Overview
What role welfare should play is a basic question that distinguishes welfare states. In Industrial Society and Social Welfare (1958) the Americans Harold L. Wilensky and Charles N. Lebeaux proposed two conceptions of social welfare, and in the posthumously published Social Policy: An Introduction (1974) the British scholar Richard M. Titmuss proposed three models. Korean textbooks often call them the two-fold and three-fold typologies. Wilensky is also known for the industrialisation (convergence) thesis in theories of welfare state development; this article covers the models that classify the nature of welfare.
Wilensky and Lebeaux: two conceptions
- Residual: welfare steps in temporarily and supplementarily only when the "normal" channels of family and market break down. Recipients are limited to a minority such as the poor, often with means tests and stigma; public assistance is typical.
- Institutional: welfare is a normal, first-line social institution that responds to the risks individuals face in industrial society. It covers all citizens without stigma and includes social insurance and universal services.
- Prediction: they expected US welfare to move from the residual towards the institutional conception as industrialisation advanced.
Titmuss: three models of social policy
- Residual welfare model: needs are met first by the market and the family, with the state intervening only temporarily when they fail.
- Industrial achievement-performance model: welfare is a "handmaiden" of the economy, with benefits tied to work performance, productivity and status; earnings-related social insurance is typical.
- Institutional redistributive model: welfare is a major institution integrated into society, providing universal services outside the market on the basis of need to promote equality and redistribution.
Comparison
| Aspect | Residual | Achievement-performance | Institutional (redistributive) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of state | Minimal, supplementary | Supports economic performance | Active, primary |
| Basis of benefits | Means test, poverty | Contributions, work record | Need, citizenship |
| Allocation | Selectivism | Contributory principle | Universalism |
| Typical programmes | Public assistance | Earnings-related insurance | Universal allowances and services |
Differences in allocation link to the debate on universalism and selectivism, and welfare as a right links to Marshall's theory of citizenship.
The social division of welfare and later debates
In Essays on 'The Welfare State' (1958) Titmuss pointed out that alongside state social welfare there is fiscal welfare through tax relief and occupational welfare provided by employers, and that these can favour the middle classes. Such typologies later developed into Esping-Andersen's (1990) liberal, conservative (corporatist) and social democratic welfare regimes, classified by decommodification and stratification. Broadly, the residual model corresponds to the liberal regime, the achievement-performance model to the conservative regime and the institutional redistributive model to the social democratic regime.
References
- Wilensky, H. L., & Lebeaux, C. N. (1958). Industrial Society and Social Welfare. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Titmuss, R. M. (1958). Essays on 'The Welfare State'. London: George Allen & Unwin.
- Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social Policy: An Introduction (B. Abel-Smith & K. Titmuss, Eds.). London: George Allen & Unwin.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.