Article Arts & Gelissen
• Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A
State-of-the-Art Report. Journal of European Social Policy 12(2): 137-158.
Esping-Andersen: 3 ideal types of the welfare state: conservative (continental), liberal (Anglo-
American) and social democratic (Scandinavian).
To determine the characteristics of the 3 subclasses two indicators or dimensions can be used: the
degree of decommodification (the degree to which a social service is rendered as a matter of right,
the degree to which a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market) and the kind
of social stratification and solidarities (which social stratification system is promoted by social policy
and does the welfare state build narrow or broad solidarities?).
Scandinavian, social-democratic welfare states show: high decommodification and strong
universalism.
Liberal Anglo-Saxon countries: low decommodification and strong individualistic self-reliance.
Continental European countries: corporatist and etatist, and modestly decommodifying.
Three criticisms on Esping-Andersen’s classification:
The misspecification of the Mediterranean welfare states: Esping-Andersen does not cover these
countries in his work. Seems to include them in the continental/corporatist category. attracts
criticism. Some argue to treat the Southern European countries as a separate cluster. ‘Southern
model of social policy’ or Latin Rim-countries. They thus add a fourth model to E-A’s 3 models.
Labelling the Antipodean (Australia & N-Z) welfare states as belonging to the liberal welfare state
regime. These two countries have a more inclusive social protection than the standard liberal form,
the world’s most comprehensive systems of means-tested income support benefits. Thus these
countries also represent a separate model.
The neglect of the gender-dimension in social policy. Subjecting the mainstream welfare state
typologies to an analysis of the differential places of men and women within welfare states would
produce valuable insights. Not only the state and the market provide welfare, but also families.
E-A miss this point.
The authors come up with a table of 5 clusters (built up through 7 typologies of various authors).
The Liberal model (USA as prototype)
The Conservative model (Germany as prototype)
The Social Democratic model (Sweden as prototype)
The Latin Rim / Southern model (Spain/Portugal/Italy as prototypes)
The Radical model (Australia & NZ as prototypes)
The Netherlands is a hybrid case which fits into all three models according to different authors.
Criticism has emerged on the empirical robustness of the 3 way classification of E-A. Based on
findings built on the dimensions of degrees of decommodification and modes of stratification several
researchers conclude that the 3 worlds model of E-A fails to capture reality.
• Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A
State-of-the-Art Report. Journal of European Social Policy 12(2): 137-158.
Esping-Andersen: 3 ideal types of the welfare state: conservative (continental), liberal (Anglo-
American) and social democratic (Scandinavian).
To determine the characteristics of the 3 subclasses two indicators or dimensions can be used: the
degree of decommodification (the degree to which a social service is rendered as a matter of right,
the degree to which a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market) and the kind
of social stratification and solidarities (which social stratification system is promoted by social policy
and does the welfare state build narrow or broad solidarities?).
Scandinavian, social-democratic welfare states show: high decommodification and strong
universalism.
Liberal Anglo-Saxon countries: low decommodification and strong individualistic self-reliance.
Continental European countries: corporatist and etatist, and modestly decommodifying.
Three criticisms on Esping-Andersen’s classification:
The misspecification of the Mediterranean welfare states: Esping-Andersen does not cover these
countries in his work. Seems to include them in the continental/corporatist category. attracts
criticism. Some argue to treat the Southern European countries as a separate cluster. ‘Southern
model of social policy’ or Latin Rim-countries. They thus add a fourth model to E-A’s 3 models.
Labelling the Antipodean (Australia & N-Z) welfare states as belonging to the liberal welfare state
regime. These two countries have a more inclusive social protection than the standard liberal form,
the world’s most comprehensive systems of means-tested income support benefits. Thus these
countries also represent a separate model.
The neglect of the gender-dimension in social policy. Subjecting the mainstream welfare state
typologies to an analysis of the differential places of men and women within welfare states would
produce valuable insights. Not only the state and the market provide welfare, but also families.
E-A miss this point.
The authors come up with a table of 5 clusters (built up through 7 typologies of various authors).
The Liberal model (USA as prototype)
The Conservative model (Germany as prototype)
The Social Democratic model (Sweden as prototype)
The Latin Rim / Southern model (Spain/Portugal/Italy as prototypes)
The Radical model (Australia & NZ as prototypes)
The Netherlands is a hybrid case which fits into all three models according to different authors.
Criticism has emerged on the empirical robustness of the 3 way classification of E-A. Based on
findings built on the dimensions of degrees of decommodification and modes of stratification several
researchers conclude that the 3 worlds model of E-A fails to capture reality.
