Gosta Esping Andersen, Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies , Cap.

. 5: Comparative Welfare Regimes Re-Examined p 73-91 Following Richard Titmuss' (1958) pion ring contri!ution, th r ha" ! n int ns ##orts d "ot d to w l#ar stat classi#ication$ T%pologi s can ! us #ul #or at l ast thr r asons$ &n , th % allow #or gr at r anal%tical parsimon% and h lp us s th #or st rath r than m%riad tr s$ Two, i# w can clust r "arious sp ci s according to similar crucial attri!ut s, th anal%st can mor asil% id nti#% som und rl%ing conn cting logic o# mo" m nt and ma%! " n causalit%$ 'nd thr , t%pologi s ar h lp#ul tools #or g n rating and t sting h%poth s s$ T%pologi s ar pro!l matic ! caus parsimon% is !ought at th (p ns o# nuanc , !ut sp ciall% ! caus th % ar inh r ntl% static$ Th % pro"id a snapshot o# th world at on point in tim and do not asil% captur mutations or th !irth o# n w sp ci s$ 'n% t%polog% o# w l#ar r gim s th r #or r mains "alid onl% as long as histor% stands still$ ) l#ar stat classi#ications mirror a particular poch, in most cas s th status *uo o# th 197+s and 198+s$ Th ,thr worlds- t%polog% o# r gim s that und rpinn d m% arli r wor. (/sping-'nd rs n, 199+) has ! n *u stion d on num rous grounds, and som pro"id comp lling argum nts #or a ma0or r consid ration$ 1t was a t%polog% too narrowl% !as d on incom -maint nanc programm s, too #ocus d on onl% th stat 2 mar. t n (us, and too on -dim nsionall% !uilt around th standard mal production wor. r$ Th r ar primaril% two a" nu s o# criticism that m rit att ntion$ &n *u stions th simpl triad, arguing that w should distinguish additional mod ls3a ,#ourth world- so to sp a.$ 'noth r *u stions th !asic crit ria which w r mplo% d in th construction o# th t%polog%$ 4ut ! #or w proc d, th r is on point o# pot ntial con#usion that must ! clari#i d$ Th !as s #or t%polog% construction that 1 am h r (as ! #or ) (amining, ar w l#ar regimes, not w l#ar states nor indi"idual social polici s$ ,R gim s- r # rs to th wa%s in which w l#ar production is allocat d ! tw n stat , mar. t, and hous holds$ 5om con#usion ma% aris ! caus th word ,r gim - is o#t n appli d to all .inds o# ph nom na6 ,po" rt% r gim s-, ,p nsion r gim s-, or ,mal !r ad-winn r r gim s-, 0ust to m ntion a # w$ 5om criticisms o# ,th thr worlds- ar , in a s ns , irr l "ant ! caus th % ar not addr ssing w l#ar r gim s !ut indi"idual programm s$ 7 i!#ri d's (1998) argum nt that th r is a distinct 9 dit rran an r gim ! caus social assistanc in 5outh rn /urop is uni*u ma% ! w ll-ta. n$ 4ut h r 7 i!#ri d miss s th mar. ! caus h is stud%ing a *ualitati" l% di## r nt ph nom non$ ' similar pro!l m p r"ad s som # minist contri!utions, at l ast in so #ar as th % ha" r d #in d th d p nd nt "aria!l $ 1t is un*u stiona!l% r l "ant to compar ,!r ad- winn r mod ls-, and it go s without sa%ing that this has dir ct r l "anc #or w l#ar r gim comparisons !ut, again, a w l#ar r gim t%polog% do s not stand or #all sol l% on on social polic% dim nsion: and, again, ,!r ad- winn r r gim s- and ,w l#ar r gim s- ar two distinct d p nd nt "aria!l s$

The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Re-Examined Th pri"at -pu!lic mi( was th principal anal%tical a(is that und rpinn d th ,thr worlds- t%polog%: th . % d #ining dim nsions w r d gr o# d commodi#ication and mod s o# strati#ication or, i# %ou wish, solidariti s (/sping-'nd rs n, 199+)$ Th r gim la! ls that r pr s nt this triad3li! ral, cons r"ati" , and social d mocratic3d ri" #rom classical /urop an political conom%$ Th % r #l ct th political and id ological thrust that was dominant in th ir historical "olution, clima(ing with th matur w l#ar stat s in th 197+s and 198+s$ Th t%polog%, r gardl ss o# political origins, ! com s static in th s ns that it r #l cts th socio- conomic conditions that pr "ail d th n, nam l% an conom% dominat d !% industrial mass production: a class structur in which th mal , manual wor. r constitut d th protot%pical citi; n: and a soci t% in which th protot%pical hous hold was o# th sta!l , on - arn r .ind$ 4 low is a summar% pr s ntation o# th thr w l#ar r gim s$1 The Li eral Welfare Regime 7i! ral social polic% can trac its roots !ac. to nin t nth-c ntur% /nglish political conom%, to its notions o# ,l ss ligi!ilit%- and ,s l#-h lp-$ 1t har!our d an un!ound d #aith in mar. t so" r ignt%$ 7i! ral w l#ar r gim s in th ir cont mporar% #orm r #l ct a political commitm nt to minimi; th stat , to indi"iduali; ris.s, and to promot mar. t solutions$ 's such, th % dis#a"our citi; ns' ntitl m nts$ 7i! ral social polic% pr "ails in countri s wh r socialist or <hristian d mocratic mo" m nts w r w a. or de facto a!s nt$ 's <astl s (1993) has point d out, th r is a p culiar clust ring o# th 'nglo-5a(on nations around th li! ral mod l$ 4ut, as h adds, it is important to distinguish ! tw n thos soci ti s, li. 'ustralia and 4ritain, wh r th la!our mo" m nt pla% d a signi#icant rol in social polic% #ormation and thos , li. th =nit d 5tat s, wh r its rol was p riph ral$ 1n th #orm r ,li!-la!- cas , to us <astl s' t rminolog%, th w l#ar stat is mor compr h nsi" and coll cti"ist$ >isr garding such "ariation #or th mom nt, th r ar thr cor l m nts that charact ri; th li! ral r gim $ 1t is, #irstl%, r sidual in th s ns that social guarant s ar t%picall% r strict d to ,!ad ris.s-$ 1t adopts a narrow d #inition o# who should ! ligi!l $ 7i! ral social polic% is th r #or " r% much th child o# nin t nth- c ntur% poor r li #, #a"ouring m ans or incom t sts so as to asc rtain d s rt and n d$ 'ccordingl%, th r lati" w ight o# n ds!as d social assistanc compar d to rights programm s should constitut an (c ll nt indicator o# ,li! ralism-$ 1nd d, int rnational comparisons show that th 'nglo-5a(on w l#ar stat s ar (traordinaril% !ias d towards targ t d social assistanc 6 'ustralia, ? w @ aland, th =nit d 5tat s, and <anada in particular (/sping-'nd rs n, 199+, ch$ 3)$ This is ampl% con#irm d in lat r r s arch (Aough et al$, 1997, Ta!l 8)6 it is ith r dominant or at l ast a ma0or l m nt o# th total social prot ction pac.ag in 'ustralia, <anada, 1r land, ? w @ aland, th =B, and th =5': as a p rc ntag o# total social (p nditur s, it now accounts #or clos to 1++ p r c nt in 'ustralia and ? w @ aland: a!out C+ p r c nt in 1r land and th =nit d 5tat s: and 8+23+ p r c nt in <anada and th =B$ Th clos st non-li! ral runn r-up is A rman% with 18 p r c nt$! 7i! ral polic% is, s condl%, r sidual in th s ns that it adh r s to a narrow conc ption o# what ris.s should ! consid r d ,social-$ Th =nit d 5tat s is (tr m l% r sidual ! caus

