Menu

This limitation is based on the fact that Esping Andersen’s typology does not consider the fact that welfare states indulge in the actual delivery of services and he overlooked social programs such as housing

This limitation is based on the fact that Esping Andersen’s typology does not consider the fact that welfare states indulge in the actual delivery of services and he overlooked social programs such as housing, education (Gough, 2013). His analysis only looked at social transfers such as unemployment benefits, pensions among others which led him to generalize the key social policies across all the countries in his analysis (Bambra, 2007). However, this is not a true reflection as countries differ in their social policies/transfers. This limitation led to the development of additional typologies from other scholars such as Kautlo (2003) who identified three different regimes from Esping Andersen’s namely transfer approach, service approach and low approach (cited in Bambra, 2007). These additional typologies considered the feature that was ignored by Esping Andersen of including the actual delivery of services in making the categorization of countries into regimes. Additionally, because of this limitation, some scholars started finding other ways to base the categorization of countries into regimes besides social transfers such as looking at a more political based analysis. This led to the development of other typologies different from what Esping Andersen had such as that by Navarro and shi (2001) that identified another category regime called ex-fascist (cited in Bambra, 2007).