Beyond ideal and real types – methodological foundations of typologies in welfare state research

In welfare state research, typologies are a frequently applied methodological tool for comparative analyses. They are used for a variety of purposes, such as case selection, for providing a birds-eye perspective on welfare states and their differences and to determine welfare state change. The methodological discussion in welfare state research on the use of typologies is, however, limited because it is centred around the question of whether Esping-Andersen’s (1990) work and other related studies present an ideal type or a real type approach. This is misleading, as both concepts are ambiguous, and there are more relevant aspects when it comes to the characterisation of typologies. Instead, this paper suggests to differentiate between typologies along the four dimensions of a typology’s theoretical foundation, the assessment of cases and the use of qualitative and quantitative attributes and methods. In an integrative literature review, a selection of typological studies of welfare state research is analysed against the background of the suggested classification. Among the studies analysed, assigning country cases to groups is most common what serves the heuristic purpose of these typologies. There are typologies with theoretical types and dimensions and with empirical types and theoretical dimensions, both with a variety of qualitative and/or quantitative attributes and methods. This uncovers the complexity of the typological approaches in welfare state research. In doing so, this paper attempts to simulate a thematically broader and methodologically deeper discussion on typologies in welfare state research.