Abstract
This chapter analyses models of social protection. The author (Matthieu Clément) first discusses several recent programmes and proceeds by implementing Esping-Andersen’s analytical framework accounting for the plurality of social protection logics and actors. He finds that the two main dimensions that help differentiate social protection types across countries are the extent of decommodification and the extent of informal social protection. Four models of social protection are identified. Although China, India or Brazil, together with Latin American reformers, all fall into the USA-like liberal type, the other emerging countries fall into the social insecurity model, with migrant remittances playing a key role in bolstering family income in the country of origin. The last two models, which are specific to developing economies, are described in detail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The effect of globalization is ambiguous. Two conflicting hypotheses have been proposed in the literature (Garrett 2001). The efficiency hypothesis posits that as a result of globalization, governments are subject to the pressure of efficiency and competitiveness, which may undermine interventionism and the welfare state (Evans 1997; Mishra 1999). The compensation hypothesis, however, argues that, by increasing inequality and social insecurity, globalization leads governments to expand the public economy in order to compensate the losers of globalization (Rodrick 1997; Quinn 1997).
- 2.
See the survey by Bambra (2007).
- 3.
The concept of the developmental model was initially proposed by Johnson (1982) to describe the Japanese model.
- 4.
See Kasza (2002).
- 5.
The productive regime is found in countries such as Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The protective regime is associated with Bolivia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia. The dual regimes concern four Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Uruguay).
- 6.
The sources are presented in Table 7.5 in the Appendix.
- 7.
It should be noted that complete information is available for 54.5% of the countries, with only 23.8% of them having a single missing variable.
- 8.
The excluded countries are Angola, Eritrea, Iraq, Kuwait, Liberia, Myanmar, North Korea, Puerto Rico, Somalia, the Virgin Islands and Zambia.
- 9.
It should be noted that those variables do not affect the construction of principal components.
- 10.
The so-called relevant partition, i.e. the relevant number of clusters, is derived from the analysis of the dendrogram and the analysis of two indicators respectively measuring (i) the improvement of the inter- to intra-cluster variance ratio from one given partition to another and (ii) the impact of k-means consolidation on that ratio.
- 11.
More exactly, the standardized Euclidean distance between those countries and the barycentre is less than half the median distance.
- 12.
As noted by Kritzer (2001), there are certain variations. Several countries, including Argentina and Uruguay, have introduced mixed systems that combine pay-as-you-go and private individual accounts, while the systems in Chile and Bolivia have been entirely privatized.
- 13.
In India, the public distribution system is an instrument for ensuring the availability of essential food items such as rice, wheat and sugar at affordable prices. In 1997, the targeted public distribution system replaced the old universal public distribution system, and only provides food assistance to the poor.
References
Armada, Francisco, Carles Muntaner, and Vicente Navarro. 2001. Health and Social Security Reforms in Latin America: The Convergence of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and Transnational Corporations. International Journal of Health Services 31 (4): 729–768.
Bambra, Clare. 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.
Barrientos, Armando and David Hulme. 2008. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest in Developing Countries: Reflections on a Quiet Revolution. BWPI Working Paper No. 30.
Bonoli, Giuliano. 1997. Classifying Welfare States: A Two-dimension Approach. Journal of Social Policy 26 (3): 351–372.
Castles, Francis and Deborah Mitchell. 1991. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or Four? Discussion Paper No. 21, Australian National University, Graduate Program in Public Policy.
Castles, Francis, and Deborah Mitchell. 1993. Worlds of Welfare and Families of Anations. In Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies, ed. Francis Castles. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Clément, Matthieu. 2007. Tentative Evaluation of the Impact of Public Transfers on the Dynamics of Poverty: The Case of Russia. International Social Security Review 60 (1): 59–80.
Destremau, Blandine and Bruno Lautier. 2006. Analyse et comparaison des systèmes de protection sociale du monde en développement. Eléments de typologie et de méthode. Paris: Réseau impact.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
———. 1997. Hybrid or Unique? The Japanese Welfare State between Europe and America. Journal of European Social Policy 7 (3): 179–189.
Esser, Ingrid, Tommy Ferrarini, Kenneth Nelson, and Ola Sjöberg. 2009. A Framework for Comparing Social Protection in Developing and Developed Countries: The Example of Child Benefits. International Social Security Review 62 (1): 91–115.
