Social Policy and Society
http://journals.cambridge.org/SPS
Additional services for Social Policy and Society:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
Clare Bambra
Social Policy and Society / Volume 3 / Issue 03 / July 2004, pp 201 - 211
DOI: 10.1017/S147474640400171X, Published online: 22 June 2004
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S147474640400171X
How to cite this article:
Clare Bambra (2004). The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?. Social Policy and Society,
3, pp 201-211 doi:10.1017/S147474640400171X
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SPS, IP address: 147.251.113.25 on 17 Mar 2016
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Social Policy & Society 3:3, 201–211 Printed in the United Kingdom
C 2004 Cambridge University Press DOI:10.1017/S147474640400171X
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
C l a r e B a m b r a
School of Social Science and Law, Sheffield Hallam University
E-mail: c.bambra@shu.ac.uk
The nature of welfare state regimes has been an ongoing debate within the comparative
social policy literature since the publication of Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of
Welfare Capitalism (1990). This paper engages with two aspects of this debate; the
gender critique of Esping-Andersen’s thesis, and Kasza’s (2002) assertions about the
‘illusory nature’ of welfare state regimes. It presents a gender-focused defamilisation index
and contrasts it with Esping-Andersen’s decommodification index to illustrate that, whilst
individual welfare states have been shown to exhibit internal variety across different
policy areas, they are both consistent and coherent in terms of their policy variation
by gender. It concludes, in contrast to both the gender critique of Esping-Andersen, and
Kasza’s rejection of the regimes concept, that the ‘worlds of welfare’ approach is therefore
neither gender blind or illusory, and can, if limited to the analysis of specific areas such
as labour market decommodification or defamilisation, be resurrected as a useful means
of organising and classifying welfare states.
Introduction
Esping-Andersen’s ‘three worlds of welfare’ thesis has been the subject of an ongoing
critical debate in the comparative social policy literature (Esping-Andersen, 1990; 1999;
Lewis, 1992; Leibfreid, 1992; Castles and Mitchell, 1993; Orloff, 1993; Borchost, 1994;
Daly, 1994; Kangas, 1994; Ragin, 1994; Ferrera, 1996; Shalev, 1996; Abrahamson, 1999;
Goodin et al., 1999; Sainsbury, 1999; Pitruzzello, 1999; Arts and Gelissen, 2002; Kasza,
2002). The debate has included a variety of different critiques: the range (Leibfreid, 1992;
Castles and Mitchell, 1993; Ferrera, 1996), the methodology (Kangas, 1994; Ragin, 1994;
Shalev, 1996; Pitruzzello, 1999), the omission of gender (Lewis, 1992; Orloff, 1993;
Borchost, 1994; Daly, 1994; Sainsbury, 1999), and most recently, the central concept –
welfare state regimes – itself (Kasza, 2002). This paper, through the presentation of a
defamilisation index and a subsequent typology, critically engages with the latter two
aspects of this debate; the critique that the ‘worlds of welfare’ typology is gender blind,
and Kasza’s assertions about the ‘illusory nature’ of welfare state regimes.
The Three worlds of welfare
In The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), Esping-Andersen argues that ‘existing
theoretical models of the welfare state are inadequate’ (1990: 2) as their analysis relies
too heavily upon the misleading comparison of aggregate welfare state expenditure. The
focus on total expenditure figures conceals the variety of state approaches to welfare;
as ‘even if the lion’s share of expenditure or personnel serve welfare aims, the kind
201
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Clare Bambra
Table 1 The welfare state regimes
Liberal Conservative Social Democratic
Australia Austria Denmark
Canada Belgium Finland
Ireland France Norway
New Zealand Germany Sweden
UK Italy
USA Japan
Netherlands
Switzerland
Adapted from: Esping-Andersen, 1990: 52.
of welfare provided will be qualitatively different, as will its prioritisation relative to
competing activities’ (Ibid. 1). He asserts that it is therefore more beneficial to focus
upon what a welfare state does, rather than how much money it is afforded. On this
basis, Esping-Andersen presents a typology of capitalist welfare states based upon three
principles: decommodification; levels of social stratification; and the relationship between
the state, the market and the family’s role in social provision. He concludes that through
the application of these principles, welfare states can be divided into three broad regime
types: Liberal, Conservative; and Social Democratic (Table 1).
