Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD

Stefan KUEHNER, John HUDSON

Research output: Working paperWorking paper series

Abstract

Several theorists have argued that social policy in East Asia can be seen as representing a distinctive welfare ideal type based around ‘productive welfare’. However, we have contested such claims in earlier work (Hudson and Kühner, 2009) and, in common with theorists such as Castells, have suggested that some of the OECD welfare states have a distinct bias towards the ‘productive’ rather than ‘protective’ dimensions of welfare. In this paper, we build on our earlier work, utilising fuzzy set ideal type analysis (FSITA) to explore the balance between ‘productive’ and protective’ dimensions of welfare state activity. Here we extend our analysis beyond the OECD, incorporating a range of nations on the ‘fringe’ of the OECD from Latin America, East Asia and the non-OECD parts of Europe. In so doing, we contest simple notions of welfare regimes aligning with regional blocks. Primarily, however, we highlight the advantages of the ‘diversity orientated’ approach to data analysis that fuzzy set methods facilitate in comparison with standard quantitative techniques. In particular, we utilize FSITA to avoid data availability and reliability issues that have plagued quantitatively informed classifications of global welfare regimes. Not least, we argue FSITA allows for the contextualisation of cases in a way that is sealed to quantitatively driven, comparative research. Thus, we argue FSITA has an important role to play in attempts to extend the inclusiveness of the ‘welfare modelling business’ in a manner that reflects diverse and highly significant cases beyond the Western lens that dominates the literature.
Original languageEnglish
PublisherComparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis
Number of pages35
Publication statusPublished - 10 Feb 2011
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameCOMPASSS Working Paper Series
PublisherComparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis
No.WP2011-63

Fingerprint

ideal type
OECD
welfare
welfare state
comparative research
Latin America
data analysis
trend

Cite this

KUEHNER, S., & HUDSON, J. (2011). Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD. (COMPASSS Working Paper Series; No. WP2011-63). Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis.
KUEHNER, Stefan ; HUDSON, John. / Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD. Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis, 2011. (COMPASSS Working Paper Series; WP2011-63).
@techreport{2b43a4d1efab44d7b8ed49fd7728ebf9,
title = "Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD",
abstract = "Several theorists have argued that social policy in East Asia can be seen as representing a distinctive welfare ideal type based around ‘productive welfare’. However, we have contested such claims in earlier work (Hudson and K{\"u}hner, 2009) and, in common with theorists such as Castells, have suggested that some of the OECD welfare states have a distinct bias towards the ‘productive’ rather than ‘protective’ dimensions of welfare. In this paper, we build on our earlier work, utilising fuzzy set ideal type analysis (FSITA) to explore the balance between ‘productive’ and protective’ dimensions of welfare state activity. Here we extend our analysis beyond the OECD, incorporating a range of nations on the ‘fringe’ of the OECD from Latin America, East Asia and the non-OECD parts of Europe. In so doing, we contest simple notions of welfare regimes aligning with regional blocks. Primarily, however, we highlight the advantages of the ‘diversity orientated’ approach to data analysis that fuzzy set methods facilitate in comparison with standard quantitative techniques. In particular, we utilize FSITA to avoid data availability and reliability issues that have plagued quantitatively informed classifications of global welfare regimes. Not least, we argue FSITA allows for the contextualisation of cases in a way that is sealed to quantitatively driven, comparative research. Thus, we argue FSITA has an important role to play in attempts to extend the inclusiveness of the ‘welfare modelling business’ in a manner that reflects diverse and highly significant cases beyond the Western lens that dominates the literature.",
author = "Stefan KUEHNER and John HUDSON",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "10",
language = "English",
series = "COMPASSS Working Paper Series",
publisher = "Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis",
number = "WP2011-63",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis",

}

KUEHNER, S & HUDSON, J 2011 'Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD' COMPASSS Working Paper Series, no. WP2011-63, Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis.

Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD. / KUEHNER, Stefan; HUDSON, John.

Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis, 2011. (COMPASSS Working Paper Series; No. WP2011-63).

Research output: Working paperWorking paper series

TY - UNPB

T1 - Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD

AU - KUEHNER, Stefan

AU - HUDSON, John

PY - 2011/2/10

Y1 - 2011/2/10

N2 - Several theorists have argued that social policy in East Asia can be seen as representing a distinctive welfare ideal type based around ‘productive welfare’. However, we have contested such claims in earlier work (Hudson and Kühner, 2009) and, in common with theorists such as Castells, have suggested that some of the OECD welfare states have a distinct bias towards the ‘productive’ rather than ‘protective’ dimensions of welfare. In this paper, we build on our earlier work, utilising fuzzy set ideal type analysis (FSITA) to explore the balance between ‘productive’ and protective’ dimensions of welfare state activity. Here we extend our analysis beyond the OECD, incorporating a range of nations on the ‘fringe’ of the OECD from Latin America, East Asia and the non-OECD parts of Europe. In so doing, we contest simple notions of welfare regimes aligning with regional blocks. Primarily, however, we highlight the advantages of the ‘diversity orientated’ approach to data analysis that fuzzy set methods facilitate in comparison with standard quantitative techniques. In particular, we utilize FSITA to avoid data availability and reliability issues that have plagued quantitatively informed classifications of global welfare regimes. Not least, we argue FSITA allows for the contextualisation of cases in a way that is sealed to quantitatively driven, comparative research. Thus, we argue FSITA has an important role to play in attempts to extend the inclusiveness of the ‘welfare modelling business’ in a manner that reflects diverse and highly significant cases beyond the Western lens that dominates the literature.

AB - Several theorists have argued that social policy in East Asia can be seen as representing a distinctive welfare ideal type based around ‘productive welfare’. However, we have contested such claims in earlier work (Hudson and Kühner, 2009) and, in common with theorists such as Castells, have suggested that some of the OECD welfare states have a distinct bias towards the ‘productive’ rather than ‘protective’ dimensions of welfare. In this paper, we build on our earlier work, utilising fuzzy set ideal type analysis (FSITA) to explore the balance between ‘productive’ and protective’ dimensions of welfare state activity. Here we extend our analysis beyond the OECD, incorporating a range of nations on the ‘fringe’ of the OECD from Latin America, East Asia and the non-OECD parts of Europe. In so doing, we contest simple notions of welfare regimes aligning with regional blocks. Primarily, however, we highlight the advantages of the ‘diversity orientated’ approach to data analysis that fuzzy set methods facilitate in comparison with standard quantitative techniques. In particular, we utilize FSITA to avoid data availability and reliability issues that have plagued quantitatively informed classifications of global welfare regimes. Not least, we argue FSITA allows for the contextualisation of cases in a way that is sealed to quantitatively driven, comparative research. Thus, we argue FSITA has an important role to play in attempts to extend the inclusiveness of the ‘welfare modelling business’ in a manner that reflects diverse and highly significant cases beyond the Western lens that dominates the literature.

UR - https://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/4784

M3 - Working paper series

T3 - COMPASSS Working Paper Series

BT - Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD

PB - Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis

ER -

KUEHNER S, HUDSON J. Analyzing the productive and protective dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the OECD. Comparative Methods For Systematic Cross-Case Analysis. 2011 Feb 10. (COMPASSS Working Paper Series; WP2011-63).