View source for Welfare state

{{short description|Form of government}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2024}}
{{EngvarB|date=December 2018}}
[[File:OECD Social Expenditure by Braunch.svg|thumb|right|400px|Social expenditure as % of [[GDP]] ([[OECD]])]]

A '''welfare state''' is a form of government in which the [[State (polity)|state]] (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social [[well-being]] of its citizens, based upon the principles of [[equal opportunity]], equitable [[distribution of wealth]], and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.<ref name="britannica">{{cite encyclopedia| url= http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/639266/welfare-state |title= Welfare state| encyclopedia= [[Britannica Online Encyclopedia]]|date= 18 November 2023}}</ref>

There is substantial variability in the form and trajectory of the welfare state across countries and regions.<ref name="Béland-2021a">{{Citation|last1=Béland|first1=Daniel|title=Introduction|date=2021|url=https://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198828389.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198828389-e-1|work=The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State|pages=xxx–20|editor-last=Béland|editor-first=Daniel|publisher=Oxford University Press|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198828389.013.1|isbn=978-0-19-882838-9|last2=Morgan|first2=Kimberly J.|last3=Obinger|first3=Herbert|last4=Pierson|first4=Christopher|editor2-last=Leibfried|editor2-first=Stephan|editor3-last=Morgan|editor3-first=Kimberly J.|editor4-last=Obinger|editor4-first=Herbert|url-access=subscription}}</ref> All welfare states entail some degree of [[Public–private partnership|private–public partnerships]] wherein the administration and delivery of at least some welfare programs occur through private entities.<ref name="Béland-2021b">{{Citation|last1=Béland|first1=Daniel|title=Governance|date=2021|url=https://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198828389.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198828389-e-10|work=The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State|pages=172–187|editor-last=Béland|editor-first=Daniel|publisher=Oxford University Press|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198828389.013.10|isbn=978-0-19-882838-9|last2=Morgan|first2=Kimberly J.|editor2-last=Leibfried|editor2-first=Stephan|editor3-last=Morgan|editor3-first=Kimberly J.|editor4-last=Obinger|editor4-first=Herbert|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Welfare state services are also provided at varying territorial levels of government.<ref name="Béland-2021b"/> 

The contemporary capitalist welfare state has been described as a type of [[mixed economy]] in the sense of state interventionism, as opposed to a mixture of planning and markets, since [[economic planning]] was not a key feature or component of the welfare state.<ref name= "EPE1247">{{cite encyclopedia|title=Welfare state|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Political Economy|editor-first=Phillip Anthony|editor-last=O'Hara|publisher=Routledge|year= 1999|page=1247|isbn= 0-415-24187-1|quote=The welfare state emerged in the twentieth century as one institutional form of this socially protective response. In the 1930s, the responses of emerging welfare states to the Great Depression were to the immediate circumstances of massive unemployment, lost output, and collapse of the financial and trading systems. Planning was not a key element in the response to the crisis of capitalism. Instead, the character of welfare state intervention can best be described as an 'interventionist drift', reflecting the spontaneous, uncoordinated reactions of the protective response.}}</ref> Early features therein, such as public pensions and social insurance, developed from the 1880s onwards in industrializing Western countries.<ref name="Skocpol-1992">{{Cite book|url=https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674717664|title=Protecting Soldiers and Mothers|last=Skocpol|first=Theda|date=1992|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674717664 |language=en|access-date=21 March 2020}}</ref><ref name="Béland-2021a"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Koehler-Derrick |first1=Gabriel |last2=Lee |first2=Melissa M. |date=2023 |title=War and Welfare in Colonial Algeria |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/war-and-welfare-in-colonial-algeria/BE75D263B93E8ABE9E9B388438D41A57 |journal=International Organization |volume=77 |issue=2 |pages=263–293 |language=en |doi=10.1017/S0020818322000376 |s2cid=256724058 |issn=0020-8183|url-access=subscription |doi-access=free }}</ref> World War I, the [[Great Depression]], and World War II have been characterized as important events that ushered in the expansion of the welfare state.<ref name="Skocpol-1992"/><ref name="WF EPE2">{{cite encyclopedia|year=1999|title=Welfare state|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Political Economy|publisher=Routledge|editor-last=O'Hara|editor-first=Phillip Anthony|page=1247|isbn=978-0-415-24187-8|quote=The welfare state emerged in the twentieth century as one institutional form of this socially protective response. In the 1930s, the responses of emerging welfare states to the Great Depression were to the immediate circumstances of massive unemployment, lost output, and collapse of the financial and trading systems. Planning was not a key element in the response to the crisis of capitalism. Instead the character of welfare state intervention can best be described as an 'interventionist drift', reflecting the spontaneous, uncoordinated reactions of the protective response...By the late 1970s, the welfare state and the capitalist economic structure in which it was placed were in a general state of crisis. There had never been a well articulated vision or ideological foundation of the welfare state.}}</ref> The fullest forms of the welfare state were developed after [[World War II]].<ref name="Béland-2021a"/>

