Delivered by Ingenta to: University of Oxford
IP : 163.1.56.154 On: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:17:34
Copyright The Policy Press
583
Policy & Politicsvol39no4•583-611(2011)•http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557311X603592
©ThePolicyPress,2011•ISSN03055736
Keywords:welfareregimes•idealtypes•comparativesocialpolicy•threeworldsofwelfarecapitalism
Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?
1
Emanuele Ferragina
2
and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
TheseminalworkbyEsping-Andersen(1990)hastransformedandinspiredsocialpolicy
research over the past two decades. Various contributions have confirmed his typology,
while others have challenged, and expanded, it from substantive and methodological
perspectives. This article contributes to this debate in two ways. First, it provides a
comprehensive analysis of the different typologies proposed in the literature, employing
theconceptof‘idealtypes’.Second,itelaboratesnewdirectionsforresearchalongthree
dimensions: (1) improving measurement validity by linking macro and micro data to
overcomeassumptions,largelybasedontheaverage(production)worker;(2)assessing
thereliabilityoftypologiesovertime;(3)systematicallyintegratingboththework–welfare
aswellasthecare–welfaredimensions.
Introduction
The ‘three worlds of welfare capitalism’ (TWWC) is part of a long sociological
tradition (Esping-Andersen, 1990) rooted in deductive reasoning and the use of
ideal types. As Max Weber (1904 [1949]) highlighted, ‘the construction of a system
of abstract and therefore purely formal propositions …, is the only means of
analysing and intellectually mastering the complexity of social life’ (1904 [1949]:
87). In this vein, Esping-Andersen (1990) constructed the welfare regime typology
acknowledging the ideational importance and power of the three dominant political
movements of the long 20th century in Western Europe and North America, that
is, social democracy, Christian democracy (conservatism) and liberalism.
3
THEMATIC REVIEW
Each thematic review article is intended to summarise a chosen body of literature
and to offer new perspectives or seek to advance understanding of an issue or
debate.Thissectionofferstheopportunitytolaunchhigh-proilecritiques,to
showcase acute but comprehensive contributions and to initiate challenging
dialogues.
While articles will usually be commissioned by the editorial team, abstracts of
potentialarticlesarewelcome.Ifyouwouldliketodiscussyourideasinformally,
pleasecontactSarahAyres(sarah.ayres@bristol.ac.uk).