Evans, Peter B. 1997. The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization. World Politics 50 (1): 62–87.
Fenger, H., and J. Menno. 2007. Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating Post-communist Countries in a Welfare Regime Typology. Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences 3 (2): 1–30.
Ferreira, Maurizio. 1996. The Southern Model of Welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 6 (1): 17–37.
Garrett, Geoffrey. 2001. Globalization and Government Spending around the World. Studies in Comparative International Development 35 (4): 3–29.
Gough, Ian. 2001. Globalization and Regional Welfare Regimes: The East Asian Case. Global Social Policy 1 (1): 163–189.
Holliday, Ian. 2000. Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia. Political Studies 48: 706–723.
Holzmann, Robert, Lynne Sherburne-Benz, and Emil Tesliuc. 2003. Gestion du risque social: la Banque Mondiale et la protection sociale dans un monde en voie de mondialisation. Revue Tiers Monde 175: 501–526.
Homedes, Nuria, and Antonio Ugalde. 2005. Why Neoliberal Health Reforms have Failed in Latin America. Health Policy 71: 83–96.
Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Justino, Patricia. 2006. Social Security in Developing Countries: Myth or Necessity? Evidence from India. Journal of International Development 18: 1–16.
Kangas, Olli. 1994. The Politics of Social Security: On Regressions, Qualitative Comparisons and Cluster Analysis. In The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State, ed. Thomas Janoski and Alexander M. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kasza, Gregory J. 2002. The Illusion of Welfare Regimes. Journal of Social Policy 31 (2): 271–287.
Kaufman, Robert R., and Alex Segura-Ubiergo. 2001. Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America: A Time-Series Cross-Section Analysis, 1973–1997. World Politics 53 (4): 553–587.
Korpi, Walter, and Joakim Palme. 1998. The Paradox of Redistribution and the Strategy of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries. American Sociological Review 63: 662–687.
Kritzer, Barbara E. 2001. Social Security Reform in Central and Eastern Europe: Variations on a Latin American Theme. Social Security Bulletin 64 (4): 16–26.
Ku, Yeun-Wen. 1997. Welfare Capitalism in Taiwan: State, Economy and Social Policy. London: Macmillan Press.
Kwon, Huck-Ju. 1999. The Welfare State in Korea: The Politics of Legitimation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Lee, Yih-Jiunn, and Yeun-Wen Ku. 2007. East Asian Welfare Regimes: Testing the Hypothesis of the Developmental Welfare State. Social Policy and Administration 41 (2): 197–212.
Leibfried, Stephan. 1992. Towards a European Welfare State? On Integrating Poverty Regimes into the European Community. In Social Policy in a Changing Europe, ed. Zuzsa Ferge and Jon E. Kolberg. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Mesa-Lago, Carmelo, and Katharina Muller. 2002. The Politics of Pension Reform in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies 34 (3): 687–715.
Mishra, Ramesh. 1999. Globalization and the Welfare State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mitchell, Olivia S. and Fabio Ataliba-Barreto. 1997. After Chile? Second-round Pension Reforms in Latin America. NBER Working Paper No. W6316.
Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel, Armando Barrientos, and David Hulme. 2012. Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa: Getting the Politics Right. World Development 40 (1): 163–176.
Quinn, Dennis. 1997. The Correlates of Changes in International Financial Regulation. American Political Science Review 91 (3): 531–552.
Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Rudra, Nita. 2002. Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare States in Less Developed Countries. International Organization 56 (2): 411–445.
———. 2007. Welfare States in Developing Countries: Unique or Universal? Journal of Politics 69 (2): 378–396.
———. 2008. Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries. Who Really Gets Hurt? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wibbels, Eric. 2006. Dependency Revisited: International Markets, Business Cycles, and Social Spending in the Developing World. International Organization 60 (2): 433–468.
Wood, Geof, and Ian Gough. 2006. A Comparative Welfare Regime Approach to Global Social Policy. World Development 34 (10): 1696–1712.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clément, M. (2017). Social Protection. In: Rougier, E., Combarnous, F. (eds) The Diversity of Emerging Capitalisms in Developing Countries. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49947-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49947-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49946-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49947-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)