© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. , Garsington Road, Oxford OX DQ , UK and
Main Street, Malden, MA , USA
S P & A 0144–5596
V. 37, No. 3, J 2003, . 305–315
Blackwell Publishers Ltd Oxford, UK SPOL Social Policy & Administration 0144–5596 © Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2003 June 2003 37 31000 Original Article
Slippery Concepts, Shifting Context: (National) States and
Welfare in the Veit-Wilson/Atherton Debate
Daniel Wincott
Abstract
The debate between Veit-Wilson and Atherton raises key conceptual questions for the analysis of
welfare states. Veit-Wilson, in particular, focuses on the important, but strangely neglected ques-
tion of when and why a state qualifies as a welfare state. Atherton usefully draws attention to
historical debates about the legitimate purposes of state welfare policies and worthy recipients of
state benefits, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries. His contribution may draw our attention
to the shifting meaning of concepts (such as poverty) over time. In this contribution I seek to
broaden the debate. First, without underestimating the importance of such criteria, rather than
presenting one single (normatively based) “discriminating criterion” defining welfare statehood, I
argue that other conceptions of “the welfare state” may be useful as well—so long as analysts
are clear and explicit about how they are using the phrase. Second, in the current conjuncture of
the perceived “transformation” perhaps even “destruction” of the welfare state, historical and
comparative research grounded on clear and explicit concepts is crucial.
Keywords
Welfare state; National state
Introduction
For a quarter of a century the “welfare state” has been in “crisis”. Casual
readers of welfare state theory would be left with this impression at least
since O’Connor’s seminal analysis of The Fiscal Crisis of the State. Yet despite
the depth and richness of much literature on welfare, crucial concepts—such
as the idea of the welfare state itself—are neither clearly defined by (many)
individual authors nor the subject of a general inter-subjective agreement as
to their meaning. In itself, this state of affairs is hardly ideal. It causes par-
ticular difficulties when the same words are used with different meanings within par-
ticular works or in debate. Recently, Social Policy & Administration has published
Address for correspondence: Dr Daniel Wincott, Department of Political Science and International
Studies, European Research Institute, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B TT. E-mail:
d.wincott@bham.ac.uk