Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:17:09.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the Dependent Variable Problem: The Methodological Challenges of Capturing Productive and Protective Dimensions of Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

John Hudson  and
Stefan Kühner
John Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, University of York, York E-mail: [email protected]
Stefan Kühner
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, University of York, York E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of how best to account for the multidimensional character of welfare states has become an integral part of discussions on the so-called dependent variable problem within comparative welfare state research. In this paper, we discuss challenges from an attempt to capture productive and protective welfare state dimensions by means of several methodological techniques, namely Z-score standardisation, cluster analysis, factor analysis and fuzzy-set ideal type analysis. While we illustrate that a decision to use any one of these techniques has a substantial bearing on the produced findings, we specifically argue that fuzzy-set ideal type analysis offers considerable advantages over more traditional, statistically rooted approaches. This is particularly true if the observed dimensions are conceptually distinct and ‘antithetical’.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 167 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, P. (1999), ‘The welfare modelling business’, Social Policy and Administration, 33, 394–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002), ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12, 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. (2003), ‘The Scandinavian challenge: the future of advanced welfare states in the knowledge economy’, Acta Sociologica, 46, 132–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castells, M. and Himanen, P. (2002), The Information Society and the Welfare State: the Finnish Model, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerny, P. and Evans, M. (1999), ‘New Labour, globalization, and the competition state’, Working Paper No. 70, Center for European Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. and Sigel, N. (eds) (2007), Investigating Welfare State Change: the ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis, London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1997), ‘Hybrid or unique? The Japanese welfare state between Europe and America’, Journal of European Social Policy, 7, 179–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. and Cerny, P. (2003), ‘Globalisation and social policy’, Ellison, N. and Pierson, C. (eds), Developments in British Social Policy 2, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Holliday, I. (2000), ‘Productivist welfare capitalism: social policy in East Asia’, Political Studies, 48, 706–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J. and Kühner, S. (2009), ‘Towards productive welfare? A comparative analysis of 23 countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 19, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühner, S. (2007), ‘Country-level comparisons of welfare state change measures: another facet of the dependant variable problem within the comparative analysis of the welfare state?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvist, J. (2006), ‘Diversity, ideal types and fuzzy sets in comparative welfare state research’, in Rihoux, B. and Grimm, H. (eds), Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative–Qualitative Divide, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kvist, J. (2007), ‘Exploring diversity: measuring welfare state change with fuzzy-set methodology’, in Clasen, J. and Sigel, N. (eds), Investigating Welfare State Change: The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis, London: Edward Elgar, pp. 198–214.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Barrientos, A. (2004), ‘Welfare regimes and the welfare mix’, European Journal of Political Research, 43, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. (2000), Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. C., Rubinson, C., Schaefer, D., Anderson, S., Williams, E. and Giesel, H. (2006), ‘User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis’, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona (www.compasss.org)Google Scholar
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C. C. (2008), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Room, G. (2002), ‘Education and welfare: recalibrating the European debate’, Policy Studies, 23, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2007), ‘Welfare state generosity across time and space’, in Clasen, J. and Siegel, N. (eds), Investigating Welfare State Change: The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. and Allan, J. (2006), ‘Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalev, M. (2007), ‘Limits and Alternatives to multiple regression in comparative research’, Comparative Social Research, 24, 261–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vis, B. (2007), ‘States of welfare or states of workfare? Welfare state restructuring in 16 capitalist democracies, 1985–2002’, Policy and Politics, 35, 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar