This limitation is based on the fact that EFirst and foremost, Esping-Andersen’s work provided a foundation for comparative welfare state research. His work has been a reference point and a basis for subsequent research in both scientific research and public fora (Ndunda, 2016). Because of his work, there are many scholars that have published work on welfare typologies following the gaps and strengths in Esping-Andersen’s work. Without Esping-Andersen’s work, there would have been no basis for these scholars to build upon their ideas. His work has been influential in shaping the understanding of welfare states and providing an opportunity for further research. Additionally, his ideal type “fills a theoretical void in the sense that he offered scholars a way to categorise the welfare state model as a whole in relation to each other” (Ndunda, 2016, p.2). It is because of his work that others identified more categories of welfare regimes. Just to appreciate the influence it has had, the following scholars’ work is based on Esping Andersen’s work either as an addition to his typology or a recognition of new typologies based on the gaps they found in Esping Andersen’s work, Castles and Mitchell (1993); Leibfried (1992); Bambra (2005); Ebbinghaus & Manow (2001); Pitruzello (1999); Korpi and Palme (1998) among others.
Esping Andersen’s typology derives its strength from the fact that it is able to provide explanations for policies of states (Chung ; Muntaner, 2007). It is a useful explanatory device for economic performances and status as well as national policies of welfare states. By looking at the regime type, one is able to determine the economic status of the nation hence assisting the nations in decisions such as resource allocation. In other words, his kind of typology helps in explaining the social and economic behaviours of states because of his focus on ensuring that the typology help in bringing about equality (Arts ; Gelissen, 2001). For instance, his social democratic regime upholds “equality of income where everybody is guaranteed a minimum standard of living by distributing generous benefits that are not dependent on individual contributions” (Arts ; Gelissen, 2001, p.286). The welfare state regimes under Esping Andersen create forces that determine the behaviours of states.
sping Andersen’s typology does not consider the fact that welfare states indulge in the actual delivery of services and he overlooked social programs such as housing, education (Gough, 2013). His analysis only looked at social transfers such as unemployment benefits, pensions among others which led him to generalize the key social policies across all the countries in his analysis (Bambra, 2007). However, this is not a true reflection as countries differ in their social policies/transfers. This limitation led to the development of additional typologies from other scholars such as Kautlo (2003) who identified three different regimes from Esping Andersen’s namely transfer approach, service approach and low approach (cited in Bambra, 2007). These additional typologies considered the feature that was ignored by Esping Andersen of including the actual delivery of services in making the categorization of countries into regimes. Additionally, because of this limitation, some scholars started finding other ways to base the categorization of countries into regimes besides social transfers such as looking at a more political based analysis. This led to the development of other typologies different from what Esping Andersen had such as that by Navarro and shi (2001) that identified another category regime called ex-fascist (cited in Bambra, 2007).