Welfare State Classification: The Development of Central Eastern European Welfare
Download 374.54 Kb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2.6 Conclusion
| Bismarckian model Beveridgean model Objective Income maintenance Prevention of poverty Benefits Earnings-related Flat-rate Eligibility Contribution record Residence or need Coverage Employees Entire population Financing Contributions Taxation Table 2.1 Bismarckian and Beveridgean model of social policy (Bonoli 1997: 357) 2.6 Conclusion The preceding paragraphs consist of reviews of theoretical approaches concerning welfare states. The two perspectives which have been discussed, the policy diffusion and the path dependence perspective, have different views on how the welfare states in general and CEE welfare states more specifically will develop. The policy-diffusion perspective argues in favor of convergence of social policy through different mechanisms, including learning and coercion. An example of the latter is the standard condition of privatization of the pension system when granting loans to applying countries. In contrast to the policy diffusion perspective, the path-dependence perspective argues in favor of divergence of social policy. In others words, according to this perspective CEE welfare states will develop towards welfare states which can not be classified as one of the traditional welfare states. Hence, they will develop towards a unique welfare type through the increase returns process. Many studies argue in favor of both perspective; Cerami (2005; 2006) argues in favor of path-dependence, while Esping-Andersen (1996) and Deacon (2000) argue in favor of policy diffusion. Paragraph 2.3 has reviewed Esping-Andersen’s classification scheme and comments and criticism on the typology. Though considered to be the most important classification, the three types of welfare states distinguished by Esping-Andersen (1990) have been heavily criticized. Many scholars have argued in favor of adding a fourth type of welfare state, namely the Southern welfare state. The development of CEE welfare states is the main topic of this study. The research question is whether or not the welfare states of Poland and Slovakia will develop towards one of Esping-Andersen’s welfare types. By reviewing the classification and the criteria on which the classification is based, one creates a foundation on which this study is based. 15 The distinction between Bismarckian and Beveridgean welfare states is most notable in the aim of both welfare models. While Bismarckian welfare models focus on income maintenance of employees, Beveridgean models aim at the prevention of poverty in general. In other words, Beverigdean models can be considered to be more universalistic, while Bismarckian welfare models focus on a particular group in society. In the preceding paragraphs the foundation for this study has been laid. The important perspectives, Esping-Andersen’s welfare state classification and the distinction between Bismarckian and Beveridgean welfare models have been discuses. Next chapter will review the most important theoretical findings concerning the development of Central Eastern European welfare states and social policy. 16 |