worlds of welfare Flashcards
(24 cards)
saraceno 1997
familarism concept assess how much a welfare regime promotes a male breadwinner
korpi and palme 2003
falling level of wage replacement
castles 2004
falling level of generosity from the 1980s
titmuss 1974 early typology
- residual liberal model; two natural channels of welafre, the market and family, only when these fail should state provide safety net
- industrial performance - con;social needs should be met on basis of merit, work performance and productivity
- industrial redistribtive -socdem; social welfare is a major institution of society which provides universalistic services outside the market on the basis of need
ea quote on his typology
contemporary nations cluster in terms of how their social welfare policies are contructed, and also how these influence employment and general social structure; the relation of the state and economy is a complex of legal and organizational features that are systematically interwovan
ea’s 3 types of regime
liberal – lack w.c mobilisation and a history of absolutism, use lots of means testing, limited social insurance , and state encouragement of private benefits. us, candada, australia
con corporatist – catholic conservative tradition, abolutist tendencies, use social insurance mostly. or private benefits and income redistribution kept to a minimum
italy, france . germany
socdem – strong w.c mobilisation, influential soc dem parties, wide ranging, universalist welfare services and redistributive benefits system
sweden, denamrk, norway
decommodification
how much is a welfare service rendered as a social right?
- eligibity rules, entitlements
- levels of income replacement
- range of entitlements
stratification
to what extent is the welfare state an active force in the ordering of social relations?
good stuff about ea’s typology
allows us to test impact of political factors upon ws development –logic of industrialization fails to explain why differences between regimes and treats actors as passive
regimes have all faced similar challenges since the 70s and these clusters show us how well different arrangements cope with those challenges
different bases of support for each cluster can help us explain the politics of reforms , and why path dependence happens more in some places
maybe typologies useful in early stages of academia, less so now
borchost 1994
relation between state and markets cannot be explained without measuring how reliant they are on the work of women in the home – people can only be fully decomoodified when not reliant on women at home or work
lewis 1992
ea is gender blind. ignores women who are only considered actors when they enter the workforce by its focus on decommidfication of workers ; must be commodified first
focus on cash benefits not services also excludes stuff women benefit far more from
orloff 1993
what about the sexual division of unpaid labour? women do most domestic work regardless of their paid job,they can only be decommodified by a national care service and childcare
women don’t have full social rights yet, and lab movements haven’t fought for women
taylor gooby 1996 - rival to ea
rival typology using defamilarisation, extent that ws undermines women’s dependence on the family and allows their economic independence
bambra 2006 finds it is not empirically robust as same clustering, but still ideologically robust ( and bambra uses only cash benefits)
daly and lewis 2000
social care should be included in welfare clusters, some countries i is up to family and others up to state
trifilletti 1999
there is a systematic relationship between decommodification levels and whether the state treats women are workers or wives, defence of ea
kaska 2002
can’t fit in japan so rejects ea’s whole typology
assumes looking at a few areas of social policy - and at one snapshot in time - will tell us the broad approach to welfare. there can be significant internal policy variations not coherence and homogeneity as implemented at different times.
leibfried 1992
misspecification of southern europe states as underdeveloped continential europe, strong trend of catholic influence and strong familarisation which needs own cluster
bonoli 1997
decommodification doesn’t allow you to assess how contributory a welfare system is – bonoli looks at % of $ funded through contributions and agrees southern europe needs its own cluster
palier 2003
ea typology is too static, and power resources cum path dependency implies 3 crystallised worlds are frozen landscapes; not if or how they change
castles and mitchell 1993
antipodean (oz and nz) wrongly added to liberal regimes, they have more inclusive approach to social provision which needs own cluster
- high means test thresholds
- ea neglects other state routes to income distribution other than cash transfer, eg min wage law, employment rights and taxation type, left wing success could take form a living wage
arts and gelission 2002
overview of how alternative typologies empirically come out and find many countries come out the same as ea’s clusters, but many hybrid cases exist which is a major issue . . .
power resources theory is still the best
scruggs and allen 2006
same countries as ea, but 1971-2002 not snapshot approach
find a very different picture, not same clusters, italy looks more like a lib con than a con, Switzerland more like a socdem than a lib
goodin et al
ea’s snapshot of 1 moment is useless. typologies unhelpful, need to judge not on professed priorities but on performance – eg is the % in poverty the same %, an underclass,or different people? us has big issue, netherlands is short term
what is a typology?
a way of gathering qualitative information so as to compare the features and effects of welfare systems across countries
