The general premise (at least in theory) is that all countries are designed to provide physical security, rights and freedoms for their people. Organizing the provision of public and common goods is an important task to achieve this goal. How countries do this depends on the government’s views on social welfare
In 1990, the Danish sociologist G. Esping-Andersen developed a model for assigning welfare states to three main clusters: social democratic, liberal and corporative-conservative.21 This classification is based on the two key factors: (1) commodification, i.e. the extent to which the provision of care services depends on the market; and (2) the extent of collective allocations. To create the index, the author used the indicators of old-age pensions, healthcare, and unemployment insurance policies. In addition to this index, various welfare indicators were used and countries’ consistency with the results obtained was checked.22
According to this study Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States are liberal welfare states; Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy are conservative welfare states; and Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are social democratic welfare states. Ten years later R.E. Goodin, B. Headey, R. Muffels and H.-J. Dirven (1999) also divided welfare states into these classes and in general they replicated Esping-Andersen (1990) results. 23
A liberal welfare system prioritizes economic growth. The system is characterized by modest universal transfers or social insurance plans. The social benefits tend to cover the needs of the low-income working class. Eligibility is usually stigmatized and the thresholds of support are designed so that people do not choose social assistance over work. The aim of this system is to create a situation where everyone who can do paid work would do so in order to guarantee their own well-being. In a liberal welfare state, both poverty and social stratification are high. The positive values of this system are equal opportunities, competition, and social rights.24
The social-democratic welfare system is highly equal in its purpose and conspicuously universal in its political style. The social democrats do not simply seek to eradicate poverty, but generally strive to promote social equality. This system is characterised by high social
spending, decommodification of social rights, and social stratification. The state is also involved in caring for children, the elderly and the helpless. Thus, all residents of the country are connected to one universal insurance system, from which everyone receives earning-based support and, where everyone has the same rights regardless of status or gender. Such a system creates solidarity with the state among the citizens, because everyone depends on the state, they also feel obliged to pay taxes to maintain the system.
At the same time, high social costs can have negative consequences such as the deliberate desire to be unemployed and to receive benefits. A positive fact is that creating favourable conditions helps a person to adapt quickly to a changing situation. Knowing proper support is there in the event of an accident or job loss reduces individual risk sensitivity. The health insurance system is important for the development of health throughout the country. If a person is sick and the sickness benefit is decent, the citizen chooses the most reasonable option – he stays at home to heal himself.25
In a corporative-conservative system the market as a potential guarantor of well-being is marginalized, and the guarantee of social rights is not seen as a viable alternative for achieving material well-being. This system seeks to preserve social hierarchies and social statuses. As the state focuses on maintaining status differences, the redistributive effect of the state is not significant. The system is mostly influenced by the church and is committed to maintaining traditional family values.
In this system, the family is the main provider of welfare services. The state’s intervention consists primarily of distributing financial support to families, who must ensure the functioning of welfare services. Social security usually excludes unemployed women, but family benefits favour mothers. Kindergartens and other institutions providing care services are mostly underdeveloped.26
Irrespective of whether the attitude of the state towards social benefits is liberal, social democratic or conservative, it is the task of all countries to organize the distribution of public and common goods in order to maximize the well-being of their citizens. All governments are engaged in administering courts, providing a police force, and ensuring the continuity of ruling institutions. Also, nearly every nation in history has had a military, all modern states have carried out some environmental protection activities and support research.
All governments spend on things like defence, research, clean air, and roads. At the same time, most governments are also concerned with social security. These are supports for sickness, accidents at work, incapacity for work, and unemployment. All services listed above are public or common in nature.27 The differences between countries become apparent only in the choice of means to achieve the objectives.
21 Esping-Andersen, G., 1990
22 Ibid
23 Goodin, R. E.; Headey, B., Muffels, R., Dirven, H.-J., 1999
24 Ibid
25 Ibid
26 Ibid
27 Lehrer, E., 2018
