* Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press, Part I.

E-A proposes a regime approach to structuring variance within different welfare systems. He stresses the importance of interlinkages btw state and economy in a regime: To talk of a regime is to denote the fact that in the relation between state and economy a complex of legal and organisational features are systematically interwoven. (Esping-Andersen 1990: 2). E-A responds to He responds to forms of classifying welfare states according to social spending. Level of social expenditure may not be a reliable indicator of the character of any given welfare state. E-A is responded to by E-As focus on decommodification (and thus on the formal labour mkt) needs supplementing w other classification criteria. o Feminist critique: E-A is too focused on formal Labour mkt and employed workers, failing to capture the salience of social policies towards families and informal care. E-A reacts to this by advancing the argument on the importance of de-familiarization in the incomplete revolution Attempts to identify additional regime types. o radical regime type (Castles and Mitchell 1992). Appear as liberal in E-As terms, but are distinct based on their combination of low expenditure plus high levels of redistribution. This is somewhat outdates, as taxation regimes in all these states has become much less progressive (Pierson,C 1998 p. 174). o Emerging welfare states if Southern Europe. Latin Rim countries of the European Union (Leibfried 1993, Ferrera 1996) Weak state capacity. Rely on old support from alternative mechanisms, such as family and church. Conventional welfare state goals might be delivered via unconventional means.E.g.homeowenership (Pierson, C 1998 p.174) Different ideal-types historical and political developments in various societies have produced three regimes of welfare states: the liberal (conservative)regime of the Anglo-Saxon states (Australia, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom), the conservative / corporatist-statis regime of the central-European states (Italy, Japan, France, Germany, Finland, Switzerland), and the social- democratic regime (of the mostly nordic states) (Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Austria) Variables according to which ideal types are created Decommodification: A minimal definition of decommodification must entail that citizens can freely, and without potential loss of job, income, or general welfare, opt out of work when they themselves consider it necessary. (Esping-Andersen 1990: 23) State-market relations: balance betweenpublic(state-owned)welfarepro- gramsand programsprovidedby the private sector Stratification as mesured by tax/expenditure ratio Variables that generally correlate w ideal-types Liberal Eligibility Financing Poor Taxation Conservative Workers/ Insured Socialinsurance Contributions Earnings-/ Contributionsrelated SocialDemocratic Citizens/ Residents Taxation

Benefits

Meanstested

Flat and Universal

Policy areas focused on unemployment benefits,

pensions, sick pay

Theoretical approach Power resources approach: agency based Normative statement * E-A implicitly makes clear that in his view the goals of the welfare state are met most successfully by a social democratic regime and least successfully by a liberal regime * Evidence that dependency ratios are lower in social democratic welfare states (book cited in S-K Lecture) Criticism of EA * Applicability of EA models to real types EA ignores the entire health care service. EA focuses on transfers not services State centreness of EAs model. Silent on subnational differences Privatization of hospitals in Sweden Criticism of ideal-types * everything new is discussed in terms of the old model / Box (Sally): see china discussion * problem * Leibfried on the Latin Rim/ South Europe * Wallersteins world system * BUT EAs ambition was not to study the developing world * Normative framing of the welfare state Secondary sources Pierson, C. Beyond the welfare state pp. 171 On Critiques of E-A: Arts and Geliseen 2006 Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more?