Table 1 Welfare state typologies15.
| Author | Measures | Welfare state regimes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Esping‐Andersen (1990)13 | 18 countries | Liberal | Conservative | Social Democratic | ||
| • Decommodification | Australia | Finland | Austria | |||
| • Social stratification | Canada | France | Belgium | |||
| • Private–public mix | Ireland | Germany | The Netherlands | |||
| New Zealand | Japan | Denmark | ||||
| UK | Italy | Norway | ||||
| USA | Switzerland | Sweden | ||||
| Leibfried (1992)19 | 15 countries | Anglo‐Saxon | Bismarck | Scandinavian | Latin rim | |
| • Characteristics | Australia | Austria | Denmark | France | ||
| • Rights | New Zealand | Germany | Finland | Greece | ||
| • Basic income | UK | Norway | Italy | |||
| USA | Sweden | Portugal | ||||
| Spain | ||||||
| Castles and Mitchell (1993)22 | 14 countries | Liberal | Conservative | Non‐right hegemony | Radical | |
| • Aggregate welfare expenditure• Benefit equality | IrelandJapanSwitzerlandUSA | GermanyItalyThe Netherlands | BelgiumDenmarkNorwaySweden | AustraliaNew ZealandUK | ||
| Kangas (1994)39 | 15 countries | Liberal | Conservative | Social democratic | Radical | |
| • Cluster analysis of decommodification | CanadaUSA | AustriaGermanyItalyJapanThe Netherlands | DenmarkFinlandNorwaySweden | AustraliaIrelandNew ZealandUK | ||
| Ragin (1994)40 | 18 countries | Liberal | Corporatist | Social democratic | Undefined | |
| • BOOLEAN comparative analysis of pensions decommodification | AustraliaCanadaSwitzerlandUSA | AustriaBelgiumFinlandFranceItaly | DenmarkSwedenNorway | GermanyIrelandJapanThe NetherlandsNew ZealandUK | ||
| Ferrera (1996)18 | 15 countries | Anglo‐Saxon | Bismarck | Scandinavian | Southern | |
| • Coverage | Ireland | Austria | Denmark | Greece | ||
| • Replacement rates | UK | Belgium | Finland | Italy | ||
| • Poverty rates | France | Norway | Portugal | |||
| Germany | Sweden | Spain | ||||
| Luxembourg | ||||||
| The Netherlands | ||||||
| Switzerland | ||||||
| Bonoli (1997)17 | 16 countries | British | Continental | Nordic | Southern | |
| • Social expenditure as % GDP | Ireland | Belgium | Denmark | Greece | ||
| • Social expenditure financed via contributions | UK | FranceGermanyLuxembourgThe Netherlands | FinlandNorwaySweden | ItalyPortugalSpainSwitzerland | ||
| Korpi and Palme (1998)32 | 18 countries | Basic security | Corporatist | Encompassing | Targeted | |
| • Social expenditure as % GDP | Canada | Austria | Finland | Australia | ||
| • Luxembourg income study | Denmark | Belgium | Norway | |||
| • Institutional characteristics | Ireland | France | Sweden | |||
| The Netherlands | Germany | |||||
| New Zealand | Italy | |||||
| Switzerland | Japan | |||||
| UK | ||||||
| USA | ||||||
| Pitzurello (1999)41 | 18 countries• Cluster analysisof decommodification | LiberalCanadaIrelandUKUSA | ConservativeGermanyThe NetherlandsSwitzerland | Social DemocraticBelgiumDenmarkNorwaySweden | Conservative–BismarckianAustriaFinlandFranceItalyJapan | RadicalAustraliaNew Zealand |
| Navarro and Shi (2001)4 | 18 countries | Liberal–Anglo Saxon | Christian Democrat | Social Democratic | Ex‐fascist | |
| • Political tradition | Canada | Belgium | Sweden | Spain | ||
| Ireland | The Netherlands | Norway | Greece | |||
| UK | Germany | Denmark | Portugal | |||
| USA | France | Finland | ||||
| Italy | Austria | |||||
| Switzerland | ||||||
| Kautto (2002)30 | 15 countries | Transfer approach | Service approach | Low approach | ||
| • Expenditure on services and social transfers | BelgiumThe NetherlandsAustriaItaly | SwedenNorwayFinlandGermanyUK | IrelandGreecePortugalSpain | |||
| Bambra (2005)26,27 | 18 countries• Healthcare services and decommodification | LiberalAustraliaJapanUSA | ConservativeAustriaBelgiumCanadaDenmarkFranceItaly | Social DemocraticFinlandNorwaySweden | Conservative subgroupGermanySwitzerlandThe Netherlands | LiberalSubgroupIrelandUKNew Zealand |
GDP, gross domestic product.