With the above dimensions in mind, we can distinguish four welfare state regimes; Liberal, Corporatist, Southern and Social Democratic (Esping-Andersen 2013; Ebbinghaus 2012).2 Liberal welfare states are characterised by minimal public intervention and encourage citizens to seek solutions in the market. Private welfare is subsidised through tax deductions and means-tested income supports for those in need (or their families). This support is then used to secure care through the market or the family. Public, universal, services are limited, and public resources for care are means-tested. The Paradox of redistribution suggests that at-risk groups and the lowest social class are vulnerable to unmet need, despite transfers specifically designed to help this group. In short, “narrowly targeted policies are typically
ungenerous and potentially stigmatizing due to lack of broad electoral support. In contrast, universal benefits marshal broad citizen support and will hence, offer more generous benefits that additionally will reach all the needy with greater certainty.”
(Esping Andersen and Myles 2009, p.3). Saraceno and Keck (2011), see these states as internally divergent, citing Ireland and the UK as two specific cases. These countries simultaneously encourage a dual-carer model, and a male breadwinner, female carer model. Mothers are encouraged to return to work quickly. However, financial support for mothers is low, as are social service supports. While minor supports exist for elderly care, levels of support overall are minimal. Aisenbrey et al (2009) suggest that maternity leave in such states (using the US as an example) is
2
Authors sometimes cite an additional, eastern European, regime, and a separate cluster of “non-conformist” countries, but these are not relevant to the group of countries studied in this report.
minimal and extended leave penalises women’s upward career mobility. A similar suggestion is made by Unicef research (Czhen et al 2019). Taken together, these dimensions suggest social risk groups are vulnerable to unmet care for both childcare and home care, and that care obligations act as an obstacle to labour market participation.
Social Democratic states make commitments to universal inclusion and entitlement. For this reason, the market’s role in providing services is reduced by the state (Plantenga and Remery 2015). The Paradox of Redistribution predicts that
vulnerable groups in these states are more likely to get high quality assistance than the same groups in Liberal states, where assistance to obtain such services is targeted towards vulnerable groups. This system is especially focused on
defamilialising care responsibility of children and other dependents, away from the family and towards a universal public sector. Thinking of childcare and care for the elderly specifically, Saraceno and Keck (2011) report that Social Democratic countries have strong decommodification and weak familialism when it comes to care obligations. Universal services are the main providers of care for both childcare and care of dependents. We hypothesise that family obligations for care of the elderly will be limited, since obligations lie mostly with the state, although supplementary care may be provided by children, spouses and other family
members. Importantly, regarding childcare, Aisenberry et al (2009) find that parental leave has a negative effect on women’s career mobility in Social Democratic states (the authors use Sweden as a case study), which could act as a deterrent to
returning mothers.
Corporatist states focus on male breadwinner models and services that uphold the traditional family (Esping-Andersen 2002). Although childcare options exist,
structural tax disincentives discourage women from participating in the labour market after childbirth, and so income transfers are preferred by families. Saraceno and Keck (2011) describe these welfare states as supporting familialism, or individual reliance on the family, with minor levels of decommodification; hence the preference for financial benefits which allow families to provide traditional forms of childcare and home care. Single parent households will likely have greater instances of unmet need as will households that are unemployed or of the lowest social class. Here too, Aisenbrey et al (2009) report that mothers who take parental leave report lower
chances of upward career mobility. In short, the benefits provided for care may be insufficient for single parents, or other households which cannot engage with the labour market in any capacity. Further, care obligation, especially childcare may act as a barrier to labour market participation.
Southern states are the most familialistic, focusing on provision of welfare through the family. Means-tested transfers are often based on family size and status (Leon 2005). In this way, Southern states are similar to Corporatist ones in that care is means-tested and tied to family or marital status. Unmet needs are highly probable, especially among lone parents, those without family support, and those inactive in the labour market. Saraceno and Keck (2011) suggest these states are familial by default, in that public services for childcare are scarce and income support for traditional childcare (and home care) is also scarce. As a result, the family must invest significantly in care to fill the gaps left by the state. Women have no support for financial autonomy, which leads to distinct gender divisions in terms of obligations of care. Traditional forms of care are particularly pronounced in such states. Further these traditional forms of care should still see large unmet need since there is a lack of financial support.