The gender blind ‘worlds of welfare’
Commentators (for example, Langan and Ostner, 1991; Lewis, 1992; Borchost, 1994;
Bussemaker and Kersbergen, 1994; Daly, 1994; Hobson, 1994; Lewis and Ostner, 1995;
Sainsbury, 1994, 1999) have argued that this ‘three worlds of welfare’ typology is deeply
flawed because it marginalized women in its analysis. Aside from the overt absence of
women in Esping-Andersen’s analysis, the critique revolves around three other issues: the
gender blind concept of decommodification (Daly, 1994; Hobson, 1994; Lewis, 1992),
the unawareness of the role of women and the family in the provision of welfare (Borchost,
1994; Bussemaker and Kersbergen, 1994; Daly, 1994), and the lack of consideration given
to gender as a form of social stratification (Bussemaker and Kersbergen, 1994). These
criticisms have in turn led to both theoretical attempts to ‘gender’ Esping-Andersen’s
analysis (for example, Orloff, 1993; O’Connor, 1996), and the construction of alternative
welfare state typologies in which gender has been a more overt and centralised part of
the analysis (for example Lewis, 1992; Lewis and Ostner, 1995; Sainsbury, 1999). These
rival typologies, although often flawed themselves (Esping-Andersen, 1999) through the
use of only one factor (Sainsbury, 1999) or a limited number of countries (Lewis, 1992),
have been used to undermine the ‘worlds of welfare’ thesis and to denigrate its validity,
especially in respect to claims about women, welfare and the family.
The illusion of welfare state regimes
Similarly, Kasza (2002) has also questioned the validity of the regimes concept. He argues
that ‘the concept of welfare regimes is not a workable basis for research’ (2002: 283) as
202
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
it incorporates two flawed assumptions: firstly, that most of the key social policy areas,
such as income maintenance, education, health or housing, within a welfare regime will
reflect a similar, across the board approach to welfare provision, particularly in respect of
the role of the state; and, secondly, that each regime type itself reflects ‘a set of principles
or values that establishes a coherence in each country’s welfare package’ (Kasza, 2002:
272). Kasza asserts that instead of an internal policy homogeneity or cohesion, welfare
states and welfare regimes exhibit significant variation across different areas of social
provision. He asserts that the regime concept therefore ‘does not capture the complex
motives that inform each country’s welfare programmes’ and, in pursuit of consistency,
it ignores the fact that different areas of welfare state provision exhibit different crossnational
variations. Kasza concludes that, in light of the internal policy diversity of welfare
states, the best approach for future comparative research may be to abandon the regimes
concept altogether – even for single policy comparisons (2002: 284).
The defamilisation index presented in this paper is used, in conjunction with EspingAndersen’s
original typology, to examine two interrelated hypotheses: firstly, that the
gender critique of the worlds of welfare thesis is not empirically robust, as the ‘three
worlds of welfare’ typology is not altered in any significant way by the addition of a more
overtly gendered approach; and, secondly, in so doing, to reiterate that, whilst welfare
state regimes have been shown to exhibit internal inconsistency across different policies
(Kasza, 2002; Kautto, 2002; Bambra (in press), the regimes concept can, if limited to the
analysis of specific areas such as labour market decommodification or defamilisation,
be resurrected as a useful means of organising and classifying welfare states (Arts and
Gelissen, 2002). It concludes, in contrast to both the gender critique of Esping-Andersen,
and Kasza’s rejection of the regimes concept, that the ‘worlds of welfare’ approach is
therefore neither gender blind or illusory.
