Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Esping-Andersen Three regime model for comparing social policy

Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Esping-Andersen

Three regime model for comparing social policy

 

Introduction

            Social policy as an element of the public policy is referred to as all types of collective interventions like occupation, fiscal and social programs and initiative that aim on having general welfare (Rein, 1970). Accordingly, social policies are stated differently and are understood as referring to elements of actions and inactions which is pursued for the nation by the government in order to achieve social welfare objectives. Although some of these welfare objectives may have negative impressions of preventing harm, each has a positive conception for the well-being of human which directs the attention to the means and the ends of such welfare.  The objectives of the social policy are depicted as well as understood in different manners such as in terms of non-monetary and monetary measures including the human needs satisfaction, attaining human skills and potentials, or obtaining justice or equity. All of these measures remain the subject of having considerable philosophical and theoretical speculation, as well as entail some aspects of moral relationships and justification (Fitzpatrick 2000).

Since social policies are different from one country to another, there are authors which provide different models which can be used to compare social policies.  One of these authors is Esping-Andersen (1990) which provides the three worlds of welfare capitalism also known as regime models.  Primarily, the goal of this paper is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these regime models in comparing social policies of Hong Kong and Sweden.

Analysis of the Three Regime Model

            The three regime models formulated by Esping-Andersen (1990) include the liberal/free market regime model, conservative/corporatist or social market regime model, and the social democratic or the Scandinavian model.

The liberal regime model are described by selectivist enduring welfare that is a targeted approach tested welfare for the poor and also provide limits on the reality of social rights. This may consider features which include welfare recipients which have relevant equality, market differentiated welfare among the majority, private pension, and means tested poor relied and private expenditure on health status.  This is very common in the Welfare system of democratic countries welfare system which heavily relies on a high degree of supplementation of the private market for those not entitled benefits and importantly evident in their contemporary welfare system.

On the other hand, conservative or social market type of welfare state upholds position differences by connecting welfare benefits (social rights) to required membership in occupationally differentiated welfare system which includes the social insurance system. Consequently, welfare outputs are restricted by features like the income maintenance benefits, earning related aspects and other corporatist contributions. Accordingly, this regime model is based on the rights of the employees and benefit adequacy tends to be the descriptions of most European countries.

Lastly, the social democratic regime model is known to be the system in which the welfare state is organized in a universal benefits, specifically with the social rights and equal benefits of the citizens. Significantly, these social policies or welfare systems have a higher degree of equality benefit which do not regard equality in accordance with the minimal requirements and needs and what is more important, it prevents dualism of state and markets. This is the characteristics of the Scandinavian social democratic states like Sweden.

 

Strengths and Weaknesses

The three regime model has strengths and weaknesses.  One of the strengths of these social regime models is it allows some tentative conclusions regarding the least efficient mix of social as well as economic policies for democracies under pressure. Such comparisons enable us to have a better comprehension of what described poor/good economic performance in welfare system subject to fiscal crisis.  For instance, in Hong Kong setting, this regime, specifically the conservative type can be used to determine the economic status of the nation. In addition, these three regime model enables nations in having greater analytical parsimony and also assists specific social welfare system rather than the entire system. In addition, it also helps in easily identifying some underlying logic of movement of the nation.

In addition, if a specific country like Hong Kong (Conservative) or Sweden (Social Democratic) is classified as a specific welfare regime, it can roughly infer the characteristics and descriptions of the welfare regime for each nation, which include how the state, market as well as household are interrelated to each other for welfare provision as well as determining the characteristics of the welfare system of Hong Kong or Sweden. Although there is no detailed data regarding the welfare system for these countries or the combination or integration of these three elements which include the market, state and households in such welfare regime model provided.

In addition, another strength of these three regime model offer a bird’s eye view on far reach descriptions of historical and social situation of the entire society.  Furthermore, these three regime models do not have limitation with typological classification of the of the welfare nations, but may be associated to the theory of the welfare state’s changes. These three models put a special focus on the socio-political internal logic which consists of these models and attempt to make integration between a typology focused on static elements and transition models focusing on dynamic elements.

Although these three models have strengths, they also have some weaknesses and one of these is the weakness in terms of gender aspects of the regime. Accordingly, feminists criticize these models in terms of gender social policies. In addition, another weakness is that the concept of welfare regime model gives attention on the relative weight that each market, state and household takes in welfare policies and their way of integration. Hence, it becomes unconvincing if comparison is made between Hong Kong and Sweden since specific country is underdeveloped in terms of state welfare. In this regard, the case of Hong Kong and Sweden has some differences.

 

Conclusion

            Analysis shows that three regime models of Esping-Andersen (1990) have been its strengths and weaknesses in comparing the social policies or welfare system of each country like Hong Kong and Sweden. The criticisms of these models, has enabled other theories to emerge. However, although it has some limitations, it can also help in identifying whether the social policies adhere to the needs of the entire society or not.

 

Reference

Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

Fitzpatrick, T. (2001) Welfare Theory. London: Palgrav

 

Rein, M. (1970) Social Policy: Issues of Choice and Change. New York: Sharpe.

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com