Welfare state regimes and the evolution of liberalism

Abstract

This paper argues that the concept of the liberal welfare state within welfare state regimes discourse fails to account for some important aspects of the historical development of liberalism. It is argued that two key aspects of liberalism have been neglected. First, that liberalism essentially arose in opposition to ascribed status, seeking to replace it with a form of “achieved” status. Second, that a major stream of historical liberalism sought to equalize individual opportunity by suggesting that the state should provide some basic social and economic supports to individuals in need. This paper uses OECD health data to identify welfare state clusters based on the measurement of welfare (rather than neo)liberalism. The emerging cluster model is then compared with other welfare state regime typologies with regard to its ability to predict important social and political outcomes. The paper concludes that the emerging “welfare-liberal” typology may be a better predictor of certain social and political outcomes than other regimes configurations, indicating the usefulness of considering alternative aspects of liberalism when examining welfare state regimes.

Keywords:

• social policy
• welfare state
• health care
• social class
• liberalism

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the helpful input of the reviewers as well as Dr. Les Carrothers (University of Manitoba, Canada). Inquiries about the analyses performed or data set can be directed to the author.

Notes on contributors

Curt J. Pankratz is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. His research focuses on the impacts welfare state policies have on social stratification, population health, and conditions of living.

Notes

1. Ideologically, this regime type descends from ideas associated with Adam Smith and the belief in free-market capitalism with a minimum of state ‘interference’ (Esping-Andersen, 1990, pp. 9–10).

2. Conservative welfare states have ideological roots in conservative political economy, which emerged in reaction to the French Revolution. It feared social levelling and favoured a society that retained both hierarchy and class; for class, status and rank were seen as natural and given. It was class conflict that was not seen as natural (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Chancellor Bismarck, in pushing towards a social insurance system designed to be income related in order to maintain hierarchy and prevent class solidarity in Germany, was also crucial in the development of a conservative welfare state.

3. This welfare state regime has its ideological roots in Marxist political economy and is historically supported by strong labour solidarity. This perspective is critical of the market's atomizing effects and also opposes the liberal claim that free markets guarantee equality (Esping-Andersen, 1990).

4. In conventional measurement of ‘conservative’ welfare states, occupational distinctions are seen to arise out of feudalist status distinctions. Common occupational distinctions include farmers, fishermen and government employees or civil servants, and in many cases there is still a hierarchy of support levels for each group.