This article proceeds with a critical overview of the concept of defamilisation, presents
the alternative index, and discusses the resulting typology in relation to the two hypotheses
drawn from the debate that has surrounded the ‘three worlds of welfare’.
Defamilisation
The concept of defamilisation originates in the feminist literature on citizenship (Lister,
1988) and it has been appropriated by, and used intermittently within, the post-‘worlds of
welfare’ debate (Taylor-Gooby, 1996; Esping-Andersen, 1999; Korpi, 2000). Indeed, there
have been previous attempts at ‘defamilisation’ based typologies – most notably those of
Esping-Andersen (1999) and Korpi (2000). However, the term ‘defamilisation’ has often
been, inappropriately, defined by commentators as the extent to which welfare states
support the family. For example, in their work both Esping-Andersen and Korpi utilise
this conceptualisation of defamilisation and their typologies subsequently rely on factors
which assess the extent to which welfare states support the family (Esping-Andersen,
1999) or different family models (Korpi, 2000), such as overall public family spending
or overall public commitment to the subsidy of child families. There is an alternative
definition of defamilisation that, whilst it has been far less apparent within the literature,
seems more relevant to the gender critique of Esping-Andersen’s typology (Borchost, 1994;
Bussemaker and Kersbergen, 1994; Daly, 1994). In this definition, defamilisation refers to
the extent to which the welfare state undermines women’s dependency on the family and
facilitates women’s economic independence (Taylor-Gooby, 1996). The defamilisation
203
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Clare Bambra
index presented in this paper reflects this second definition and therefore uses factors
that are concerned with female freedom from the family, rather than the freedom of the
family.
Defamilisation index
The defamilisation index is methodologically constructed in the same way as EspingAndersen’s
decommodification index. Even though his methodology has certain drawbacks,
such as the use of averaging, and has met with some criticism within the literature
(Castles and Mitchell, 1993; Kangas, 1994; Ragin, 1994; Shalev, 1996; Pitruzello, 1999),
it is important that the index replicates Esping-Andersen’s method to ensure compatibility,
comprehensiveness and sophistication.
Countries
The defamilisation index includes the same 18 OECD countries used by Esping-Andersen:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA.
Data and sources
Locating suitable data for the defamilisation index was a difficult task as there is very
little international data which specifically relate to women. International data are seldom
‘gender sensitive’ as, for example, whilst wage rate comparisons between countries are
often provided, statistical sources seldom compare male and female wage rates within
and/or between countries, and there are no specific international databases relating to
such issues as female employment, maternity leave or child care provision. Although there
are a number of different national statistics that relate to the specialised contents of the
defamilisation index, their availability is limited and furthermore, statistics from individual
countries are often difficult to compare with one another, as they have been collected and
presented using a variety of different methods, concepts and measurements. Therefore, the
defamilisation index is based upon data from a number of different international statistical
sources, such as the OECD and the UN, and international studies by commentators such
as Gaulthier (1996). Unfortunately, the shortage of available data has also led to a slight
time lag, as the most recent available and comparable data were from 1997.
Measures
In this paper, defamilisation is concerned directly with the relationship between women,
the state and the family; the index is therefore based on the assessment of the following
four factors (see Table 2 for data details):
(1) Relative female labour participation rate;
(2) Maternity leave compensation;
(3) Compensated maternity leave duration;
(4) Average female wage.
Each of these factors has been specifically selected to highlight a certain aspect of how the
welfare state undermines female dependency on the family and facilitates their economic
204
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
Table 2 Defamilisation index data (1996/7)
Maternity Leave
Relative female Compensation Compensated Average Female
labour participation for First 12 weeks Maternity Leave Wage (expressed
rate for persons (expressed as Duration as a percentage
aged 15–64 a percentage (number of of male average
(percent)(i)
of normal pay) weeks) wage)(x)
Australia 19.5 0(ii)
0 85.1
Austria 18.6 100 16 65.6
Belgium 20.2 77(iii)
15 79.5
Canada 13.4 55 15 (76.5)
Denmark 11.7 100 18 83.3
Finland 5.2 80 28(vii)
79.3
France 14.2 100 16(viii)
79.1
Germany 18.0 100 14 74.3
Ireland 27 70 14 73.7
Italy 29 80 35 (76.5)
Japan 26.1 60 14 56.7
Netherlands 20.4 100 16 75.1
New Zealand 16.7 0 0 77.8
Norway 10.0 100 18 87.3
Sweden 4.6 75(iv)
65(ix)
90.0
Switzerland 17.5 100 8 68.7
UK 17.1 50(v)
18 72.5
USA 14.2 0 0 (76.5)
Mean 16.86 83.1(vi)
20.66(vi)
76.5
Notes: (i) Calculated as the difference between the female and male labour participation rate. For
example, if the male participation rate was 78.9 per cent and the female participation rate was 76.4
per cent then the relative female labour participation rate would be (−) 2.5 per cent.
(ii) A replacement rate of 60 per cent is available to some women but this scheme only covers
around 10 per cent of the female population and it has therefore not been included (see Sainsbury,
1999: 125).
(iii) 82 per cent for the first 4 weeks and 75 per cent for the remaining 11 weeks.
(iv) 1 year at 75 per cent, the remaining 3 months at the flat rate.
(v) 90 per cent for 6 weeks, flat rate for remaining 12 weeks.
(vi) Excluding those countries that have a value of 0.
(vii) 15 weeks maternity leave; the remaining 13 weeks are parental leave that can be taken by the
mother or the father.
(viii) Maternity leave duration ranges between 16 and 26 weeks depending on the number of
children. Since 1981, paid leave is 26 weeks for the third and subsequent children (Gaulthier,
1996: 175).
(ix) Paid parental leave which can be taken by either the mother or the father. Compulsory maternity
leave (which is only available to the mother) constitutes 14 weeks of this period. The first 52 weeks
are compensated at 75 per cent and the remaining 13 weeks are paid at the flat rate.
(x) Figures in brackets depict those countries for which separate male and female wage data was
not available and which have therefore been weighted by the mean.
Adapted from: Gaulthier, 1996: Table 10.5, p. 179; Table 10.3, p. 180; Table 10.6, p. 181;
OECD, 1998: pp. 82–83; UN, 1999: Table 33, pp. 303–310; UN, 2000: Chart 5.23, p. 132;
Table 5c, pp. 142–143.
205
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Clare Bambra
< (mean + SD) = 3
Factor × (1,2,3) } c. (mean) = 2
> (mean + SD) = 1
Figure 1. Decommodification scoring formula.
Adapted from: Esping-Andersen, 1990: 54.
independence. The first factor, relative female labour participation rate has been chosen
because it indicates the extent to which the economy of the welfare state facilitates
female employment. It is ‘relative’ because it is measured in relation to male employment
levels, thus reducing the influence of different national unemployment rates. This factor
provides a measure of one way in which women gain economic independence from
the family, enter the public realm; and gain access to certain social rights (Meyer, 1994:
67–68).
Factors 2 and 3, maternity leave compensation and compensated maternity leave
duration, are intended to show whether the welfare state provides economic support
when women decide to have children or if it encourages reliance on the family. Factor 2,
maternity leave compensation, shows the level of replacement income which women
receive when they are absent from work due to pregnancy. Factor 3, compensated
maternity leave duration, indicates the length of time for which women can take paid
maternity leave.
Factor 4, average female wage, has been selected to weight the other factors because
it indicates the ease with which women can independently maintain a decent standard
of living and, as it is expressed as a percentage of the average male wage (Table 2),
it also shows the extent of gender pay inequality. Furthermore, the level of a woman’s
independent income is an important factor in providing women with a choice between
family/state dependency and paid employment. This factor has been chosen as a weight
in preference to the other factors because if the paid employment in which women
participate provides only a small average income then it is not a real alternative to
reliance upon the family or the state.
Method
The process of scoring for the defamilisation index replicates that used by Esping-Andersen
(1990: 50−54) and is by way of the numerical description of the relationship of an
individual country’s score to the mean (and standard deviation) for three (1−3) of the four
factors that make up the index (Figure 1). On the basis of the values on each of these
three indicators for the 18 nations, a score of 1 for low defamilisation; 2 for medium;
and 3 for high defamilisation was given. Following Esping-Andersen, the classification
into three scores has been done on the basis of one standard deviation from the mean
with adjustment where necessary for extreme outliers (1990: 54). These individual factor
scores have then been combined and the total has been weighted by factor four – average
female wage.
206
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
Table 3 The degree of defamilisation
Australia 17.0
Austria 45.9
Belgium 47.7
Canada 38.3
Denmark 66.6
Finland 63.4
France 55.4
Germany 52.0
Ireland 36.9
Italy 45.9
Japan 22.7
Netherlands 52.6
New Zealand 15.6
Norway 69.8
Sweden 72.0
Switzerland 41.2
UK 36.3
USA 15.3
Mean 44.1
Results
The assessment and combination of these factors produces an indicative defamilisation
index (Table 3). This index shows a wide range of defamilisation scores, from the USA’s
score of 15.3 to the highest score of 72.0 awarded to Sweden. The majority of countries
fall in a smaller range of between 36.3 (UK) and 55.4 (France). None of the scores are
surprisingly high or surprisingly low and those allotted to each country, and the range
of scores, are very similar to those under Esping-Andersen’s index (Esping-Andersen,
1990: 54). This suggests that the addition of a more gender sensitive analysis does
not greatly alter the relative relationships of the index countries. In order to make a
more informed comparison between the results of the defamilisation index and EspingAndersen’s
typology the, mean plus/minus SD method (figure 1) used to construct the
index can be continued in order to place the countries into one of three groups. This
process produces a comparable typology (Table 4).
There are striking similarities between the arrangements of countries in EspingAndersen’s
decommodification regimes and the defamilisation groups. The vast majority
of countries are placed in similar groupings as in Esping-Andersen’s index. For example,
Australia (17.0), New Zealand (15.6), and the USA (15.3) are in the lowest defamilisation
group; Austria (45.9), Belgium (47.7), France (55.4), Germany (52.0), Italy (45.9), the
Netherlands (52.6) and Switzerland (41.2) are in the medium level defamilisation group;
and Denmark (66.6), Finland (63.4), Norway (69.8) and Sweden (72.0) are by far the
highest scoring countries and remain as a distinctive high-scoring group, separate from
the other index countries by a large difference in both their decommodification (EspingAndersen,
1990: 52) and defamilisation scores. There are however some slight differences
in group composition, most notably there has been a reduction in the size of the lowest
scoring group of countries: Canada (38.3), Ireland (36.9) and the UK (36.3) are in the
207
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Clare Bambra
Table 4 Worlds of welfare and defamilisation
Liberal Low Defamilisation
Australia Australia
Canada Japan
Ireland New Zealand
New Zealand USA
UK
USA
Conservative Medium Defamilisation
Austria Austria
Belgium Belgium
France Canada
Germany France
Italy Germany
Japan Ireland
Netherlands Italy
Switzerland Netherlands
Norway
Switzerland
UK
Social Democratic High Defamilisation
Denmark Denmark
Finland Finland
Norway Norway
Sweden Sweden
medium defamilisation group 2, whereas in the decommodification typology they were
in the low scoring Liberal regime. Another difference between the two typologies is
the alteration of Japan’s (22.7) group position from the Conservative regime (medium
decommodification) to the lowest defamilisation group. However, overall the differences
between the two typologies are very slight – only four countries have changed position –
and the emphasis is therefore on similarity rather than change in respect of the relative
scores and relationships of the countries.
Discussion
Earlier in the paper, two interrelated hypotheses were outlined: first, that the gender
critique of the worlds of welfare thesis is not empirically robust, as the ‘three worlds
of welfare’ typology is not altered in any significant way by the addition of a more
overtly gendered approach; and, secondly, that the regimes concept can, if limited to the
analysis of specific areas such as labour market decommodification or defamilisation, be
resurrected as a useful means of organising and classifying welfare states. It is useful to
briefly return to these hypotheses in the context of the comparison of the two typologies.
The gender critique of Esping-Andersen’s ‘three worlds of welfare’ is centred upon the
claim that the typology is gender blind and does not therefore reflect women’s experiences
of the welfare state. The defamilisation index presented in this paper has focused
itself upon gender and the role of the welfare state in facilitating women’s economic
208
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
independence from the family. The resulting typology has shown stark similarities with
the ‘three worlds of welfare’ typology and it therefore undermines the gender critique
as it suggests that, whilst Esping-Andersen had gender in the corner rather than the fore
front of his eye when constructing the decommodification index, it nonetheless has fairly
accurately captured the extent to which women’s experiences of the welfare state differ
by country and regime type. The ‘three worlds’ typology is therefore not gender blind as
has been claimed, as it has reflected women’s relationship with the welfare state, albeit
in an implicit rather than an overt way.
The second hypothesis focused on Kasza’s critique of the regimes concept itself. The
comparison of the defamilisation and decommodification indexes partially undermines
Kasza’s claim that welfare state regimes are illusory. This paper, whilst acknowledging one
aspect of Kasza’s critique – that it is inappropriate to use the regime concept, and EspingAndersen’s
‘three worlds’ thesis, to generalise about all different aspects of a country’s
welfare provision – has nonetheless suggested, through the addition of the defamilisation
index to Esping-Andersen’s original, that it is unnecessary to wholeheartedly reject the
entire regimes concept as Kasza has implied (2002: 284). The similarities identified
between the two typologies suggest that the regimes concept maintains its value as a
means of identifying commonalities within, and between, the principles and provisions of
diverse welfare states. Regimes, ideal types or ‘worlds’, remain a useful way of describing,
organising and classifying (Arts and Gelissen, 2002) across what can be quite broad
areas of policy, such as labour market decommodification or defamilisation. However,
the concept is still analytically restricted and it should therefore not be overused: the
generalised claims that result from regime typologies are only valid when they are limited
to the actual original areas of analysis; otherwise the concept may well become illusory
and unrelated to empirical reality.
Conclusions
The comparison of the defamilisation index groups with Esping-Andersen’s ‘worlds of
welfare’ typology has revealed remarkable similarities in the composition of the three
groups and the relative relationships of the 18 countries. These results are not isolated, as
other ‘defamilisation’ typologies have also noted a lack of significant difference (EspingAndersen,
1999; Korpi, 2000). The two hypotheses under examination in this paper
have thereby both been upheld: the gender critique of the worlds of welfare thesis is not
empirically robust, as the ‘three worlds of welfare’ typology is not altered in any significant
way by the addition of a more overtly gendered approach; and the regimes concept can,
if limited to the analysis of specific areas such as labour market decommodification or
defamilisation, be resurrected as a useful means of organising and classifying welfare
states. In contrast to both the gender critique of Esping-Andersen, and Kasza’s rejection
of the regimes concept, the joint examination of defamilisation and decommodification
has revealed that the ‘worlds of welfare’ approach is neither gender blind or illusory.
Acknowledgements
The research in this paper was funded by a UK Economic and Social Research Council
Bursary.
209
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
Clare Bambra
References
Abrahamson, P. (1999), ‘The welfare modelling business’, Social Policy and Administration, 33, 4,
393−415.
Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002), ‘Three worlds of welfare or more?’, Italic of European Social Policy, 12,
2, 137−158.
Bambra, C. (in press), ‘Worlds of welfare and the health care discrepancy’, Social Policy and Society.
Borchost, A. (1994), ‘Welfare state regimes, women’s interests and the EC’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering
Welfare States, London: Sage.
Bussemaker, J. and Kersbergen, K. (1994), ‘Gender and the welfare state: some theoretical reflections’, in
D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage.
Castles, F.G. and Mitchell, D. (1993), ‘Worlds of welfare and families of nations’, in F.G. Castles (ed.),
Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies, Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Daly, M. (1994), ‘Comparing welfare states: towards a gender friendly approach’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.),
Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, London: Polity.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ferrera, M. (1996), ‘The southern model of welfare in social Europe’, Italic of European Social Policy, 6,
1, 17–37.
Gaulthier, A. (1996), The State and the Family: A Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in Industrialised
Countries, Oxford: Clarendon.
Goodin, R., Headley, B., Muffels, R., and Dirvin, H. (1999), The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, B. (1994), ‘Solo mothers, social policy regimes, and the logics of gender’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.),
Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage.
Kangas, O. (1994), ‘The politics of social security: on regressions, qualitative comparisons and cluster
analysis’, in T. Janoski and A. Hicks (eds), The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasza, G. (2002), ‘The illusion of welfare regimes’, Italic of Social Policy, 31, 2, 271–287.
Kautto, M. (2002), ‘Investing in services in West European welfare states’, Italic of European Social Policy,
12, 1, 53–65.
Korpi, W. (2000), ‘Faces of inequality: gender, class and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare
states’, Social Politics, 7, 2.
Langan, M. and Ostner, I. (1991), ‘Gender and welfare: towards a comparative framework’, in G. Room
(ed.), Towards a European Welfare State, Bristol: SAUS Publications.
Leibfried, S. (1992), ‘Towards a European welfare state’, in Z. Ferge and J.E. Kolberg (eds), Social Policy in
a Changing Europe, Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag.
Lewis, J. (1992), ‘Gender and the development of welfare regimes’, Italic of European Social Policy,
2, 3.
Lewis, J. and Ostner, I. (1995), ‘Gender and the evolution of European social policy’, in S. Leibfreid and
P. Pierson (eds), European Social Policy, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Lister, R. (1988), Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, London: Macmillan.
Meyer, T. (1994), ‘The German and British welfare state as employers: patriarchal or emancipatory’, in
D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage.
O’Connor, J.S. (1996), ‘Gendering welfare state regimes’, Current Sociology, 44, 2, 1–130.
OECD (1998), Employment Outlook, Paris: OECD.
Orloff, A. (1993), ‘Gender and the social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations
ands welfare states’, American Sociological Review, 58, 303–328.
Pitruzello, S. (1999), ‘Decommodification and the worlds of welfare capitalism: a cluster analysis’, Seminar
article WS/90, Florence: European University Institute.
210
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Mar 2016 IP address: 147.251.113.25
The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind?
Ragin, C. (1994), ‘A qualitative comparative analysis of pension systems’, in T. Janoski and A. Hicks (eds),
The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sainsbury, D. (1999), ‘Gender, policy regimes and politics’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gender and Welfare
State Regimes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sainsbury, D. (ed.) (1994), Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage.
Shalev, M. (1996), The Privatisation of Social Policy? Occupational Welfare and the Welfare State in
America, Scandinavia and Japan, London: Macmillan.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1996), ‘The response of government: fragile convergence’, in V. George and P. TaylorGooby
(eds), European Welfare Policy, London: Macmillan.
United Nations (1999), Statistical Yearbook, New York: United Nations.
United Nations (2000), The World’s Women 2000, New York: United Nations.
211