little attention in the public opinion literature. We contrast humanitarianism with egalitarianism and show that these dispositions lead people to support distinctive sets of policies that constitute different types of welfare state. While egalitarianism causes people to embrace policies that mandate an extensive economic role for the government, humanitarianism is associated with more modest policies that seek to address the problems of the needy. Support for these more modest policies has generally been much greater in the United States than support for more invasive policies that seek to tinker with the free market. Thus, we argue that humanitarianism provides a better explanation for public opinion toward welfare in the United States than egalitarianism. We discuss the implications of these findings for public opinion research. p ublic support for social welfare programs in the United States has never been easy to understand. On the one hand, Americans are deeply suspicious of an expansive government and strongly committed to the principles of economic self-reliance and laissez-faire capitalism, factors that erode support for a welfare state (Free and Cantril 1968; McClosky and Zaller 1984). On the other hand, public opinion surveys have generally registered considerable support for specific social welfare programs (Cook and Barrett 1992; Free and Cantril 1968, Kluegel and Smith 1986; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Shapiro and Young 1989), even on the eve of the extensive welfare reform of 1996 (Weaver, Shapiro, and Jacobs 1995). We explore here the question of why there is public support for social welfare programs despite Americans' deep misgivings about the idea of welfare. We answer this question through an analysis of Americans' sociopolitical values and their relationship to support for a wide variety of social welfare programs.' Value-based approaches to understanding welfare policy support are not new (Bobo 1991; Feldman 1988; Kluegel and Smith 1986; McClosky and Zaller 1984), but we depart from the past research by

Die europäische Stadt

The striking physical and social contrasts between American and European Cities are the starting-point for preliminary considerations on the differences between these two types of cities. The first paragraph gives an overview on the history of sociological concepts of the city, starting with Georg Simmel and the Chicago-School. It is argued, that the definition of the city by size, density and heterogeneity introduced a universal, ahistorical approach, which neglected big differences between cities in different cultures and different types of welfare states. The empirical base for this model is the American city, which is predominantly organized around markets. The European city has a very different tradition, including the imagination of the urban population as a collective actor. In most recent theoretical interventions on local development in times of globalisation the idea of the ’European City’ as a distinct social organization is again gaining scientific attention.

Faces of Inequality: Gender, Class, and Patterns of Inequalities in Different Types of Welfare States

Research on welfare states and inequality has tended to be bifurcated, focusing either on class or on gender. This paper combines gender and class in an analysis of patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states in 18 countries. Whereas a major dimension of class inequality can be described in terms of material standards of living, in the advanced Western countries it is fruitful to conceptualize gender inequality in terms of agency. In analyses of gender as well as of class inequalities, welfare states have been seen as significant intervening variables. However, major problems have emerged in attempts to devise typologies of welfare states that are of heuristic value in analyses of gender inequality as well as of class inequality. This paper describes the development of gendered agency inequality during the period after the Second World War in 18 OECD countries in the arenas of democratic politics, tertiary education, and labor force participation. Class inequality is measured in terms of disposable house income based on LIS data. The paper develops a new typology of welfare states based on institutional structures of relevance for gender inequality as well as class inequality. The combination of gender and class throws new light on the driving forces behind inequalities and on the role of welfare states in this context. Gender inequality is conceptualized in terms of agency. The paper presents a new typology of welfare states based on institutional structures of relevance for gender inequality as well as class inequality. The combination of gender and class throws new light on the driving forces behind inequalities and on the role of welfare states in this context.

Welfare Reform in the Nordic Countries in the 1990S: Using Fuzzy-Set Theory to Assess Conformity to Ideal Types

This article uses a new method for policy analysis, fuzzy-set theory, which is a framework that allows for a precise operationalization of theoretical concepts. Fuzzy-set theory is used to assess the conformity of the Nordic countries to a pre-conceptualized ideal-typical Nordic welfare model. This permits us to assess recent welfare reform and judge whether changes are of a qualitative or quantitative nature, i.e. whether reform amounts to differences in kind or degree. Comparing the development of benefits in kind and cash within three welfare areas (families, the unemployed and the elderly) during the 1990s and across the Nordic countries gives us an opportunity to assess patterns of welfare reform. The patterns of welfare reform are complex, but fuzzy-set theory permits the study of diversity. Despite numerous changes, all the countries still belong to the Nordic welfare model, although to varying degrees. Generally, Finland and Sweden have implemented more cut-backs than Denmark and Norway, and all countries have both expanded and contracted welfare programmes. Resilience at the national level thus masks a differential development between welfare areas and within welfare programmes. Tentatively, it seems that welfare policies operate within upper and lower limits which in turn are likely to vary over long time periods and among different types of welfare states; the most generous programmes are liable to cut-backs and the least generous programmes to improvements.

Increased Polarisation or Professionalisation of the Occupational Structure. Is Social Polarisation on the Rise?

Abstract Danish Journal of Geography 96: 103–109, 1996. Much of the current interest in processes of restructuring evolves around issues of changing occupational and social structures. While there is broad agreement that economic restructuring has produced a new occupational structure in the Western World, there is a great deal of controversy characterizing the changing structure. This is to be expected since we leave behind us a well-known social structure and are entering another which is still in the process of being shaped. It is suggested in this article that if one is to comprehend the complexity involved when discussing these issues a fruitful starting point would be different welfare state regimes. Furthermore, it is suggested that different types of welfare states produce different occupational structures and to varying degrees, and for various reasons, do they lead to social polarisation. Thus, differences within welfare slate regimes can explain why we are experiencing divergent trajectories in employment and social stratification.

Theories of Power in the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism

Esping-Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism has been very influential in comparative social policy because he develops a power analysis of welfare state formation. However, the analysis of political power that underpins his thesis has been widely misunder stood. In particular, the concept of welfare regime has lots its original conceptual meaning as a system of power stratification that upholds different types of welfare state. Instead it is widely misused merely to refer to particular types of welfare system.