Esping-Anderson (1990) describes different kinds of welfare state regime types in his book “three worlds of the welfare capitalism”. His book is one of the most cited books in welfare state literature. This is because of all the good things Esping-Anderson states in his book, but also because of some arguments which are considered controversial according to some authors (see Bambra, 2007 for detailed critique). Before elaborating on the critique on Esping-Anderson, his welfare state regime types will be further elaborated on.
Esping-Anderson analysed and described the, in his time, 18 countries which were part of the organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD countries). He came up with two distinct dimensions: 1. de-commodification and 2. stratification. By commodification, he means that the individual person and their labour are commodified which indicates that labour is the individual’s primary commodity (product to satisfy one’s basic life’s needs) in the market. So, de-commodification refers to the government’s activities and efforts to reduce individuals’ reliance on the market (their labour) for their well being. Examples are unemployment and sickness insurances, and pensions. These are also used as measures, to measure de-commodification when comparing welfare states. As for stratification, he aimed at that the status of an individual as a citizen will compete with, or even replace this individual’s class position. By this Esping-Anderson argues that the welfare states play a significant role in maintaining or breaking down social stratification.
On the basis of these two principles, he deduced three different types of welfare state regime types. He distinguishes between Liberal, Christian-Democrat...
... middle of paper ...
...elfare state. In these countries, the welfare goals of poverty reduction and income inequality are made possible by redistribution rather than by high levels of expenditure. This is in line with the work of Korpi and Palme (1998). There has also been critique on the gender blindness of the work of Esping-Anderson (1990). He would not have taking into account the role of women when looking at de-commodification, stratification, and the provision of welfare (Lewis, 1992; Sainsbury, 1994). Esping-Anderson (1990) has also been criticised for his decision to organise the principle of classification around pensions, sickness benefits, and unemployment benefits. When doing this, he ignores that welfare states are also about the delivery of services such as health care and social services (Kautto, 2002).
Methodological critiques: Castles, 1993, Kangas,1994, and Ragin, 1994
The history of welfare systems dates back to ancient China and Rome, some of the first institutions known to have established some form of a welfare system. In both of these nations, their governments created projects to provide food and aid to poor, unemployed, or unable families and individuals, however these were based on “moral responsibility.” Later in history, in 1500’s England, parliament passed laws that held the monarchy responsible for providing assistance to needy families by providing jobs and financial aid. These became known as “poor laws” (Issitt).
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
Magoon, Kekla. The Welfare Debate. Edina: ABDO Publishing Company, Inc. 2009. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Print.
Welfare programs are an important part of American society. Without any type of American welfare, people will starve, children will not receive the proper education, and people will not receive any medical help simply because they do not have the resources available to them. Each of the three aspects of the American welfare system are unique in their own ways because they are funded differently and the benefits are given to different people. While support for these welfare systems has declined in the more recent years, the support for it when it was created was strong. There are three aspects of the American Welfare System that include social insurance programs, public assistance programs, and private or sector welfare.
Herring characterises the present law of the welfare principle is individualistic . A ceaseless debate has begun between several writers about the potential conflict between the welfare principle and the ECHR. Article 8 provides that there should be respect for everybody’s right to private and family life. This right is subject to certain restrictions as specified in article 8(2). The European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) has been referred children’s rights. In Johansen v Norway it considere...
Throughout this assignment a variety of terminology will be used, first it is appropriate to define what the term ‘Social Policy’ means. Social policy can be defined in different ways and ‘there is no established or agreed definition of social policy’ (Baldock et, al., 1999:21). From reading different books on social policy, the author’s understanding of social policy is it provides guidelines to deal with social problems . Social problems are matters which direct...
We must work for it ourselves and strive for greatness by pursuing our own self interest. By relying on the state, our success will be directly proportional to theirs. Once their success crashes, so will ours. An example that greatly depicts this perspective is the “Grest Leap Forward” in China in 1958. This idea was meant to develop and expant China’s agriculture and industry. For this to work, China adapted a collectivist idea called “communes” where a group of people work as one and share responsibilities. They no longer worked for themselves but worked as a collective. The idea of a welfare state is similar to what the government was able to provide its people. Essential needs such as health care, schools, nurseries were all provided. Elderls were taken care of so that all those who could work were able to work. However, as great as it may sound, consequences were met. The government crashed and the people could no longer support themselves since they gave everything that they owned up. Over 40 million people died. Eventhough this example is extreme, it illustrates the idea that collectivism creates a domino affect in an economy. Once the wall in whcih everyone is leaning on, falls down, everyone falls with
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political philosophy is generally a point of view which after some deep thinking asks questions such as, what are the government’s duties? Is it legitimate? What makes it legitimate? What are the duties of its citizens? What are their rights? Are they protected? So on and so forth. In the following paper, I will canvass my political philosophy and elaborate on my reasoning behind it.
The societies of the modern day are shaped largely around the economic model or infrastructure that has been implement into the lives of citizens. These varying “economic models” alter the ways of domestic culture, and thus serve to be warranted much more attention and examination. Capitalism and Socialism are the two dominant ideologies that seem to invoke the opposite ends of the spectrum in the societal effect aspect. The far right capitalist, evoking a connotation of free business and anti-regulatory economic growth, comprised of a great deal of the Western world and provided a high risk-reward system that created a great number of wealthy elite and even more low-class blue collar workers. Conventional wisdom leads one to obviously find the opposing mindset with Socialism and its many degrees. The left wing socialist was characterized by a controlled economy and a strict government market. This system was heralded as system with no losers and social equality; thus, a gap-less population with a high standard of life. The course of this work will provide and explain the differences between Capitalism and Socialism; therefore, in the conclusion, the two societal roles will be defined. This will lead to a much more conclusive conclusion when examining, promoting, or denying either system.
Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens.
...ds & Gelleny, 2007). Moreover, the status of women is independent on policy adjustments in developing countries. Governments in developing countries should organize an economically and political stable environment, to be economically attractive (Maxfield, 1998 as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Other critics state governments are forced to cut expenditures in education and social programs. This phenomenon especially affects women (Ayres and McCalla, 1997, as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Since the public sector is one of the main employers of females, women are often the most disadvantaged by governmental efforts to cut expenditures in the public sector (Hemmati and Gardiner, 2004, as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). As a result, women will become unemployed and unable to expanded education among themselves or their children. (Richards & Gelleny, 2007)