Welfare State Classification: The Development of Central Eastern European Welfare

their own welfare group. These countries simply have not been very enthusiastic about the conversion to capitalists, market oriented economy and social policy. The influence of the
Communist ideology in these welfare states is much higher than in the CEE welfare states which tend towards divergence of social policy (Deacon 2000).
Fenger (2007) has examined to what extent post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe fit into Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime classification. Hence, by analyzing these countries he suggests that there are reasons to believe that these countries do not fit into Esping-Andersen’s typology. This suggestion is based on both Deacon (1993) and Esping-Andersen (1996). As described above, Deacon states that Central Eastern post-communist European countries should, at least temporarily, be classified as an additional welfare regime (Deacon 1993). Esping-Andersen rejected the suggestion of adding a fourth, Central Eastern European welfare type to his classification. In his reaction to most proposed additions of welfare types and dimensions he included that CEE countries were in transition (Esping-Andersen 1996). Hence, the welfare states of CEE countries would develop towards one of the three welfare state regimes of Esping-Andersen’s classification. Fenger argues that after 15 years one would expect that the differences between Eastern and Western European welfare states have been diminished, which means that one could analyze whether these welfare states fit into Esping-Andersen’s classification or not. Fenger used Saint-Arnaud and Bernard’s method to validate Esping-Andersen’s welfare typology. In order to analyze Esping-Andersen’s classification scheme, Saint-Arnaud and Bernard (2003) have developed the so called method of hierarchal cluster analysis. Fenger has replicated this method, but he has replaced the data used by
Saint-Arnaud and Bernard with data available for countries other than OECD countries (Fenger 2007:
4). Fenger, again, has analyzed Central and Eastern European welfare states. He argues that post- communist welfare states differ significantly from welfare types distinguished by Esping-Andersen.
Fenger explains these differences by, among others, the fact that the concept of CEE wrongfully suggests a similarity in paths of developments and institutional characteristics. Frankly, the region consists of a wide variety of countries with different historical backgrounds, orientations towards the
European Union at one side and Russia on the other side, and institutional frameworks (Fenger 2007:
13). In line with the preceding paragraph, Fenger gives a brief assessment of theories concerning the classification of CEE welfare states. He also concludes that the opinions concerning welfare state typology differ. At the same time, Fenger concluded, after execution of a hierarchal cluster analysis that post-communists welfare states can be considered to be “both mutually differentiated and
collectively distinct from the Western countries’ welfare typology” (Fenger 2007: 16). In other words,
Fenger states that none of the CEE welfare states fit into Esping-Andersen’s classification scheme, while at the same time multiple CEE welfare types can be distinguished. According to Fenger’s analysis, three post-communist welfare types can be distinguished, namely the Former-USSR type
(including Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine), the Post-communist European type (including Bulgaria,
Croatia and the Czech Republic) and finally the Developing welfare states type (Georgia, Romania and
Moldova). One need to take into account that these welfare types, or clusters, are based on data- analysis. These clusters are, not yet, theoretically supported. However, these clusters do have mutual characteristics. For example, the first welfare group consist of countries with relatively high government expenditures, but at the same time the governmental programs are low. The second welfare cluster, consists of countries with a relaxed economic development and at the same time this group can be considered to be egalitarian. The third group consists of countries which are still developing towards a mature welfare state (Fenger 2007)
Concluding, Fenger argues that three types of post-communist welfare states can be distinguished and that these welfare states significantly differ from Esping-Andersen’s Western welfare regimes.
According to Fenger, in general the level of trust, the level of social programs and the social situation in the CEE countries are lower than in other, mostly Western countries. Fenger’s findings are interesting and relevant to this study; one can state a hypothesis based on his conclusions.
21

Download 374.54 Kb.

Share with your friends: