Content uploaded by Gosta Esping-Andersen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gosta Esping-Andersen on Sep 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
April 19, 2011
The Three Worlds of Welfare
Capitalism
Gosta Esping-Andersen (1990)
in Cambridge: Polity Press, pg. 9-54
Anastassiya Valeyeva, Luca Christen, Innokenty Smorchkov
2
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.
3
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
Agenda
4
1 Introduction
5
The Legacy of Classical Political Economy
Liberal economists
(Adam Smith)
Reformed liberal
economists
(J. S. Mill)
Conservative and
Marxist
economists
Socialists (Lenin)
• Market =
Abolition of
class, inequality
and privilege
• Supported
laissez-faire
• Rejected social
protection
• Accepted min.
intervention of
the state
• Attacked the
governmental
repressions of
freedom/enterp
rise
• Opponent to
laissez-faire
• Favored the
perpetuation of
patriarchy and
absolutism as a
shell for
capitalism
without
struggle
• Believed that
social reforms
could not
response to the
desire of the
working classes
for
emancipation
6
The Political Economy of the Welfare State
Welfare State: Two
main Approaches
System/Structuralist
Approach
Institutional
Approach
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
11
2 Three Types of Political Economies
12
Variations in Welfare-State Regimes
International variations in social rights and stratification:
different arrangements between state, market, and family.
STATE
MARKET
FAMILY
SOCIAL RIGHTS
STRATIFICATION
13
Welfare-State Regimes Types
“Comparing welfare states on scales of more or less – of better
or worse – will yield highly misleading results”
14
‘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.
15
‘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)
16
‘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.
17
Overview
LIBERAL
Universal
Emancipation:
market and
family
All strata
Never
contested –
social classes
Class Hierarchy
Traditional
family
Contains realm
of social rights
Blend of relative
poverty and
majorities
Market
differentiated
welfare
CORPORATE SOC-DEM
SOCIAL
RIGHTS
SOCIAL
STRATIFI-
CATION
STATE
MARKET
FAMILY
18
The Causes of the Welfare-State Regimes
• Nations similar with regard to all but the variable of working-
class 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.
19
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.
20
Overview
LIBERAL
Broad red-green
alliance
Tailored and
expansion
‚Reactionary‘
alliances
Preservation
and institution-
alization
North – South
dispute
Market
dominance and
dualism
CORPORATE SOC-DEM
PRE
WORLD
WAR II
POST
WORLD
WAR II
21
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.
22
3 De-Commodification
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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.
28
Espring-Andersen index
of de-commodification
Pensions
Sickness
Unemployment
Total
Australia
5,0
4,0
4,0
13,0
USA
7,0
0,0
7,2
14,2
New Zealand
9,1
4,0
4,0
17,1
Canada
7,7
6,3
8,0
22,0
Japan
10,5
6,8
5,0
22,3
Ireland
6,7
8,3
8,3
23,3
UK
8,5
7,7
7,2
23,4
Italy
9,6
9,4
5,1
24,1
France
12,0
9,2
6,3
27,5
Germany
8,5
11,3
7,9
27,7
Finland
14,0
10,0
5,2
29,2
Switzerland
9,0
12,0
8,8
29,8
Austria
11,9
12,5
6,7
31,1
Belgium
15,0
8,8
8,6
32,4
Netherlands
10,8
10,5
11,1
32,4
Denmark
15,0
15,0
8,1
38,1
Norway
14,9
14,0
9,4
38,3
Sweden
17,0
15,0
7,1
39,1
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
DNK
FIN
FRA
GER
IRE
ITA
JAP
NET
NEZ
NOR
SWE
SWI
UK
US
CMED
SSIB
30
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 Esping-
Andersen?
Low Index
High Index
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
61
The End – Thank you very much
62
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?