Models for comparing
social policy
Fly-In Session #1:
Part 2
Marshall’s model of the development
of citizenship rights
Civil
Rights
Political
Rights
Social
Rights
Characteristic
period
18th
century
19th
century
20th
century
Defining
principle
Individual
freedom
Political
freedom
Social
welfare
Typical
measures
Freedom of
speech,
thought &
faith
Right to vote,
parliamentary
Free
education,
pensions –
‘the welfare
reform, MPs
paid
state’
------> Cumulative development ----->
( Sociology at the Crossroads, 1963 )
2
Titmuss’ models of social policy
1 The Residual welfare state: ‘based on the premise that
there are two “natural” (or socially given) channels through
which an individual’s needs are properly met; the private
market and the family. Only when these break down should
social welfare institutions come into play and then only
temporarily’.
2 The Industrial achievement-performance model: ‘
incorporates a significant role for s.w. institutions as
adjuncts of the economy. It holds that social needs hould
be met on the basis of merit, work performance and
productivity.’
3 The Institutional redistributive model: ‘sees s w as a
major integrated institution in society, providing universalist
services outside the market on the principle of need.’
( Social Policy, 1974 )
3
Esping-Andersen’s model of
welfare state regimes # 1


E-A starts from the principle, espoused by
Marshall, that social citizenship constitutes the
‘core idea’ of the ws But the notion of social
rights as granted by the state which are
inviolable and based upon citizenship rather than
performance in the market are crucial if the ws is
to be de-commodified, i.e. free of the market. Yet
even where rights are granted, account must also
be taken of the ways in which the state’s
activities interlock with the operation of the
market and the family’s role in social provision.
Thus E-A identifies these three variables as
crucial to any useful model of ws’s-market, state,
and family.
4
Esping-Andersen’s model of
welfare state regimes # 2




E-A also sees ws’s as systems of
stratification: ‘it is an active force in the
ordering of social relations’p23
Class is both an independent and
dependent variable in the diff ws regimes
How does E-A come to his three WS
regimes?
On the basis of their de-commodification
and the diff arrangements between
state,market, and family
5
Esping-Andersen’s model of
welfare state regimes # 3
The three capitalist welfare state
regimes E-A identifies are:



The Liberal welfare state
The Conservative(corporatist)
welfare state
The Social-democratic welfare
state
6
Esping-Andersen’s ‘Liberal’
regime





Emphasis on market-based social insurance and
use of means test for benefits Levels of universal
transfers and forms of social insurance ‘modest’,
and welfare largely oriented to group of poor, i.e.
low income ‘working class’, dependent on the
state
Benefits limited and stigmatised because
assumption that high benefits reduce incentives
to work
Private schemes encouraged for those wanting
more than minimum cover, and sometimes
actively subsidised
Such regimes are thus highly stratified and
differentiated-minimisation of de-commodification
effects.
e.g. USA, Canada, Australia (UK?)
7
Esping-Andersen’s
Conservative/Corporatist regime







Corporatist arrangements prominent. State welfare used to
maintain and even reinforce existing class and status
differentials to encourage social and political stability and
continued loyalty to the state (nb earlier Bismarckian
strategy in 19C)
State, rather than the market as main provider of welfare,
but not to increase redistribution or equalisation.
Typically shaped by the (Catholic) church and commitment
to traditional family patterns. Political parties with religious
links.
State intervenes where welfare problems not otherwise
unresolved
Women discouraged from labour market, and non-working
wives excluded from benefits. Day care, family services etc
underdeveloped
‘Subsidiarity’ principle for state intervention
8
e.g. Austria, Germany, France & Italy
Esping-Andersen’s Social
Democratic regime





Principles of universalism and de-commodification extended
to ‘middle-classes’ not just poor, working class
S-D because s-d was dominant force in past social reform
Tendency to encourage equality across classes based on
high standards rather than minima. Thus services and
benefits provided which were acceptable to m/c groups
whilst w/c get access to same benefits.
Attitude to family contrasts with other two regimes: state
takes on and socialises many traditional family
responsibilities such as support for children and old.
Full employment is central to this regime because it
provides income support and makes it possible to pay the
costs of welfare via taxation.
e.g. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark
9
Critiques of the E-A model # 1
Model too limited to labour market
areas?



Concerns himself only with certain
benefits/provision: pensions, sickness and
unemployment benefit.
What about other provisions? Would they lead
to the same conclusions re regimes?
What is consequence of focusing in links
between labour market and welfare? What
about health, education, personal social
services etc…?
10
Critiques of the E-A model # 2
Too few regimes?



What about ‘southern welfare states’ : Italy,
Portugal, Spain, Greece (Ferrera etc.)?
What about Australia and New Zealand (Castles
etc.);
What about Japan and other Asian welfare
states?
(See E-A’s response to these questions in his Social foundations of
postindustrial economies )
11
Critiques of the E-A model # 3
Gender



See Langan & Ostner article (1991) Treatment by E-A of
women and welfare fails to acknowledge role of women in
the ‘decommodified’ domestic sphere which is necessary
basis for the ‘commodification’ of labour
L&O argue that men and women are gendered
commodities with different experiences of the labour
market, resulting from different relationship to family life
i.e. the WS is gendered.
See also welfare services provided free by women - no
recognition in aggregate statistics but probably crucial in
making judgements about who gains and loses in diff
welfare regimes.
( See E-A’s response to these questions in his Social foundations of
postindustrial economies )
12
Critiques of the E-A model # 4
‘Race’




Significance of ‘race’ for post-war welfare states especially
in W Europe. Access and exclusion to welfare benefits
based upon combination of residence and citizenship status.
Popular ideology, exploited both by political parties and
governments re ‘immigrants’ seeking welfare benefits.
Continuing attempts to define citizenship in ways which
limit or exclude some groups from social and political
rights.
High proportion of (low-paid) support and service jobs in
western European welfare staesheld by etnic minorities and
‘guest-workers’.
Thus certain ‘racial’ groups at bottom of social stratification
system and/or excluded from access to welfare benefits,
whilst being used to finance welfare provisions (more
cheaply). i.e. WS is racially structured.
13