Liberal welfare regimes |
| "Liberal" in terms of economic philosophy, enshrining the market's ability to provide social services and minimizing the state's role to a back-up provider. |
| Views the labor market as the main mechanism for distributing income (the primary means for securing welfare), and the individual as the primary recipient of social welfare |
| Exemplified by the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. |
Social democratic welfare regimes |
| Takes welfare provision out of the market and makes it the responsibility of the state, which is charged with guaranteeing the resources and motivations its citizens need to work. |
| Emphasizes a universal system of entitlements; thus, citizens of all economic and social categories are eligible for the same pensions, services, benefits and protections. |
| Exemplified by Scandinavian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. |
Conservative welfare regimes |
| Reflects culturally conservative influences: as Catholic/Confucian social teachings, Christian Democratic parties, or the nation-state's origins as an authoritarian governments or monarchy. |
| Gives a large role to dominant corporatist bodies, so that the benefits and insurance that the state provides (the private sector generally plays a smaller role) are negotiated and hoarded by occupational groups like industrial workers and civil servants . |
| Endorses a policy of familialism, viewing the family as the normative caregiver and distributes welfare benefits through the stably employed single-breadwinner (i.e., father). |
| Exemplified by Continental Europe and Japan. |
| Sources: Gøsta Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism ( Princeton University Press, 1990); Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Meyers, Families That Work (Russell Sage Foundation, 2003). |