== Etymology ==
The term welfare is much older than the term welfare state. In [[enlightened absolutism]], the ruler had an unlimited position of power, which he was to only utilize to the extent necessary for the "welfare" of his subjects. The content of the "welfare" or "good police", which limited the ruler's legitimate exercise of power, was defined by the authorities at their own discretion. This is also referred to as "welfare absolutism". The term welfare state is used in connection with princely absolutism, this is usually in conjunction with attributes such as [[Absolutism (European history)|absolutist]], [[Mercantilism|mercantilist]] or pre-modern.

The [[German language|German]] term {{lang|de|sozialstaat}}<!--German common nouns not normally capitalized in academic texts, and our manual of style says to avoid unnecessary capitalization--> ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German {{lang|de|[[Historical school of economics|sozialpolitiker]]}} ("social politicians") and implemented as part of [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s conservative reforms.<ref>{{cite journal | first= S. B. | last= Fay | title= Bismarck's Welfare State | journal= Current History | volume= XVIII | date= January 1950 | issue= 101 | pages= 1–7| doi= 10.1525/curh.1950.18.101.1 | s2cid= 249690140 }}</ref>

Today the term is used almost entirely for the "modern" welfare state, which emerged in the 19th century in the course of the socio-economic upheavals caused by [[industrialisation]], the formation of nation states and democratization. While the corresponding English term welfare state is descriptively neutral, the term "{{lang|de|Wohlfahrtsstaat}}" is often used in German as a fighting term with a pejorative connotation.{{Cn|date=December 2024}}

The literal English equivalent "social state" did not catch on in Anglophone countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Smith |first= Munroe |date= December 1901 |title= Four German Jurists. IV |journal= Political Science Quarterly |volume= 16 |issue= 4 |pages= 641–679 | doi= 10.2307/2140421 |issn= 0032-3195 |jstor= 2140421 }}</ref> However, during the Second World War, Anglican Archbishop [[William Temple (bishop)|William Temple]], author of the book '''Christianity and the Social Order''' (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state".<ref>{{citation |last= Gough |first= I. |date= 1989 |title= The Welfare State |work= The New Palgrave Social Economics| publisher=New York: W.W. Norton|pages= 276–281 }}</ref> Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to [[Benjamin Disraeli]]'s 1845 novel [[Sybil (novel)|''Sybil: or the Two Nations'']] (in other words, the rich and the poor), where he writes "power has only one duty – to secure the social welfare of the PEOPLE".<ref>{{cite book | first= Benjamin | last= Disraeli | author-link= Benjamin Disraeli | chapter-url= http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3760/3760-h/3760-h.htm | title= Sybil | volume = Book 4 | chapter= Chapter 14 | via= [[Project Gutenberg]]}}</ref> At the time he wrote ''Sybil'', Disraeli (later a prime minister) belonged to [[Young England]], a conservative group of youthful [[Tories (British political party)|Tories]] who disagreed with how the [[Whigs (British political party)|Whig]]s dealt with the [[Industrial Revolution#Social effects|conditions of the industrial poor]]. Members of Young England attempted to garner support among the privileged classes to assist the less fortunate and to recognize the [[dignity of labor]] that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.<ref>{{cite book | last= Alexander | title= Medievalism | pages= xxiv–xxv, 62, 93, and passim }}</ref>

