Different types of welfare states? A methodological deconstruction of comparative research

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, Dec, 2002 by Rebecca A. Van Voorhis

Research on modern welfare states has been strongly influenced by the theory that they develop according to patterns, which form distinct regimes--liberal, corporatist, and social democratic. These regimes are characterized by several key variables, among which the decommodification of labor is heavily weighted. This article examines the operational assumptions, measures, and calculations used in the most widely cited empirical study around which distinct regime theory has developed over the last decade. The findings reveal critical methodological weaknesses in the conceptualization and quantification of decommodification measures, which form the empirical cornerstone of distinct regime theory.

**********

Theory and research on the development of the modern welfare states tend to be concentrated around two lines of analysis which emphasize either impersonal forces of structural-functional change or the socio-political forces of contending group interests. The structural-functional approach is associated with convergence theory, which posits that over time the programs and policies of welfare states in the advanced industrial countries develop a considerable resemblance to one another. The socio-political approach is associated with distinct regime theory, which holds that there are systematic variations in programs and policies reflected in particular types of welfare states that emerge from different socio-political adaptations (Van Voorhis, 1998).

Among the numerous studies that have advanced distinct regime theory, the most influential contribution to date is Esping-Andersen's (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. The significance of this work is three-fold. First, this impressive quantitative comparative study of 18 countries greatly extended the boundaries of empirical socio-political welfare state analysis--providing a strong quantitative socio-political response to Wilensky's (1975) landmark functionalist study of convergence. Second, the work builds upon the theoretical contributions of Titmuss (1974) and other earlier theorists, and refined the differences between welfare states by identifying three distinct regimes. Third, in focusing on separate welfare state regimes, this study offers an explanation for the causes of welfare state differences.

The distinct regime model identifies a liberal, corporatist, and social democratic paradigm by formulating a systematic comparison of how policies and programs reflect: a) the degree to which labor is decommodified; b) the relationship of entitlements to need, contributions, or citizenship; and c) the type of the public-private mix in social provisions, particularly pensions. The three regimes and their distinguishing characteristics are represented in Table 1 below. In addition to the characteristics in Table 1, the three regimes are seen as creating different systems of social stratification that help to determine and maintain class and status differentiations. In this schema, the Liberal regime is associated with poor relief that maintains class distinctions based on income; the Corporatist regime is identified with contributory social insurance that sustains differentiation based on occupational status; and the Social Democratic regime is linked to middle-class universalism and social equality. Over the last decade this classification of distinct regimes has had a substantial impact on the conceptualization of comparative welfare state research. One of the most recent examples is Goodin, Headey, Muffels and Dirven's 1999 analysis of The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism--a rigorous study of three countries in the Esping-Andersen sample identified as liberal (U.S.), social democratic (the Netherlands) and corporatist (Germany) regimes.

The empirical claim to the identification of distinct regimes is supported by quantitative measurement of several key characteristics, among which the most elaborate and systematic analysis is devoted to the decommodification of labor--a widely-cited analysis that provides the clearest case for the clustering of three regimes. An entire chapter is addressed to the discussion and quantification of decommodification, which is operationally defined by an index that measures the relative degrees of decommodification offered by three separate social insurance programs--old age pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits. The concept of decommodification represents the idea that social policies of modern welfare state provide a level of income maintenance, which allows individuals to "opt-out of work", thereby reducing the necessity to sell their labor at any price in order to survive. Hence, social welfare benefits create a buffer against human labor being treated merely as a commodity that can be bought for the lowest price. The distinct regime thesis suggests that different welfare states foster varying degrees of decommodification, which can be measured by examining rules for eligibility, disincentives and benefit levels.

The division of welfare capitalism into three worlds of Liberal, Corporatist and Social Democratic regimes is an ambitious formulation, and as such has drawn various criticisms. The critiques leveled against this formulation usually involve conceptual and theoretical assessments of the broad conclusions from this study, rather than an in-depth review of the empirical analysis (Orloff, 1993; Sainsbury, et. al, 1994; Baldwin, 1996; Sorenson, 1996, Overbye, 1996). It has also been argued that the division of three worlds is based on a relatively small number of subjects (N= 18) and that the data which are utilized may not accurately portray the unique ideological and class compositions of the countries involved (Kvist & Torfing, 1996). This article provides a detailed analysis of the operational assumptions, measures, and calculations used to create the decommodification index, which represents not only the cornerstone concept in the theoretical foundation of distinct regimes, but offers the empirical glue for clustering of these regimes. This analysis is conducted on three levels: 1) the selection and definition of the decommodification indicators within programs 2) the selection and definition of programs scored on these indicators and 3) the calculation of the overall decommodification score--assumptions and alternatives.