Suchergebnisse

This book examines the effects on health and inequalities in health of work and unemployment, drawing upon international evidence from occupational health and epidemiology as well as the social sciences. It examines various health outcomes including mental health, musculoskeletal pain, mortality and self-reported general health.

International research on the social determinants of health has increasingly integrated a welfare state perspective, comparing and explaining the differing health outcomes of developed countries through reference to the concept of welfare state regimes. Although this is to be welcomed, to date the empirical research has been conducted without reference to much in the way of welfare state theories. In this paper, I situate welfare state regimes and health within the context of political economy theories of the development of the welfare state. Theoretical explanations of the initial emergence of post-war welfare state capitalism are described and the international variants (welfare state regimes) are outlined and compared. The crisis and reform of developed welfare states is examined and contextualised within the wider economic structural shifts from Fordism to post-Fordism. The emergence of new forms of welfare state regimes (post-Fordist workfare state regimes) is also described. Finally, these theories are related to what is already known from the empirical social epidemiology literature about differences in population health by welfare state regime.

The role of gender as a source of social stratification within and between welfare states is increasingly being paid attention to in the welfare state regimes debate. Defamilisation has emerged as a potentially important concept in this context, as it enables the comparison and classification of welfare states in terms of how they facilitate female autonomy and economic independence from the family. However, the methodology used, or the understanding of the concept, limits existing defamilisation typologies. These typologies have therefore been unable to provide an accurate examination of welfare state variation using this concept and, indeed, have in some ways undermined and devalued the usefulness of defamilisation. This article uses cluster analysis to build upon previous research and resurrect the concept of defamilisation. In contrast to existing work in this area, the analysis produces a five‐fold typology of welfare state regimes. This typology differs in many ways from existing models of welfare state regimes, although some core countries emerge as regime ideal types. The article concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of cluster analysis, and defamilisation, for welfare state modelling and future research in this area.

Abstract Welfare state modelling has long been an important strand within comparative social policy. However, since the publication of Esping‐Andersen's 'Worlds of Welfare' typology, welfare state classification has become particularly prominent and a multitude of competing typologies and taxonomies have emerged. Each of these is based on different classification criteria, and each is trying to capture what a welfare state actually does. The result is that the literature is in a state of confusion and inertia as it is unclear which of these rival systems is currently the most accurate and should be taken forward, and which are not and should perhaps be left behind. This article extends Bonoli's two‐dimensional analysis of welfare state regimes by using multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis to compare and contrast the various classifications on universal criteria. It also examines the usefulness of the two‐dimensional approach itself and suggests how it can be enhanced to benefit future attempts at holistic welfare state modelling. The article concludes that there are some welfare state classifications that are more useful than others, especially in terms of reflecting a two‐dimensional analysis: it thereby 'sifts the wheat from the chaff' in terms of welfare state regime theory.

This paper critically examines the theoretical, empirical and methodological limitations of Esping-Andersen's Three Worlds of Welfare decommodification index. It highlights an, to date, overlooked error in Esping-Andersen's original calculations that led to the incorrect positioning of three borderline countries (Japan, the UK and Ireland) and resulted in the empirically erroneous composition of the Three Worlds of Welfare. Updated decommodification data from 1998/99 are used to explore the influential role of variable weighting in the creation of the three worlds typology. Finally, the paper revisits the decommodification index to examine how the relationships between the countries have changed since 1980. The paper concludes by questioning the extent to which the Three Worlds of Welfare still exist, and indeed, at least in empirical terms, the extent to which they ever did.

One of the most substantial additions made by the 'three worlds of welfare' thesis to the welfare state modelling business is that comparisons should examine what welfare states actually do rather than how much they are afforded or which services they provide. This paper extends this basic principle by comparing the health outcomes (measured in terms of infant mortality rates) of welfare states and welfare state regimes. It examines whether there are significant differences in health status between the 'three worlds of welfare' and to what extent a relationship exists between health and decommodification. It concludes by reflecting upon the implications for the 'three worlds of welfare'.

The nature of welfare regimes has been an ongoing debate within the comparative social policy literature since the publication of Esping-Andersen's 'Three Worlds of Welfare' (1990). This article draws upon recent developments within this debate, most notably Kasza's assertions about the 'illusory nature' of welfare regimes, to highlight the health care discrepancy. It argues that health care provision has been a notable omission from the wider regimes literature and one which, if included in the form of a health care decommodification typology, can give credence to Kasza's perspective by highlighting the diverse internal arrangements of welfare states and welfare state regimes.

The nature of welfare state regimes has been an ongoing debate within the comparative social policy literature since the publication of Esping-Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990). This paper engages with two aspects of this debate; the gender critique of Esping-Andersen's thesis, and Kasza's (2002) assertions about the 'illusory nature' of welfare state regimes. It presents a gender-focused defamilisation index and contrasts it with Esping-Andersen's decommodification index to illustrate that, whilst individual welfare states have been shown to exhibit internal variety across different policy areas, they are both consistent and coherent in terms of their policy variation by gender. It concludes, in contrast to both the gender critique of Esping-Andersen, and Kasza's rejection of the regimes concept, that the 'worlds of welfare' approach is therefore neither gender blind or illusory, and can, if limited to the analysis of specific areas such as labour market decommodification or defamilisation, be resurrected as a useful means of organising and classifying welfare states.