The welfare state as a type of social policy, expressing interests of the majority of the population

Vol. 31 Iss. 1 pp. 78–83 | St. Petersburg State Institute of Psychology and Social Work | ISSN: 1993-8101
2019 • Issue 1 • Volume 31Research in social work

PDF Download

Abstract

Social work requires theoretical and ideological foundations. For social work, such a foundation is social policy, which is based on a certain type of welfare state as an ideal form of the society and the state, to which it is necessary to strive. In modern literature, there are four main types of welfare states that are suitable for Russia to varying degrees. The choice of universal welfare concept for Russia is complicated by the global crisis of the welfare state, the emergence of neo-capitalism and the relatively weak development of social work as an academic field. However, the choice of the type of welfare state is an extremely important task for the theory and practice of social work, and it must necessarily be fully resolved.

Keywords

welfare state, social work, social policy, ideology, supernova poverty, anomie, neo-capitalism

Citation

Citation — Harvard Notation

References

  1. Aspalter C. Welfare regime analysis: 30 years in the making. International Social Work, 2019, 62 (1), pp. 1-13. doi: 10.1177/0020872817710551.
  2. Becker S. Digital structural change and the welfare state in the 21st century. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank Research, 2019. 32 p.
  3. Bergh A., Bjørnskov C. Trust, welfare states and income equality: Sorting out the causality. European Journal of Political Economy, 2014, (35), pp. 183-199. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.06.002.
  4. Buhr D. What about Welfare 4.0? CESifo Forum, 2017, 18 (3), pp. 15-21.
  5. Chung H., Taylor‐Gooby P., Leruth B. Political legitimacy and welfare state futures: Introduction. Social Policy and Administration, 2018, 52 (4), pp. 835-846. doi: 10.1111/spol.12400.
  6. Edling N. The changing meanings of the welfare state: Histories of a key concept in the Nordic countries. New York: Berghahn Books, 2019. 352 p.
  7. Eggers T., Grages C., Pfau-Effinger B. Self-responsibility of the “active social citizen”: Different types of the policy concept of “active social citizenship” in different types of welfare states. American Behavioral Scientist, 2019, 63 (1), pp. 43-64. doi: 10.1177/0002764218816803.
  8. Esping-Andersen G. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. 260 p.
  9. Holden C. Global social policy: An application of welfare state theory. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 2017, 34 (1), pp. 40-57. doi: 10.1080/21699763.2017.1413993.
  10. Kevins A., Horn A., Jensen C., et al. The illusion of class in welfare state politics? Journal of Social Policy, 2019, 48 (1), pp. 21-41. doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000247.
  11. Olsen G.M. Protective legislation: The “third pillar” of the welfare state. Social Policy and Administration, 2018, 53 (3), pp. 478-492. doi: 10.1111/spol.12471.
  12. Potrafke N. The globalisation-welfare state nexus: Evidence from Asia. The World Economy, 2019, 42 (3), pp. 959-974. doi: 10.1111/twec.12748.
  13. Thewissen S., Rueda D. Automation and the welfare state: Technological change as a determinant of redistribution preferences. Comparative Political Studies, 2019, 52 (2), pp. 1-38. doi: 10.1177/0010414017740600.