o# its lac. o# national h alth car , sic.n ss and mat rnit% ! n #its, #amil% allowanc s, and par ntal l a" pro"isions$ To addr ss mar. t #ailur in th s ar as, th approach is targ t d aid to ,!ad- ris.s6 9 dicaid ! n #its to th poor and 9 dicar to th ag d, 'F>< to lon moth rs, and ta( cr dits to low-incom child #amili s$ D t, i# th r is a strong tradition o# s l cti"it% th r ar also cr ping l m nts o# compr h nsi" n ss$ This is no mor "id nt than in th m rging popularit% o# som #orm o# n gati" incom ta(, an appr propos d !% 9ilton Fri dman and now ! ing graduall% (t nd d in 'ustralia, <anada, th =B, and th =nit d 5tat s$ &n on count, li! ral and cons r"ati" polic% ar similarl% r sidual, nam l% as r gards #amil% s r"ic s$ Th r asons, how " r, ar di## r nt$ 7i! rals "i w s r"icing as a natural mar. t acti"it%, as an indi"idual r sponsi!ilit%: cons r"ati" s insist that it ! th pr rogati" o# #amili s$" Th third charact ristic o# li! ralism is its ncourag m nt o# th mar. t$ ?owh r was this mor pronounc d than in 'm rica's promotion o# ,w l#ar capitalism- during th 198+s or in th Thatch r ra in 4ritain$ 1nd d, it was not until th ? w > al in th 193+s that th =nit d 5tat s introduc d th #irst national social s curit% programm s$ 's not d, th r sidual approach culti"at s dualisms6 th good ris.s can ! s l#-r liant in th mar. t: th !ad on s ! com ,w l#ar d p nd nts-$ Th r ar , o# cours , s " ral wa%s o# pla%ing th mar. t6 indi"iduall% (p rsonal r tir m nt accounts, li# insuranc , and th li. ), or coll cti" l% (group insuranc or occupational w l#ar plans)$ )hat unit s th m !oth is that th % g n rall% ! n #it #rom su!stantial ta( conc ssions$ ) l#ar r gim s ar *uit polar in t rms o# th rol o# mar. t pro"ision6 th ratio o# pri"at to pu!lic p nsions is $5 in 'ustralia, $7 in <anada, $C in Eapan, $3 in th =nit d 5tat s, !ut in <ontin ntal /urop or in 5candina"ia th ratio is o# th ord r o# +$1 (or l ss)$# 1n h alth car , how " r, th pictur is l ss cl ar$ 5 " ral /urop an nations app ar *uit pri"at (8+ p r c nt o# total in A rman%, 3F p r c nt in 'ustria) ! caus much o# h alth car is run !% ,third s ctor-, non-pro#it associations$ 'nd som ,li! ral- r gim s, li. <anada and 4ritain, ha" uni" rsal national h alth insuranc $ Gri"at h alth car dominat s in th =nit d 5tat s (57 p r c nt o# total), !ut h r again non-pro#it #irms (li. 4lu <ross-4lu 5hi ld) pla% a d cisi" rol $ Gri"at w l#ar plans ha" traditionall% ! n mor coll cti" than indi"idual in 'ustralia, 4ritain, and th =nit d 5tat s, to a larg d gr ! caus o# coll cti" !argaining traditions (/sping-'nd rs n, 199+, Ta!l C$8)$ > clining union m m! rship and co" rag app ars, how " r, to contri!ut to an rosion o# occupational plans and to promot gr at r indi"idualism$ This is sp ciall% "id nt in th =nit d 5tat s wh r co" rag und r occupational p nsion plans has d clin d #rom a!out 5+ p r c nt in 197+ to l ss than a third toda%$5 1# w d #in th li! ral mod l in t rms o# th w ight o# r sidualism (# w rights and mod st l " ls o# d -commodi#ication) and o# mar. ts, th r is cl ar "id nc o# nation clust ring$ Th two attri!ut s ar highl% corr lat d$ Th li! ral w l#ar r gim clust r is, #urth rmor , almost in"aria!l% 'nglo-5a(on6 th =nit d 5tat s, <anada, 'ustralia, 1r land, ? w @ aland, and th =B$$ 1# w ta. two . % m asur s (m ans-t st d assistanc as a shar o# total social (p nditur ( arl% 199+s), and pri"at p nsions as a shar o# total p nsions (198+s) and corr lat th m with a ,li! ral- nation dumm%, th association is strong and positi" 6H $F8 #or th assistanc "aria!l , and H$58 #or th pri"at p nsion "aria!l $ For !oth th social d mocratic and th cons r"ati" r gim s, th

corr lations ar n gati" (I$31 and I$C1 #or assistanc : I$87 and 2$89 #or pri"at p nsions)$% This can ! pr s nt d in t rms o# logistic odds-ratios, as in Ta!l 5$1$ Ta!l 5$1 shows that th li! ral r gim is #airl% w ll pr dict d !% th s two # atur s, whil th two oth rs ar cl arl% not$ 1t also sugg sts that th social assistanc !ias is a mor distincti" # atur than ar pri"at p nsions$ Ta le 5.1. Logisti& 'dds-Ratios for (o&ial Assistan&e and )ri*ate )ension +ominan&e , Welfare Regime 7i! ral 5ocial d mocratic<ons r"ati" r gim r gim r gim 5ocial assistanc as a p rc ntag 1$185JJ +$855 +$988 o# total Gri"at p nsions as a p rc ntag 1$188J +$985 +$98C o# all Pseudo-R8 0.681 0.088 0.21 J Gro!a!ilit% ! tt r than +$+5$ JJ Gro!a!ilit% ! tt r than +$+1$ !ources6 /sping-'nd rs n (199+, ch$ C) and Aough et al. (1997)$ The (o&ial +emo&rati& Welfare Regime This r gim is "irtuall% s%non%mous with th ?ordic countri s$ 1t is also an int rnational lat com r$ 1n > nmar., ?orwa%, and 5w d n, its corn rston s w r laid with th ad" nt o# sta!l social d mocratic go" rnanc in th 193+s and 19C+s: in Finland, tw nt% % ars lat r$ D t, corn rston s and matur #orm ar not th sam thing$ Th r ar good r asons wh% w should r s r" th social d mocratic la! l #or th p riod sinc th mid- 19F+s$ 1n #act, th historical roots o# ?ordic social polic% w r , with som minor (c ptions, *uit li! ralistic (Buhnl , 1981)$ Th l gac%, as in 4ritain, was nin t nth-c ntur% poor r li #$ This was graduall% trans#orm d into social assistanc and th n, #rom th 19C+s through th 19F+s, into mod rn ntitl m nt programm s$ ?on th l ss, uni" rsalism was m!r%onic in th 5candina"ian w l#ar stat s alr ad% #rom arl% on$ > nmar. was a world pion r wh n, in 1891, old ag assistanc (upon an incom t st) was (t nd d to all ag d$ 5w d n's 1913 p nsion insuranc plan was, at l ast in spirit, m ant to ! uni" rsal$ 4 sid s uni" rsalism, th social d mocratic w l#ar stat is particularl% committ d to compr h nsi" ris. co" rag , g n rous ! n #it l " ls, and galitarianism (Borpi, 1983: /sping-'nd rs n, 199+: Kic.s et al$, 1989: 5t ph ns, 199F)$ 9ost studi s also concur that this particular pac.ag o# attri!ut s is " r% much th political child o# d cad s o# strong, " n h g monic, social d mocratic rul $That uni" rsalism is th corn rston o# social d mocratic ris. pooling do s not su##ic to distinguish it as a uni*u r gim $ Th social d mocratic ,p opl s- p nsions' or national h alth car ar onl% marginall% mor uni" rsalistic than th ir post-war 4ritish or >utch !r thr n$ Tru , th ?ordic countri s ha" undou!t dl% push d th #ronti rs o# uni" rsalism #urth r than an%wh r ls $ 'nd, mor importantl%, rights ar attach d to indi"iduals and ar !as d on citi; nship (wh r as th 4ritish and >utch p nsions ar contri!ution-!as d)3rath r than on d monstrat d n d or on an mplo%m nt r lationship (Galm , 199+)$ 'nd wh r th ?ordic countri s trul% stand out in comparison to oth r

t nd ntiall% uni" rsalistic s%st ms (li. th 4ritish) is th ir d li! rat att mpt to marginali; th rol o# n ds-!as d assistanc $ Th social d mocratic r gim is distinct also #or its acti" and, in a s ns , (plicit ##ort to d -commodi#% w l#ar , to minimi; or altog th r a!olish mar. t d p nd nc%$ )hil th =B (and also th ? th rlands) has ncourag d pri"at w l#ar , sp ciall% in p nsions and car s r"ic s, th ?ordic countri s struggl d d li! rat l% to clos o## th mar. t so as to ma(imi; *ualit%$ )h n, in th 195+s, pri"at occupational p nsions ! gan to mushroom so as to comp nsat #or th rath r m agr #lat-rat pu!lic p nsions, th ?ordic countri s ( (c pt > nmar.) r spond d with a pu!lic s cond- ti r s%st m: 4ritain, in a similar situation, #irst "acillat d and th n " ntuall% allow d th mar. t to r ign (K clo, 197C: Gi rson, 199C): th ? th rlands ncourag d compan%-!as d occupational p nsions$ Th closing o## o# pri"at w l#ar is # asi!l onl% i# ! n #its ar ad *uat $ Th r is no dou!t that th ?ordic social d mocraci s !oast " r% high incom -r plac m nt rat s across th !oard$ &n "arious programm sp ci#ic or s%nth tic d -commodi#ication indic s, 5w d n, ?orwa%, and > nmar. ar th world's thr high st scor rs (Finland scor s som what a!o" th m an) (/sping-'nd rs n, 199+, Ta!l s 8$1 and 8$8)$ 9or r c nt comparisons com to a " r% similar r sult (Gloug and B"ist, 199C)$ D t, g n rous incom r plac m nt is not a uni*u l% ,social d mocratic- attri!ut $ 1n #act, th >utch and 4 lgian d -commodi#ication scor s ar hardl% in# rior to th >anish$ 'nd, as to p nsions, th larg ss o# 5candina"ia pal s in comparison to 1talian and Ar . ! n #its (<ommission o# th /urop an <ommuniti s, 1993)$ Th point is that i# w limit our stud% o# d -commodi#ication to standard incom trans# r programm s, th gr at r gim di"id is not so much social d mocrac% " rsus th r st, !ut rath r that th li! ral r gim pro"id s uni*u l% mod st ! n #its compar d to ith r o# th two oth r r gim s$ )hat, th n, is uni*u l% social d mocratic is, #irstl%, th #usion o# uni" rsalism with g n rosit% and, s condl%, its compr h nsi" sociali;ation o# ris.s$ 4% th arl% 197+s, most (non-li! ral) w l#ar stat s had arri" d at a #airl% similar l " l o# compr h nsi" n ss as #ar as cash ! n #it programm s ar conc rn d$ 1t is at this point, how " r, that th social d mocratic r gim com s into its own !% compl m nting standard incom prot ction with social s r"ic s and g n rous incom support #or wor.ing wom n$ 7 d !% > nmar. and 5w d n in th lat 19F+s, th ?ordic w l#ar stat s ! cam ,s r"icing stat s-$ &n top o# h alth s r"ic s (wh r th % hardl% distinguish th ms l" s #rom ls wh r ) was !uilt a hug and compr h nsi" in#rastructur o# s r"ic s sp ciall% cat ring to #amil% n ds$ 's w saw in <hapt r C, car #or childr n and th ag d is sp ciall% pri"il g d$ Th n t outcom is that go" rnm nt mplo%m nt now accounts #or up to 3+ p r c nt o# th la!our #orc , or mor than dou!l th &/<> a" rag $ Th social d mocratic mod l and galitarianism ha" ! com !asicall% s%non%mous$ To man%, th galitarian l m nt is simpl% th practic o# uni" rsalism6 " r%!od% n0o%s th sam rights and ! n #its, wh th r rich or poor$ To oth rs, it r # rs to th acti" promotion o# w ll-! ing and li# chanc s3p rhaps no mor "id nt than #or wom n$ 5till oth rs *uat galitarianism with r distri!ution and th limination o# po" rt%$ 's w shall s in su!s *u nt chapt rs, th % ar all right$ Full mplo%m nt has sur l% ! n a mainsta% commitm nt in th social d mocratic mod l 3!ut so it has ls wh r $ )hat s parat s 5candina"ia #rom most oth r nations is d cr asingl% low un mplo%m nt and, incr asingl%, ma(imum mplo%m nt$ 's #irst > nmar., and now also Finland and 5w d n, su## r #rom mass un mplo%m nt, th

coincid nc o# #ull mplo%m nt and social d mocrac% app ars shatt r d$ This is, non th l ss, not as cl ar as it s ms$ For on , w should distinguish ! tw n actual p r#ormanc and political commitm nt$ 's #ar as th latt r is conc rn d, th coincid nc r mains$ Th ?ordic countri s' (pansion o# pu!lic mplo%m nt sinc th 19F+s ma% ha" ! n guid d !% galitarian conc rns, !ut it c rtainl% was also a m ans o# promoting mplo%m nt$ <urr nt ?ordic un mplo%m nt ma% not di## r much #rom, sa%, th A rman or Fr nch, !ut it occurs on th !ac.drop o# an mplo%m nt rat o# 7528+ p r c nt rath r than 5+2F+ p r c nt3principall% ! caus #ull # mal participation was r ali; d$ Th mplo%m nt commitm nt is *uall% "id nt in acti" la!our mar. t polici s, !oth in t rms o# r sourc s sp nt and num! r o# p rsons co" r d und r "arious training, r training, or mplo%m nt promotion programm s$ 5candina"ian w l#ar and mplo%m nt polic% has alwa%s ! n couch d in t rms o# ,producti"ism-, that is o# ma(imi;ing th producti" pot ntial o# th citi; nr%$ 5up r#iciall% this s ms li. an cho o# what 'm ricans call ,wor.#ar -$ 1n r alit% th two ar di## r nt$ )or.#ar in 'm rica impli s that social ! n #its ar conditional on acc pting wor. wh r as ?ordic ,producti"ism- impli s that th w l#ar state must guarant that all p opl ha" th n c ssar% r sourc s and moti"ation to wor. (and that wor. is a"aila!l )$ Th social d mocratic r gim , th n, is in "ita!l% a stat -dominat d w l#ar n (us$ 4ut, th ?ordic w l#ar stat s, and in particular th 5w dish, ar now (p ri ncing hard tim s 3to us 5t ph ns et al$'s (199C) (pr ssion$ For !udg tar% r asons, go" rnm nts ha" r duc d social ! n #its6 low ring r plac m nt rat s, introducing waiting da%s #or sic.n ss ! n #its, short ning th duration o# un mplo%m nt pa% and, p rhaps most ominousl%, introducing l m nts o# targ ting in th ,p opl s- p nsions'$ )hil cuts at th margin hardl% a## ct th ss nc o# th social d mocratic r gim , th impl m ntation o# an incom t st #or p nsions ma% do so sinc this impli s a *ualitati" r tr at #rom th principl o# uni" rsalism6 th notion o# solidarit% o# ris.s is ! ing r writt n$ 'gain, l t us (amin th "alidit% o# th r gim s$ 4 sid s its strong acc nt on d #amiliali;ation (which will ! (amin d ! low), two # atur s oach originall% o# th social d mocratic r gim stand out6 uni" rsalism and th marginali;ation o# pri"at w l#ar $ 1n Ta!l 5$8 1 pr s nt odds-ratios #or th thr r gim t%p s with th uni" rsalism and pri"at p nsion scor s #rom /sping-'nd rs n (199+, Ta!l 3$1)$ Ta le 5.!. Logisti& Regressions .'dds-Ratios/ of 0ni*ersalism and )ri*ate )ensions and Welfare Regime T,pes 5ocial d mocratic r gim <ons r"ati" r gim 7i! ral r gim =ni" rsalism 1$381J +$988 +$938 Gri"at p nsions+$731 +$98F 1$185J Pseudo-R8 0.6 1 0.0"8 0.# 0 C$i-s%uared 12.&1 1.88 8.&# J Gro!a!ilit% L +$1 or l ss$ ? L 18$ !ource6 /sping-'nd rs n (199+, Ta!l 3$1)$ Ta!l 5$8$ con#irms mor or l ss what w would (p ct$ Th odds that w will #ind uni" rsalism in th social d mocratic r gim ar compara!l% strong and signi#icant$ Mic " rsa, th odds o# pri"at w l#ar ar low (how " r not signi#icant) in th social

d mocratic r gim !ut, as w alr ad% ha" s n, positi" and signi#icant in th li! ral$ &n th s "aria!l s, th cons r"ati" r gim is, simpl%, indistinct$ The Conser*ati*e Welfare Regime 7a! lling th <ontin ntal /urop an w l#ar stat s cons r"ati" ma% app ar p 0orati" $ Th id a, how " r, is to signal th dominant political thrust ! hind th ir archit ctur $ 1n most o# <ontin ntal /urop , li! ralism pla% d a trul% marginal rol and, until a#t r )orld )ar Two, th socialists t%picall% #ound th ms l" s (clud d$ /arl% social polic% was o#t n inspir d !% monarchical tatism ( sp ciall% in A rman%, 'ustria, and Franc ), !% traditional corporatism, or !% <atholic social t achings$ 7 o N11's Gapal /nc%clical Rerum 'ovarum (1891) had a tr m ndous in#lu nc in <atholic- dominat d countri s$ 9or o" r, th passag #rom origins to post-war w l#ar capitalism has, in this group o# countri s, ! n guid d primaril% !% <hristian d mocratic or cons r"ati" coalitions (in som cas s with a Fascist int rr gnum)$ Th ss nc o# a cons r"ati" r gim li s in its !l nd o# status s gm ntation and #amilialism$ 9ost <ontin ntal /urop an countri s mulat d 1mp rial A rman%'s social insuranc r #orms and, li. 4ismarc., th ir original aims w r #ar r mo" d #rom an% galitarianism$ Th arl% social r #orm rs w r t%picall% authoritarian (Rimling r, 1971)$ 1n th post-war ra, th imprint o# social <atholicism and its doctrin o# su!sidiarit% has ! n particularl% strong in 5outh rn /urop , th ? th rlands and, to an (t nt, also in 4 lgium and A rman% ("an B rs! rg n, 1995)$ Fr nch social polic% has, in contrast, ! n guid d primaril% !% a r pu!lican, anti- cl rical spirit$ Franc 's (and 4 lgium's) m m! rship in th cons r"ati" clust r is, as w shall discuss, pro!l matic in that #amilialism is l ss dominant$ D t, !oth w l#ar s%st ms displa% strong corporatist traits$ Th r ar s " ral r asons wh% w might also includ Eapan in th cons r"ati" mod l$ Th pow r#ul pr s nc o# <on#ucian t achings throughout Eapan s social polic% is a #unctional *ui"al nt o# <atholic #amilialism, and also Eapan s social s curit% is highl% corporatist$1 Th cons r"ati" imprint is most "id nt with r gard to ris. pooling (solidarit%) and #amilialism$ 1n !oth cas s, th historical l gac% was t%picall% carri d o" r in th ma.ing o# th post-war w l#ar stat $ Th tatist l gac% r mains strong in th pri"il g d tr atm nt o# th pu!lic ci"il s r"ic , sp ciall% in 'ustria, 4 lgium, Franc , A rman%, and 1tal%$ 12 Th ci"il s r"ic ! n #its not onl% #rom ha"ing its own sch m !ut also #rom "astl% mor lu(urious ligi!ilit% and ! n #it rul s$ 'lso, d spit som att mpts to consolidat th m%riad occupational sch m s, corporatist status di"isions continu to p rm at social s curit% s%st ms$ &# cours , th acc nt di## rs ! tw n indi"idual sch m s and countri s$ A rman% is a cas o# mod st corporati"ism in p nsions (th principal distinction is ! tw n !lu - and whit -collar wor. rs), whil h alth insuranc is a la!%rinth o# 1,8++ s parat r gional, occupational, or compan%!as d #unds$ 1tal%, in contrast, has a uni#i d h alth programm whil p nsions ar di"id d into mor than 18+ occupational plans (<ast llino, 197F)$ 4oth Franc and 4 lgium com!in #ragm nt d p nsion s%st ms with a national h alth insuranc that is di"id d along !road occupational class s$ 'mong th <ontin ntal /urop an countri s, onl% th ? th rlands d "iat s mar. dl% #rom th corporatist mould$ Gu!lic p nsions ar organi; d mor or l ss around th 4 " ridg principl o# uni" rsal #lat-rat ! n #its, and oth r

programm s, such as h alth, ducation, and s r"ic s g n rall%, w r ,pillar d-, that is, split along d nominational and non-d nominational lin s ("an B rs! rg n, 1995)$ Th acc nt on compulsor% social insuranc , compl m nt d with mor or l ss ad $oc r sidual sch m s #or strata without a ,normal- mplo%m nt r lationship, has m ant that pur l% pri"at mar. t pro"ision o# w l#ar r mains marginal$ Arant d, a signi#icant part o# h alth car is, in som countri s non-stat !ut this is chi #l% du to th rol pla% d !% non-pro#it, ,"oluntar%- associations, #r *u ntl% a##iliat d with th <hurch (such as <aritas)$ 's to p nsions or oth r w l#ar pro"isions, !oth indi"idual and coll cti" occupational plans ar g n rall% o# marginal importanc , in som countri s !asicall% non(isting$ ' nota!l (c ption is, again, th ? th rlands wh r (mandat d) compan% p nsion sch m s pla% a nontri"ial rol in th la!our mar. t$11 Th third important attri!ut o# cons r"atism is its #amilialism, sp ciall% in 5outh rn /urop and Eapan$ 's shown in <hapt r C, #amilialism is a composit o# th mal !r adwinn r !ias o# social prot ction and th c ntralit% o# th #amil% as car -gi" r and ultimat l% r sponsi!l #or its m m! rs' w l#ar (th su!sidiarit% principl )$ )hat unit s 'ustria, A rman%, 1tal%, and 5pain is th continu d l gal pr scription that par nts (or childr n) ! r sponsi!l #or th ir childr n (or par nts) in cas o# n d$ 5ocial assistanc , #or (ampl , will not ! grant d " n to adults i# th ir par nts can support th m$ 4 sid s l gal o!ligation, th r is a s%st matic disinclination to pro"id car s r"ic s, and th mor #amilialistic th w l#ar stat , th l ss g n rous ar #amil% ! n #its$ Famil% trans# rs ar o#t n r gard d as r dundant gi" n th practic o# a #amil% wag $ 4ut, sinc th mod l assum s th standard mal !r ad-winn r #amil%, pro"ision #or ,at%pical- hous holds, such as lon moth rs, t nds to ! r sidual$ Th r is, th n, a modicum o# r sidualism in th cons r"ati" mod l that s mingl% parall ls th li! ral$ D t, its targ t is " r% di## r nt6 li! ral r sidualism m ans pic.ing up !ad ris.s l #t ! hind !% mar. t #ailur : cons r"ati" r sidualism, in contrast, is primaril% a r spons to #amil% #ailur $ 1n !oth cas s, non th l ss, th approach #a"ours social assistanc o" r rights, such as th A rman 5o;ialhil# , th 1talian and 5panish social p nsion, or " n th Fr nch R91$ 'gain #or di## r nt r asons, !oth cons r"ati" and li! ral social polici s inh r ntl% #a"our a passi" approach to mplo%m nt manag m nt$ Th li! ral mod l simpl% prioriti; s unr gulat d la!our mar. ts: th cons r"ati" , strong 0o! prot ction #or alr ad% mplo% d adult, mal hous hold rs$ 'cti" mplo%m nt or training polici s t nd to ! marginal in !oth cas s: th manag m nt o# un mplo%m nt in a li! ral r gim is id all% a *u stion o# mar. t cl aring and wag #l (i!ilit%: in a cons r"ati" r gim , ith r a *u stion o# #amil% support (as in th cas o# %outh or # mal un mplo%m nt) or o# induc d la!our suppl% r duction (discouraging marri d wom n's car rs and #a"ouring arl% r tir m nt)$ 7 t us now r p at our ,r gim t sts-, this tim #ocusing on all g d cons r"ati" r gim attri!ut s6 corporatism, tatism, and #amilialism$ 5 Ta!l 5$3$ Ta le 5.". Logisti& Regressions .'dds-Ratios/ of Welfare Regimes and Corporatism3 Etatism3 and Welfare (tate +e-4amiliali5ation <ons r"ati" 5ocial d mocratic 7i! ral r gim r gim r gim <orporatism C$18 H 17JJJ ) l#ar stat <orporatism and /tatism 5$8+C d -#amiliali;ation w l#ar stat ) l#ar stat d -8$8+ 2 +8JJJ p r# ctl% d -#amiliali;ation

#amiliali;ation pr dict d Pseudo-R8 C$i-s%uared 0."(# 1(.0" p r# ctl% pr dict d

JJJ Gro!a!ilit% L +$++1 or mor $ ? L 18$ !ources6 <orporatism and tatism "aria!l s #rom /sping-'nd rs n (199+, Ta!l 3$1)$ 5 #n$ 19 #or an (planation o# w l#ar stat d -#amilialism$ 1n comparison with our arli r stimations, th cons r"ati" r gim is " r% distincti" $ Th odds o# corporatism and #amilialism ar pow r#ul ind d$ 1t do s not, how " r, stand out as sp ciall% tatist$ Th uni*u n ss o# th cons r"ati" r gim com s out " n strong r wh n w r cogni; that th social d mocratic w l#ar stat s ar , without (c ption, uni*u l% d -#amililiali;ing and that th li! ral r gim s all scor low on corporatism$1! 4as d on th #or going, w can outlin th main attri!ut s o# th thr r gim s$ 5 Ta!l 5$C$ 'n alt rnati" wa% to classi#% w l#ar r gim s would ! to pinpoint th ir dominant approach to managing social ris.s within la!our mar. ts, th stat , and th #amil%$ 's #ar as th la!our mar. t is conc rn d, w might simpl% distinguish ! tw n a r gulator% and non-r gulator% approach$ For th stat w could distinguish ! tw n r sidual, uni" rsalist, Ta le 5.#. A (6mmar, '*er*ie7 of Regime Chara&teristi&s 7i! ral 5ocial d mocratic<ons r"ati" Rol o#6 Famil% 9arginal 9arginal < ntral 9ar. t < ntral 9arginal 9arginal 5tat 9arginal < ntral 5u!sidiar% ) l#ar stat 6 >ominant mod o# solidarit% 1ndi"idual=ni" rsal Binship <orporatism /tatism >ominant locus o# solidarit% 9ar. t 5tat Famil% > gr o# d commodi#ication9inimal 9a(imum Kigh (#or !r ad-winn r) 9odal /(ampl s =5' 5w d n A rman% 1tal% and social insuranc mod ls$ 'nd with r gard to th #amil%, th "ital di## r nc is wh th r #amili s ar m ant to ! th primar% locus o# w l#ar (#amilialism) or not: i$ $ wh th r w l#ar stat s grant th #amil% social rights or not$ Following this approach, w would arri" at th #ollowing sch matic nation classi#ication61"

'6 7'4&=R 9'RB/T R/A=7'T1&? )ittle regulation6 'ustralia, <anada, > nmar., ? w @ aland, 5wit; rland, th =B, and th =nit d 5tat s$ *edium regulation6 Eapan, 1r land, th ? th rlands, Finland, ?orwa%, 5w d n$ !trong regulation6 Franc , A rman%, 'ustria, 4 lgium, 1tal%, Gortugal, and 5pain$ 46 )/7F'R/ 5T'T/5 Residual6 'ustralia, <anada, ? w @ aland, th =nit d 5tat s (and, to a d gr , th =B)$ +niversalist6 > nmar., Finland, ?orwa%, 5w d n, th ? th rlands (and to a d gr , th =B)$ !ocial insurance6 'ustria, 4 lgium, Franc , A rman%, 1tal%, Eapan, and 5pain$ <6 F'9171/5 ,amilialist6 'ustria, A rman%, 1tal%, Eapan, th ? th rlands, Gortugal, 5pain (and, l ss so, 4 lgium and Franc )$ 'on-familialist6 'ustralia, <anada, > nmar., Finland, ? w @ aland, ?orwa%, 5w d n, th =B, and th =nit d 5tat s$ ) turn now to th *u stion o# wh th r a ,thr "alid$ worlds- t%polog% r mains ro!ust and

The 8istori&al and Comparati*e Ro 6stness of Regime T,pologies 5inc t%pologi s r # r to on tim -point, w shall miss out on possi!l% d cisi" transmutations$ 'nd sinc th % ar , in a s ns , id al t%p s th r ar !ound to ! am!iguous cas s$ 5om critics ha" , #or (ampl , point d out that th ? th rlands and 4ritain, !oth in th ir own wa%, #it poorl% in an% o# th thr clust rs$ 1t is also possi!l that th crit ria mplo% d to d marcat a r gim ma% rr6 i# alt rnati" attri!ut s w r consid r d, th classi#ication might !r a. down or, at l ast, r *uir additional r gim s$ For di## r nt r asons it has ! n argu d that th 'ntipod s, /ast 'sia, and 5outh rn /urop all m rit a ,#ourth world-$ 1t has also ! n argu d that th ntir t%polog% is pro!l matic ! caus it is !uilt on th (p ri nc o# th standard mal !r adwinn r: it is not g nd r-s nsiti" $ A tting th w l#ar r gim t%polog% straight matt rs not 0ust #or th historical r cord !ut also #or #urth r anal%tical progr ss$ 't th cor o# a w l#ar r gim stud% lur.s th pr supposition that institutional con#iguration matt rs #or how ris.s ar a!sor! d and distri!ut d, #or social strati#ication and solidariti s, and also #or th op ration o# la!our mar. ts$ K nc , r gim s should displa% som d gr o# congru nc and commonalit% in

1+

how th % adapt to massi" social and conomic chang $ This is a ma0or issu o# this !oo. and w n d, th r #or , to sta!lish 0ust how ro!ust is th wor.ing t%polog%$ 1# th r ar am!iguous cas s in a t%polog%, th *u stion is how much th % matt r$ Th goodn ss-o#-#it o# th thr -wa% r gim t%polog% has ! n t st d utili;ing s " ral m thodological t chni*u s, including clust r anal%sis, 4ool an alg !ra, #actor anal%sis, and mor con" ntional corr lational anal%sis (Bangas, 199C: Ragin, 199C: 5hal ", 199F)$ )hil th s studi s #ind that som countri s #it mor poorl% than oth rs (#or di## r nt r asons, 4 lgium, Franc , 4ritain, and th ? th rlands ar #r *u ntl% cit d cas s), th r is also som support #or th thr clust rs$ 4ritain is mainl% a pro!l m ! caus th t%polog% do s not ta. into account mutation$ Kad w mad our comparisons in th imm diat post- war d cad s, w would almost c rtainl% ha" put 4ritain and 5candina"ia in th sam clust r6 !oth w r !uilt on uni" rsal, #lat-rat ! n #it programm s, national h alth car , and a "ocal political commitm nt to #ull mplo%m nt$ 9o"ing ah ad into th 197+s and ! %ond, th two cl arl% part wa%s6 4ritain #ail d to uphold its #ull- mplo%m nt commitm nt and to suppl m nt mod st #lat-rat ! n #its with a guarant o# ad *uat incom r plac m nt (K clo, 197C: 9artin, 1973)$ Failur to . p up promot d a gradual pri"ati;ation that was, no dou!t, acc l rat d !% conc rt d d -r gulation, mor targ ting, and pri"ati;ation during th 198+s6 sic.n ss and mat rnit% ! n #its w r trans# rr d to mplo% rs, council housing was sold o##, th arnings-r lat d p nsion (5/RG5) was ,pri"ati; d- through opting-out, and !oth pri"at p nsions and h alth insuranc ha" ! n nurtur d "ia ta( su!sidi s (Ta%lor-Aoo!%, 199F)$1# 1n a cont mporar% comparison, th n, 4ritain app ars incr asingl% li! ral$ 4ritain is an (ampl o# r gim -shi#ting or, p rhaps, o# stall d ,social d mocrati;ation-$15 Th original ,thr worlds- t%polog% #ocus d rath r on -sid dl% on incom maint nanc $ K r in li p rhaps th am!iguiti s o# th >utch cas $ )h n w stud% incom maint nanc , th ? th rlands app ars ,social d mocratic- in th s ns o# strong uni" rsalism, compr h nsi" co" rag , and g n rous ,d -commodi#%ing- ! n #its ("an B rs! rg n, 1995)$ 4ut wh n w includ social s r"ic d li" r%3and wh n, mor g n rall%, w (amin th rol o# th #amil%3th ? th rlands ! com s s*uar l% a m m! r o# th ,cons r"ati" -, <ontin ntal /urop an #old$ 7i. 4ritain, this would not ha" ! n imm diat l% o!"ious in th 195+s ! caus th n, also th ?ordic w l#ar stat s w r s r"ic -l an and trans# r-!ias d$ 1t is in its sustain d inatt ntion to social s r"ic s that th ? th rlands m rg s as a protot%pical (ampl o# <atholic #amilialism (4uss ma. r and "an B rs! rg n, 199C: "an B rs! rg n, 1995: Austa#sson, 199C)$ )hat is mor , th g n rosit% o# >utch incom maint nanc is chi #l% th (pr ssion o# a p r"asi" mal !r ad-winn r assumption$ Th >utch nigma, th n, highlights th n d to r consid r, onc again, -$at must ! compar d and m asur d$ 1ncom -trans# r programm s captur !ut on sid o# th w l#ar stat $ Th r al ss nc o# th social d mocratic (or th cons r"ati" ) w l#ar stat s li s not so much in th ir d commodi#%ing incom -maint nanc guarant s as in th ir approach to s r"ic s and sponsoring wom n's car rs$ 1n an% cas , th ? th rlands r mains a Eanus-h ad d w l#ar r gim , com!ining !oth social d mocratic and cons r"ati" attri!ut s$ Th point h r , as in oth r cas s, is that w must w igh th r lati" importanc o# di## r nt, possi!l% con#licting attri!ut s$ ?o r gim , l t alon countr%, is pur $ Th

11

=nit d 5tat s pitomi; s li! ralism and, % t, th 5ocial 5 curit% p nsion sch m has !road co" rag and ! n #its that approach ad *uac% l " ls$ >o s this push th =nit d 5tat s out o# th li! ral #oldO ?o, ! caus " n i# on programm d "iat s #rom th ,id al t%p -, th o" r-dominating charact r o# th ntir w l#ar pac.ag r mains ,li! ral-$ &r consid r > nmar. which, li. 4ritain, #ail d to impl m nt a uni" rsal, s cond-ti r p nsion s%st m$ >o s this impl% that > nmar., with 4ritain, is a #ail d social d mocratic mod lO &n this count, again th answ r is no$ Th ! n #its in th >anish ,p opl s' p nsion-, unli. th 4ritish, w r s%st maticall% upgrad d so as to uphold th ir uni" rsalistic app al: and on "irtuall% an% oth r crit ria, th >anish w l#ar stat is protot%picall% ,social d mocratic-$1$ Th r will alwa%s ! slipp r% or am!iguous cas s, and one programm do s not d #in a r gim $ Th r al pro!l m is how to d al with s%st matic d "iants$ Th issu h r is wh th r a thr -wa% t%polog% ad *uat l% (hausts th "arianc $ 1# th r ar cas s that #ollow a wholl% di## r nt und rl%ing logic, w would ha" to construct % t anoth r, s parat id al- t%p 3a #ourth ,world o# w l#ar capitalism-$ Thr -Glus R gim sO Th r ar in particular thr cas s that argua!l% call #or an additional, #ourth ,world-6 th 'ntipod s (<astl s and 9itch ll, 1993), th 9 dit rran an (7 i!#ri d, 1998: 7 ss nich, 1995: F rr ra, 199F), and Eapan (Eon s, 1993: Ros and 5hiratori, 198F)$ 'ssuming th "alidit% o# all thr claims, w will #ind ours l" s with a total o# si( mod ls #or a total o# 1828+ nations$ Th d sir d (planator% parsimon% would ! sacri#ic d, and w might as w ll r turn to indi"idual comparisons$ The Antipodean 4o6rth World <astl s and 9itch ll (1993) and <astl s (199F) argu p rsuasi" l% in #a"our o# a #ourth, 'ustralian or 'ntipod an, w l#ar r gim (what th % t rm th ,wag - arn rs' w l#ar stat -)$ 't #irst glanc , 'ustralia's and ? w @ aland's rath r mod st and targ t d w l#ar state ! n #its con#orm to th r sidual, li! ral mod l$ 'll incom maint nanc sch m s ar now pr miss d on an incom t st, !ut ,9 dicar - in 'ustralia is ss ntiall% a rights programm $ )hil n ds-t st d ! n #its ar g n rall% much low r than *ui"al nt insuranc ! n #its in oth r countri s, th % ar also mor ,n ds-s nsiti" - than ls wh r $ Thus, assistanc ! n #its to child #amili s ar dou!l thos to singl p rsons (<astl s, 199F6 1+9)$ 9or o" r, th incom c iling #or ligi!ilit% (in 'ustralia, !ut l ss so in ? w @ aland) is drawn at middl incom s, not at a po" rt% lin 6 assistanc is mor inclusi" $ G nsions ar said to co" r two-thirds o# th ag d: #amil% ! n #its r ach most middl -class #amili s$1% Th point that <astl s and 9itch ll ma. is that w rr !% #ocusing sol l% on stat acti"it% ! caus in 'ustralia (and onc also ? w @ aland), strong and #unctionall% *ui"al nt w l#ar guarant s w r implant d in th la!our mar. t "ia th wag ar!itration s%st m$ )hat s ms li. an (tr m cas o# a li! ral, m ans-t st d s%st m wh n stud%ing onl% stat w l#ar is, in r alit%, som thing ss ntiall% social d mocratic with its mphasis on galitarianism and wag - arn r rights$ 1# "alid, th argum nt is th or ticall% #undam ntal ! caus it comp ls us to r consid r mar. ts$ 1n 'ustralia, as th argum nt go s, th la!our mar. t is a w l#ar produc r$ K nc , it ma% ! a #allac% to simpl% *uat mar. ts and li! ralism$ Th r is no dou!t that th wag ar!itration s%st m in 'ustralia implant d strong and galitarian guarant s, at

18

l ast as #ar as th mal !r ad-winn r was conc rn d$ Th r was littl n d #or a w l#ar stat ! caus mal #ull mplo%m nt was de facto ,#ull-, ! caus arnings di## r nc s w r highl% compr ss d, and ! caus th mplo%m nt r lationship #urnish d g n ral w l#ar guarant s, such as hom - own rship and ad *uat p nsion incom $ Kow " r, as <astl s (199F) hims l# points out, th s " r% sam guarant s in "ita!l% rod d wh n, during th 198+s, th 'ustralian conom% was li! rali; d: th % w r ## cti" l% liminat d in ? w @ aland$ )ith un mplo%m nt rat s ho" ring at 1+ p r c nt, and with h ight n d wag in *ualiti s, th ,wag - arn rs' w l#ar stat - in th mar. t is, almost !% d #inition, ! ing dismantl d$ 1t is possi!l that th 'ntipod an mod l pro"id d a pac.ag o# w l#ar guarant s that was ss ntiall% ,social d mocratic- in th 19F+s and 197+s$ 7i. 4ritain, how " r, th passag o# tim is pushing 'ustralia3and c rtainl% ? w @ aland3towards what app ars as protot%pical li! ralism6 minimal stat and ma(imum mar. t allocation o# ris.s, and th mar. t sid o# th coin app ars incr asingl% g nuin l% mar. t$ Th 9 dit rran an Fourth )orld 1t has ! n argu d that th 9 dit rran an countri s should ! consid r d distinct #rom <ontin ntal /urop (7 i!#ri d, 1998: F rr ra, 199F: 7 ss nich, 1995: and <astl s, 199F)$ F rr ra's point has mainl% to do with distri!uti" practic 3th p r"asi" us o# social ! n #its, sp ciall% in 1tal%, #or purpos s o# political cli nt lism$ 1n"alid p nsions and pu!lic 0o!s ar notorious wa%s in which th <hristian > mocrats (!ut also socialists) maintain d th ir grip on th l ctorat $ ' p r" rt d us o# w l#ar programm s and pu!lic !ur aucraci s ma% d #in th charact r o# a polit%, !ut it is di##i- cult to s how it d #in s a w l#ar r gim unl ss th ntir s%st m was #rom th " r% ! ginning sp ci#icall% d sign d #or th purpos o# cli nt lism rath r than social prot ction$ 5uch an argum nt would ! " r% hard to sustain$ 7 i!#ri d's (1998) call #or a distinct 9 dit rran an r gim is, as pr "iousl% discuss d, limit d to on programm 3social assistanc $ 4ut " n i# social assistanc practic is distinct, this hardl% m rits a distinct r gim t%p $ 1t would ! a di## r nt matt r i# such d "ianc #orms part and parc l o# a !road r compl ( o# attri!ut s$ >o s itO To an (t nt % s, ! caus th (tr m l% r sidual natur o# 5outh rn /urop 's social assistanc is !ut on #ac o# its strong #amilialism$ =nli. ls wh r , social assistanc was n " r upgrad d ! caus o# two assumptions6 it is assum d (and l gall% pr scri! d) that #amili s ar th r l "ant locus o# social aid: and it is assum d that #amili s normall% do not ,#ail-$ Th acid t st o# a distinct 9 dit rran an mod l d p nds th r #or on th issu o# #amilialism, to which will shall r turn shortl%$ The East Asian 4o6rth World Eapan, possi!l% with Bor a and Taiwan, pos s a particularl% intriguing chall ng to w l#ar r gim t%pologi s ! caus it is such a uni*u " rsion o# capitalism to ! gin with6 sustain d #ull mplo%m nt, highl% r gulat d int rnal la!our mar. ts and industrial structur , compr ss d arnings, and a r lati" l% galitarian distri!ution o# incom , all o" rlaid !% rath r authoritarian mplo%m nt practic s, a cons r"ati" ,on -part%d mocrac%, and ,corporatism without la!our- (G mp l, 1989)$11# w con#in our (amination to Eapan, on asp ct is imm diat l% o!"ious6 it !l nds "ital r gim attri!ut s in a wa% which ma. s it ith r uni*u or h%!rid$ This, ind d, is th #undam ntal issu to ! r sol" d$ 5tat w l#ar com!in s li! ral r sidualism with

13

cons r"ati" corporatism$ 5ocial insuranc is, li. in /urop , status-s gm nt d along !road occupational lin s$ 1n part du to lac. o# s%st m maturation (at l ast as #ar as p nsions ar conc rn d), insuranc ! n #its ar *uit mod st and attach d with prohi!iti" ligi!ilit% crit ria3this is sp ciall% th cas in un mplo%m nt insuranc $ 7 " ls o# d -commodi#ication ar mod st ind d$ Th mod st% o# ! n #its r #l cts a c rtain in-!uilt r sidualism$ 5tat ! n #its assum that th cor (mal ) la!our #orc will ha" pri"at ! n #its "ia th mplo%m nt r lationship, !ut also ampl #amil% support$ Th #orm r undou!t dl% holds #or th roughl% on -third mplo% s in th larg corporat s ctor3!ut much l ss so #or th r st o# th la!our #orc $ /mplo% r occupational w l#ar includ s not m r l% standard h alth and p nsion co" rag , !ut also a "ast arra% o# s r"ic s #rom sports clu!s to #un ral s r"ic s$ 'nd h r in li s on important sourc o# in *ualiti s, not so much according to class or occupation, !ut ! caus acc ss and g n rosit% d p nds on ducational l " l and, o# cours , on wh th r on is mplo% d !% a larg corporation or not$ Eapan's social assistanc s%st m is % t anoth r (ampl o# li! ralism6 strictl% m ans-t st d and highl% targ t d as w ll as stigmati;ing$ Th ta. -up rat is (tr m l% low (! low 3+ p r c nt)$ Th w l#ar state. th n, #us s cons r"ati" and li! ral l m nts which is hardl% surprising wh n w r call that th insuranc compon nt was inspir d !% A rman practic , and that assistanc sch m s w r d sign d !% th 'm rican occupation #orc s in th a#t rmath o# )orld )ar Two$ Kow " r, i# w (amin mor clos l% th w l#ar mar/et it would app ar som what l ss than ,li! ral-$ &ccupational w l#ar #orms part o# th cons nsual mod o# la!our r gulation, !ut it also mirrors a cons r"ati" , pat rnalistic practic $ 1t is non th l ss argua!l that th mar. t ,wor.s-6 it pro"id s (until now) a g nuin mplo%m nt guarant and, #or man%, w l#ar ! n #its$ Th rath r und " lop d and r sidual pu!lic w l#ar commitm nts could3li. onc in 'ustralia3! ascri! d to th #act that n ds and ris.s ar contain d ! caus th la!our mar. t #unctions so w ll$ 1n #act, s " ral scholars maintain that Eapan is an (tr m l% highl% d " lop d ,w l#ar soci t%- and that a larg w l#ar state is th r #or l ss pr ssing (Mog l, 198+)$ Th stat is not n d d ! caus th mar. t and th #amil% ar su##ici nt$ Th r is littl dou!t as to th importanc o# #amili s in th o" rall Eapan s w l#ar mi($ Gu!lic social s r"ic s, ! it to th ag d or childr n, ar trul% marginal ! caus it is institutionall% assum d that th #amil% must carr% th r al r sponsi!ilit%$ Thus, " n toda% F5 p r c nt o# th ag d li" with, and ar car d #or !% th ir childr n3that is, th wi# o# th old st son$ Th <on#ucian tradition o# #amilial pi t% and lo%alt% has, li. th <atholic su!sidiarit% principl in /urop , ! n th o" rpow ring #orc ! hind Eapan s w l#ar polic% (Eon s, 1993)$ Th r is cl arl% nothing uni*u l% Eapan s in an% o# th s l m nts$ 1t app ars th r #or a h%!rid cas $ D t, it is pr cis l% this particular com!ination o# h%!rid attri!ut s that, som sa%, warrants a distinct r gim la! l$ Tru , Eapan do s mani# st a mi( o# li! ral and cons r"ati" traits and, unli. oth r ,mi( d cas s-, th % app ar to #orm an int rnationall% rath r p culiar com!ination$ D t, th li! ral sid o# th *uation is l ss li! ral than app aranc s sugg st$ Th r ar also tr nds that point towards a str ngth ning o# th cons r"ati" attri!ut s$ Th corporatist social insuranc s%st m is now rapidl% maturing and will, in th coming d cad s, dominat th p nsion mi($ This, tog th r with Eapan's unusuall% acc ntuat d #amilialism, ma. s a strong cas #or assigning Eapan s*uar l% to th cons r"ati" r gim $

1C

1n !ri #, it is in scapa!l% tru that Eapan, li. 'ustralia and 5outh rn /urop , mani# sts # atur s that ar not asil% compati!l with a simpl trichotom% o# w l#ar r gim s$ D t, w must also as. ours l" s what would ! gain d #rom adding a #ourth, #i#th, or si(th r gim clust rO ) would pro!a!l% ! n #it #rom gr at r r #in m nt, mor nuanc , and mor pr cision$ 5till, i# w also "alu anal%tical parsimon%, n ith r Eapan nor th 'ntipod s warrant additional r gim s$ Th p culiariti s o# th s cas s ar "ariations within a distinct o" rall logic, not th #oundations o# a wholl% di## r nt logic per se$ Th cas #or a uni*u 5outh rn /urop r gim d p nds ultimat l% on th c ntralit% o# #amili s$ This was th w a. lin. in th original ,thr worlds- mod l and th r #or d s r" s sp cial att ntion$

15