Few discussions in modern social science have occupied as much attention as the changing nature of welfare states in Western societies. Gosta Esping-Andersen, one of the foremost contributors to current debates on this issue, here provides a new analysis of the character and role of welfare states in the functioning of contemporary advanced Western societies. Esping-Andersen distinguishes three major types of welfare state, connecting these with variations in the historical development of different Western countries. He argues that current economic processes, such as those moving toward a postindustrial order, are shaped not by autonomous market forces but by the nature of states and state differences. Fully informed by comparative materials, this book will have great appeal to all those working on issues of economic development and postindustrialism. Its audience will include students of sociology, economics, and politics."

The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have demonstrated that income inequality is related to mortality rates. It was hypothesized, in this study, that income inequality is related to reduction in social cohesion and that disinvestment in social capital is in turn associated with increased mortality. METHODS: In this cross-sectional ecologic study based on data from 39 states, social capital was measured by weighted responses to two items from the General Social Survey: per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state and level of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that people could be trusted. Age-standardized total and cause-specific mortality rates in 1990 were obtained for each state. RESULTS: Income inequality was strongly correlated with both per capita group membership (r = -.46) and lack of social trust (r = .76). In turn, both social trust and group membership were associated with total mortality, as well as rates of death from coronary heart d...

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.87.9.1491

Social capital, income inequality, and mortality.

This essay seeks to lay the foundation for an understanding of welfare state retrenchment. Previous discussions have generally relied, at least implicitly, on a reflexive application of theories designed to explain welfare state expansion. Such an approach is seriously flawed. Not only is the goal of retrenchment (avoiding blame for cutting existing programs) far different from the goal of expansion (claiming credit for new social benefits), but the welfare state itself vastly alters the terrain on which the politics of social policy is fought out. Only an appreciation of how mature social programs create a new politics can allow us to make sense of the welfare state's remarkable resilience over the past two decades of austerity. Theoretical argument is combined with quantitative and qualitative data from four cases (Britain, the United States, Germany, and Sweden) to demonstrate the shortcomings of conventional wisdom and to highlight the factors that limit or facilitate retrenchment success.

http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mshalev/sem/Pierson_NewPolitics(1996).pdf

The New Politics of the Welfare State

Symposium Review: 25th Anniversary of Moral Boundaries by Joan Tronto

the structure of welfare state institutions. (2) A trade-off exists between the degree of low-income targeting and the size of redistributive budgets. (3) Outcomes of market-based distribution are often more unequal than those of earnings-related social insurance programs. We argue that social insurance institutions are of central importance for redistributive outcomes. Using new data, our comparative analyses of the effects of different institutional types of welfare states on poverty and inequality indicate that institutional differences lead to unexpected outcomes and generate the paradox of redistribution: The more we target benefits at the poor and the more concerned we are with creating equality via equal public transfers to all, the less likely we are to reduce poverty and inequality. Social scientists and social reformers have long debated how the welfare state and social policies should be designed so as to best reduce poverty and inequality. This debate involves two different issues. One question concerns whether social policies should be targeted or universal, that is, should they be organized for the poor only or should the welfare state include all citizens? In the context of nontargeted programs, another question concerns the level of benefits: Should benefits be equal for all, or should they be related to previous earnings and in

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/160846/1/lis-wps-174.pdf

The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries

Introduction J.Le Grand & W.Bartlett.- The Theory of Quasi-Markets W.Bartlett & J.Le Grand.- Quasi-Markets, Contracts and Quality in Health and Social Care: The US Experience C.Propper.- Quasi-Markets and the NHS Reforms L.Harrison & W.Bartlett.- Quasi-Markets and the Reform of Community Care L.Hoyes & R.Means.- Quasi-Markets and Educational Reforms W.Bartlett.- The Quasi-Market in Social Housing G.Bramley.- Quasi-Markets and Regulation C.Propper.- Quasi-Markets and Social Policy: The Way Forward? J.Le Grand & W.Bartlett.- References.- Index.

Quasi-markets and social policy

Inequalities in health: Some international comparisons

Preface 1. Introduction: Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy PART I: THEORY: FROM KNAVE TO KNIGHT 2. Knights and Knaves in the Public Sector: What do we Mean and What do we Know? 3. Motivation and the Public Context 4. Knight and Knave: A Theory of Public Service Motivation PART II: FROM PAWN TO QUEEN 5. Agency and Public Services 6. Agency and Public Finance PART III: POLICY 7. Health Care 8. School Education 9. A Demogrant 10. Partnership Savings 11. Hypothecation Epilogue: Doux Commerce Publique

Motivation, agency, and public policy : of knights and knaves, pawns and queens

This CASEbrief summarises 'Understanding Social Exclusion' edited by John Hills, Julian Le Grand and David Piachaud, published by Oxford University Press

Understanding social exclusion

The purpose of this paper is to offer a working definition of social exclusion and to operationalize it in such a way that an initial empirical analysis of social exclusion in Britain today can be undertaken. After a brief review of conceptions of social exclusion and some of the key controversies, we operationalize one definition based on the notion of participation in five types of activity—consumption, savings, production, political and social. Using the British Household Panel Survey, indicators for participation on these dimensions are developed and analysed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally for the period 1991–5. We find strong associations between an individual’s participation (or lack of it) on the five different dimensions, and on each dimension over time. However, there is no distinct group of socially excluded individuals: few are excluded on all dimensions in any one year and even fewer experience multiple exclusion for the whole period. The results support the view that treating different dimensions of exclusion separately is preferable to thinking about social exclusion in terms of one homogeneous group.

Julian Le Grand

Papers

Quasi-markets and social policy

Inequalities in health: Some international comparisons

Motivation, agency, and public policy : of knights and knaves, pawns and queens

Understanding social exclusion

Social Exclusion in Britain 1991—1995