119 / 169
DIGITAL INNOVATION NEEDS WELFARE
119
1990) defines three dimensions that have differ-
ent effects on the different welfare types: de-
commodification, stratification and residualism.
– ����������������������������������
Decommodification refers to the relative in-
dependence of the social security of the in-
dividual from the pressures and risks of com-
mercially oriented (“market”) policy and
decision-making. In other words, the higher
the level of decommodification, the lower
the individual’s dependence on selling work
as a commodity in order to secure their own
survival. This is achieved via the type and
amount of social security benefits.
– �����������������
Stratification refers to the vertical and hori-
zontal economic and social segmentation of
society. This involves describing social ine-
quality in terms of income and social status.
By pro-viding social security systems and
benefits, the welfare state is an instrument
of redistribution “to influence and, where
applicable, correct the social inequality struc-
ture” (Esping-Andersen, 1998, p. 39). At the
same time, different types of welfare state
themselves generate a specific form of strat-
ification.
– �����������������������������������������
Residualism is understood as the specific in-
terplay between market, state and family
with regard to individuals’ social security and
therefore the extent to which the state inter-
venes in this mixed relationship between pri-
vate and public provision.
Esping-Andersen (1990) used the above di-
mensions to develop three ideal-types. The em-
phasis in a “liberal” (or “Anglo-Saxon”) welfare
state model is on a hands-off state social policy
that focuses on those deemed most in need,
supports the welfare production functions of
the commercial sector and leaves other welfare
production to private providers and the family
(Schmidt, 2004). The overall decommodification
effect is weak, with social entitlements set at a
low level and means-tested on a case-by-case
basis. There is a stigma attached to applying for
such entitlements. One example of this type is
the United Kingdom. Others include Canada,
the USA and Australia.
The “conservative” (or continental European)
welfare states are based on strong state social
policy in which the emphasis is on insured indi-
viduals maintaining their status. Such states are
characterised by a Bismarck-style social insur-
ance model in which the socio-political role of
commercial interests is usually low, while that of
the family is prioritised in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity (Schmidt, 2004).
Associated with the principle of subsidiarity is
the influential role of the churches, which also
play a key role in ensuring that traditional fam-
ily forms are preserved (Esping-Andersen, 1998).
In contrast to the “liberal” model, the decom-
modification effect is more strongly developed
and the state intervenes more strongly. Social
rights are linked to class and status, which leads
to the mainte-nance of status and group differ-
ences. Examples of this welfare type include
Germany, France and Austria.
“Social democratic” (or Scandinavian) wel-
fare states are based on a social policy charac-
terised by universalism, strong decommodifica-
tion and ambitious ideas of equality and full
employment. The aim here is to minimise de-
pendence on commercial interests and family.
Decommodification effects are most strongly
felt in such states. Examples of this type are the
Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway,
Denmark and Finland.
Chart 1
(from Schmid 2010) summarises the
key features of the three types of welfare state
systematically compared in triangular form. This
clearly shows Esping-Andersen’s ideal categori-
sation and indicates the mixed forms that actu-
ally exist.