A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy
412 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Summary Beginning from the framework of welfare state regimes in rich capitalist countries, this article radically redefines it and applies the new model to regions and countries which experience problematic states as well as imperfect markets. A broader, comparative typology of regimes (welfare state, informal security, insecurity) is proposed, which captures the essential relationships between social and cultural conditions, institutional performance, welfare outcomes, and path dependence. Using this model, different regions of the world (East Asia, South Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa) are compared. For many poorer, partially capitalized societies, people’s security relies informally upon various clientelist relationships. Formalizing rights to security via strategies for de-clientelization becomes a stepping stone to protecting people against the insecurity of markets.
Subfields: Finance, General Health Professions, Political Science and International Relations
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c15bf4c70d545ed3670ae632a64863c26997f196
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Finance
In General Health Professions
In Political Science and International Relations
Citations in the corpus
- Pension system reform in China: Who gets what pensions? (2018, background): “…however, informal security regimes and insecurity regimes result in problematic inclusion or adverse incorporation, in which the government cannot play even vestigial governance and security enhancing roles, which means that people rely heavily on community and family (Wood & Gough, 2006).”
- Sustainability transitions in the developing world: Challenges of socio-technical transformations unfolding in contexts of poverty (2017, methodology): “The purpose of highlighting such permeability is to make clear that the state cannot disentangle itself from deep social and political structures and function to compensate for them (Wood and Gough, 2006:1702–1703Wood and Gough, 2006Wood and Gough, 2006:1702–1703).”
- Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Stocktaking, new contributions and a research agenda (2017, background): “…(TM) and the technological innovation systems perspective (TIS) (see Markard et al., 2012), but also make use of literatures on institutional theory (Wood and Gough, 2006), participation and community development (Uphoff et al., 1998), and global value chains (GVC) (Gereffi et al., 2005).”