Decommodification and stratification
Esping-Andersen (1990) criticized comparing welfare states by how much they spend. He defined 'decommodification' as the degree to which citizens can maintain a decent life without relying on the labor market during unemployment, sickness or old age, measured by the generosity of pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits. He also examined 'stratification', whether welfare institutions reduce or entrench class and status differences. The approach builds on power resources theory, which stresses working-class organization and class coalitions.
Three regimes
The liberal regime, as in the United States and Britain, centers on means-tested benefits and a large market role, so decommodification is low. The conservative regime, as in Germany and France, centers on occupational social insurance that preserves status differences and emphasizes the family's care role. The social democratic regime, as in Sweden and Denmark, follows the principle of universalism, giving all citizens generous benefits and the highest decommodification. The typology can be seen as developing the residual and institutional welfare models.
Critiques and extensions
Orloff (1993) criticized the typology for ignoring unpaid care work and women's economic independence, and Esping-Andersen (1999) responded by adding 'defamilialization'. Ferrera (1996) proposed a Southern European model for Italy and Spain, and others suggested Antipodean or East Asian types. Arts and Gelissen (2002) reviewed the debate, and Scruggs and Allan (2006) recalculated the decommodification index. Alongside varieties of capitalism, the theory is a core framework in comparative political economy and has been applied to health research, as by Bambra (2007).
FAQ
- What are the three worlds in simple terms?
- A theory that sorts welfare states into market-centered (liberal), occupation- and family-centered (conservative) and universal state-centered (social democratic) types.
- What is decommodification?
- The degree to which welfare lets people live decently without depending on market income when they cannot work.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press. The founding book on the three regimes.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford University Press. Adds family and defamilialization.
- Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158. A state-of-the-art review.
- Ferrera, M. (1996). The 'Southern model' of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37. Proposes a Southern model.
- Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328. The key feminist critique.
- Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. (2006). Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: A replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(1), 55–72. Replicates the decommodification index.
- Bambra, C. (2007). Going beyond The three worlds of welfare capitalism: Regime theory and public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(12), 1098–1102. Regime theory in public health.