The four global worlds of welfare capitalism: Institutional, neoliberal, populist and residual welfare state regimes

What welfare state regimes are observed when the analysis is extended globally, empirically and theoretically? We introduce a novel perspective into the ‘welfare state regimes analyzes’ – a perspective that brings developed and developing countries together and, as such, broadens the geographical, empirical and theoretical scope of the ‘welfare modelling business’. The expanding welfare regimes literature has suffered from several drawbacks: (i) it is radically slanted towards organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) countries, (ii) the literature on non-OECD countries does not use genuine welfare policy variables and (iii) social assistance and healthcare programmes are not utilized as components of welfare state effort and generosity. To overcome these limitations, we employ advanced data reduction methods, exploit an original dataset that we assembled from several international and domestic sources covering 52 emerging markets and OECD countries and present a welfare state regime structure as of the mid-2010s. Our analysis is based on genuine welfare policy variables that are theorized to capture welfare generosity and welfare efforts across five major policy domains: old-age pensions, sickness cash benefits, unemployment insurance, social assistance and healthcare. The sample of OECD countries and emerging market economies form four distinct welfare state regime clusters: institutional, neoliberal, populist and residual. We unveil the composition and performance of welfare state components in each welfare state regime family and develop politics-based working hypotheses about the formation of these regimes. Institutional welfare state regimes perform high in social security, healthcare and social assistance, while populist regimes perform moderately in social assistance and healthcare and moderate-to-high in social security. The neoliberal regime performs moderately in social assistance and healthcare, and it performs low in social security, and the residual regime performs low in all components. We then hypothesize that the relative political strengths of formal and informal working classes are key factors that shaped these welfare state regime typologies.

Generational differences in income trajectories in the Nordic welfare state

How much it matters for your income development what generation you happen to be born? We answer this question by using registers of the total population, we study generational income inequality during 1970–2018 and, for men and women in Finland. We follow the income trajectories of the cohorts born in 1920–1983 over their adult life course and observed, how certain structural factors explain differences in income trajectories. Our study expands state-of-the-art knowledge, as previous research has often bypassed the question of how much generational income differences explains of populations total income inequalities and what factors may explain the different generational income trajectories. Results show that overall generational income differences explained quarter for women and 6 percent for men total income inequality. Each successive cohort until 1980s had a higher average income trajectory. However, generation born in the 1980s has been falling behind. For both men and women, age structure and education were the most important factors associated with income inequality. On contrary to previous findings on Nordic welfare state, our results also indicate that, generational income trajectories are affected by economic shocks.

Die kulturellen Grundlagen des Sozialstaats und ihre Bedeutung für die Verwirklichung des Verfassungsprinzips

While the Basic Law, in a departure from the Weimar Constitution, does not recognize any basic social rights, but only the welfare state principle, the opposite is true in South Korea. However, this difference loses significance at the level of interpretation, since the various basic social rights in South Korea are formed into a general welfare state principle. This paper attempts to compare the welfare state in South Korea and Germany. The reasons for the considerable differences that nevertheless exist between the two legal systems with respect to the welfare state are elaborated.