IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/120761.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Overcoming hybridisation in global welfare regime classifications: lessons from a single case study

Author

Listed:
  • Mumtaz, Zahid
  • Roumpakis, Antonios
  • Sumarto, Mulyadi

Abstract

The hybridisation of welfare regimes is a critical issue in social policy literature due to the lack of a uniform dependent variable and the comparative, international scope of social policy analysis, and data availability. We argue that what is presented in the global welfare regime literature as an analytical problem of classification or transitioning could also, in fact, be treated as a methodological issue. Based on this, we aim to establish a criterion for determining the membership of a welfare regime by capturing the presence of hybridisation of welfare regimes in a given country at a particular time. We present a novel methodological approach based on multistage sampling to capture the hybridisation of distinct welfare regimes and determine the most populous cluster in Pakistan. Establishing criteria for capturing and determining welfare regime membership can improve the understanding of welfare regime dynamics and factors that contribute to hybridisation. Ultimately, this knowledge can inform policy decisions and contribute to the development of more effective welfare systems for diverse populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Mumtaz, Zahid & Roumpakis, Antonios & Sumarto, Mulyadi, 2023. "Overcoming hybridisation in global welfare regime classifications: lessons from a single case study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120761, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/120761/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Xiaohua Yu, 2014. "Raising food prices and welfare change: a simple calibration," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(9), pages 643-645, June.
    3. Bertin, Giovanni & Carrino, Ludovico & Pantalone, Marta, 2021. "Do standard classifications still represent European welfare typologies? Novel evidence from studies on health and social care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    4. Sarah Kuypers, 2014. "The East Asian welfare regime: reality or fiction," Working Papers 1404, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    5. Jessica Clement, 2020. "Social protection clusters in sub‐Saharan Africa," International Journal of Social Welfare, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 20-28, January.
    6. Aliya Abbasi, 2021. "Politics of Development in Pakistan: From the Post-Independence Modernization Project to ‘Vision 2025’," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 16(2), pages 220-243, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    2. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Bruch, Sarah K. & van der Naald, Joseph & Gornick, Janet C., 2022. "Poverty Reduction through Federal and State Policy Mechanisms: Variation Over Time and Across the U.S. States," SocArXiv jz5xp, Center for Open Science.
    4. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    5. Yao Zhu & Shousheng Chai & Jieqi Chen & Ian Phau, 2024. "How was rural tourism developed in China? Examining the impact of China’s evolving rural tourism policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 28945-28969, November.
    6. Sarah K. Bruch & Janet C. Gornick & Joseph van der Naald, 2020. "Geographic Inequality in Social Provision: Variation across the US States," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth, pages 499-527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    8. Thu T. Nguyen & Weijun Yu & Junaid S. Merchant & Shaniece Criss & Chris J. Kennedy & Heran Mane & Krishik N. Gowda & Melanie Kim & Ritu Belani & Caitlin F. Blanco & Manvitha Kalachagari & Xiaohe Yue &, 2023. "Examining Exposure to Messaging, Content, and Hate Speech from Partisan News Social Media Posts on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Momi Dahan, 2023. "Social Construction And The Progressivity Of Local Tax Relief," Israel Economic Review, Bank of Israel, vol. 21(1), pages 1-33, March.
    10. Daniel Béland & Alex Jingwei He & M Ramesh, 2022. "COVID-19, crisis responses, and public policies: from the persistence of inequalities to the importance of policy design [The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 187-198.
    11. Annie Everett & Kelly Rosinger & Dominique J. Baker & Hyung-Jung Kim & Robert Kelchen & Justin C. Ortagus, 2024. "Tennessee’s Burden: How Students Apply for State Financial Aid within One Southern State," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 65(8), pages 1826-1852, December.
    12. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    13. Vladimír Barák & Vojtěch Krebs & Helena Mitwallyová, 2022. "Support for Informal Carers: Has the New Benefit Improved Their Ability to Care?," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2022(1), pages 51-76.
    14. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    15. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    16. Janota, Jessica J. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2008. "Examining private forest policy preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 89-97, January.
    17. Davis Bivens, Nicola & Miller, DeMond Shondell, 2022. "Policy for temporary crisis or sustained structural change in an age of disasters, crises, and pandemics," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Megan M. Reynolds & Ashley M. Fox & Yvette Young, 2021. "State‐level social safety nets for families coping with job loss," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 121-138, June.
    19. Jelínková Marie, 2019. "A Refugee Crisis Without Refugees: Policy and media discourse on refugees in the Czech Republic and its implications," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 33-45, June.
    20. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    formal and informal social protection; hybridisation; informal security regimes; welfare mix; welfare regimes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.