For decades in the twentiethcentury in the economically developed countries of the west, the postulates ofthe concept of the welfare state were declared as a desirable variant of socialand economic development. As Andersen noted, the strict formulation of theconcept of “welfare state” is absent and, most likely, is no longerpossible (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The fact is that, firstly, in the twentiethcentury attempts to implement this concept were carried out and theoreticallyjustified in different countries from different perspectives, and secondly, theconcept of the welfare state as a program or social doctrine for decades of itsexistence has undergone significant transformations. Today, the “welfarestate” for many politicians and scientists is a synonym for the socialneeds of society and the optimal combination of free market economic relationsand the participation of government institutions in solving social issues(Esping-Andersen, 1990). For all the differences and variations in the conductof social policy in different countries of the world, scientists have attemptedto identify models of social policy and their classifications. One of theclassifications was proposed by the leading Western sociologistEsping-Andersen.
This essay examines “Three worlds” classification ofEsping-Andersen and explains how it helps us to understand how and why thereare so many differences between the Swedish and US welfare states.This essay argues that ingeneral, Esping-Andersen is massively influential in terms of the three worldsof welfare capitalism. In the work of The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism(1990), Esping-Andersen gives a characterization to the distinguished types ofwelfare state, which, in fact, represent the main models of modern socialpolicy that exist in the economically developed countries of the West. Moreover,T.H. Marshall also proposed that the social citizenship constitutes the mainidea of a welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990).
One of the most serious social events of the20th century was the realization of the idea of ??a social state and a welfarestate. For the first time, the concept of a “social state” was putforward in the middle of the nineteenth century by Lorentz von Stein. He believedthat the idea of ??the state consists in restoring equality and freedom, inraising the lower, disadvantaged classes to the level of rich and strong, thatthe state should “realize the economic and social progress of all itsmembers, since the development of one is a condition and consequence of thedevelopment of another”. In practice, the concept of the welfare state wasexpressed in the form of a set of social programs in the field of socialsecurity, health, housing construction, education aimed at maintaining asufficiently high standard of living for all members of society. According tothe Esping-Andersen (1990), the nature of the implementation of social policyin different countries and regions is determined by many parameters, includinghistory, cultural traditions, features of economic development, politicalsystem, etc.
Therefore, the general model of the welfare state is just acertain image, some framework conditions. At the same time, for all thedifferences and variations in the conduct of social policy in differentcountries of the world, scientists have attempted to identify models of socialpolicy and their classification. One of the classifications was proposed by theleading Western sociologist Esping-Andersen (1990). Proceeding from the generalprinciples of the welfare state, the scientist distinguishes three types ofsuch state, in fact, representing the main models of modern social policy thatexist today in the economically developed countries of the West. For theircharacterization and distinction, he offers the following parameters: decommodificationlevel, stratification of society, state intervention (Manning, 1999). On thebasis of these parameters, the scientist distinguishes three types of themodern welfare state.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Countries are categorized as separate regimes such as;Liberal, Conservative and Social Democratic (Arshad, 2017).