== History ==
{{See also|Welfare spending#History}}

=== Ancient ===

==== India ====
Emperor [[Ashoka]] of India put forward his idea of a welfare state in the 3rd century [[Common Era|BCE]]. He envisioned his ''[[dharma]]'' (religion or path) as not just a collection of high-sounding phrases.  He consciously tried to adopt it as a matter of state policy; he declared that "all men are my children"<ref>[http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html The Edicts of King Asoka], Colostate.</ref> and "whatever exertion I make, I strive only to discharge debt that I owe to all living creatures." It was a completely new ideal of kingship.<ref name= "google592">{{cite book|title=The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300|year=2003|publisher=Penguin | place = UK|isbn=9780-1-4193742-7|page= 592 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=HqmyEbLScZ4C| first =Romila | last = Thapar |access-date=30 August 2013}}</ref> Ashoka renounced war and conquest by violence and forbade the killing of many animals.<ref name= "google1989">{{cite book |title=Studies in Indian History | issue = 35 | series = Chaukhambha oriental research studies|year= 1989| publisher= Chaukhamba Orientalia | via = The University of Virginia|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=_XlDAAAAYAAJ | first= Upendra |last= Thakur |access-date=30 August 2013}}</ref> Since he wanted to conquer the world through love and faith, he sent many missions to propagate Dharma. Such missions were sent to places like Egypt, Greece, and Sri Lanka. The propagation of Dharma included many measures of people's welfare. Centers of the treatment of men and beasts founded inside and outside of the empire. Shady groves, wells, orchards and rest houses were laid out.<ref>{{citation |title=Indian History |year= 1960|publisher= Tata McGraw-Hill Education|isbn= 978-0-07132923-1 | page=A-185|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=X4j7Nf_MU24C |access-date=30 August 2013}}</ref>  Ashoka also prohibited useless sacrifices and certain forms of gatherings which led to waste, indiscipline and superstition.<ref name="google1989"/> To implement these policies he recruited a new cadre of officers called Dharmamahamattas. Part of this group's duties was to see that people of various sects were treated fairly. They were especially asked to look after the welfare of prisoners.<ref>{{cite book|title=Indian History|year=1960 |publisher=Tata McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=9780071329231|pages= A–184–85|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=X4j7Nf_MU24C}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| title= A Text Book of Social Sciences|publisher= Pitambar Publishing|isbn=978-812091466-7|pages=45–46|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=jV6k0FvIC4sC | first1= N. N.| last1= Kher | first2= Jaideep |last2= Aggarwal| via= Google Books}}</ref>

However, the historical record of Ashoka's character is conflicted. Ashoka's own inscriptions state that he converted to [[Buddhism]] after waging a destructive war. However, the Sri Lankan tradition claims that he had already converted to Buddhism in the 4th year of his reign, although it does not mention the conquest of Kalinga.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Seneviratna |first=Anuradha|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iE5uAAAAMAAJ|title=King Aśoka and Buddhism: Historical and Literary Studies|date=1994|publisher= Buddhist Publication Society|isbn= 978-955-24-0065-0}}</ref> During this war, according to [[Edicts of Ashoka|Ashoka's Major Rock Edict 13]], with nearly 100,000 killed in the war and another 150,000 deported. Some sources (particularly Buddhist oral legends) suggest that his conversion was dramatic and that he dedicated the rest of his life to the pursuit of peace and the common good.<ref>{{Cite book|last= Thapar |first=Romila|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwJuAAAAMAAJ|title=Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas|date=1961|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> However, these sources frequently contradict each other,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Singh|first=Upinder|date=2012|title= Governing the State and the Self: Political Philosophy and Practice in the Edicts of Aśoka|department=South Asian Studies|journal=University of Delhi|volume= 28|issue=2|pages=131–145|doi= 10.1080/02666030.2012.725581|s2cid= 143362618}}</ref> and a few sources (like ''[[Ashokavadana]]'', earliest versions ranging from 200 AD to 500 AD) describe Ashoka engaging in sectarian mass murder throughout his reign, and make no mention of the philanthropic efforts claimed by earlier legends. The interpretation of Ashoka's dharma after conversion is controversial, but in particular, the texts which describe him personally ordering the massacre of Buddhist heretics and Jains have been disputed by many scholars, since these are directly contradictory to his own edicts, and are legendary in nature.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Age Of Impreial Unity|year=1968 |publisher=Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan|pages=234–235|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B1WgAAAAMAAJ}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Age Of The Nandas And Mauryas|year=1963 |publisher=Bharatiya Itihas Parishad|url=https://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/19859.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Danver|first=Steven L.|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=slVobUjdzGMC&pg=RA1-PA99|title=Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing Questions [4 volumes]: Investigating History's Intriguing Questions|date= 22 December 2010|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-59884-078-0|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Le|first=Huu Phuoc|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9jb364g4BvoC&pg=PA32|title=Buddhist Architecture|date=2010|publisher= Grafikol |isbn=978-0-9844043-0-8}}</ref>

==== China ====
The [[Emperor Wen of Han|Emperor Wen]] (203 – 157 BCE) of [[Han dynasty|Han Dynasty]] instituted a variety of measures with resemblances to modern welfare policies. These included pensions, in the form of food and wine, to all over 80 years of age, as well as monetary support, in the form of loans or tax breaks, to widows, orphans, and elderly without children to support them. Emperor Wen was also known for a concern over wasteful spending of tax-payer money. Unlike other Han emperors, he wore simple silk garments. In order to make the state serve the common people better, cruel criminal punishments were lessened and the state bureaucracy was made more meritocratic. This led to officials being selected by examinations for the first time in Chinese history.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Montgomery|first=Laszlo|title=Han Dynasty (Part 2)|url=https://chinahistorypodcast.libsyn.com/chp-019-the-han-dynasty-part-2|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027055233/https://chinahistorypodcast.libsyn.com/chp-019-the-han-dynasty-part-2|url-status=dead|archive-date=27 October 2020|website=[[chinahistorypodcast.libsyn]]}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=October 2024}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Emperor Wendi of Western Han Dynasty|url=https://www.learnchinesehistory.com/emperor-wendi-western-han-dynasty/|website=[[learnchinesehistory]]|date=5 February 2013|access-date=9 August 2021|archive-date=23 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220523072005/https://www.learnchinesehistory.com/emperor-wendi-western-han-dynasty/|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=October 2024}}

==== Rome ====
The [[Roman Republic]] intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain to its population, through the program known as ''[[Cura Annonae]].'' The city of Rome grew rapidly during the Roman Republic and [[Roman Empire|Empire]], reaching a population approaching one million in the second century AD. The population of the city grew beyond the capacity of the nearby rural areas to meet the food needs of the city.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi= 10.1098/rsif.2017.0367 |pmid = 29142013|pmc = 5721147|title = Urbanism and the division of labour in the Roman Empire|journal = Journal of the Royal Society Interface |volume = 14|issue = 136| page = 20170367|year = 2017|last1 = Hanson|first1 = J. W.|last2 = Ortman|first2 = S. G. |last3 = Lobo|first3 = J.}} p. 10.</ref>

Regular grain distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by [[Gaius Gracchus]] and approved by the Roman [[Plebeian Council]] (popular assembly). The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to a high of an estimated 320,000 people at one point.<ref>{{Cite book | doi=10.1017/CCO9781139025973.019 |chapter = The food supply of the capital|title = The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome|pages = 262–277|year = 2013|last1 = Erdkamp|first1 = Paul|isbn = 978-1-13902597-3 |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/9021182|publisher=Cambridge University Press}} pp. 262–264.</ref><ref>Cristofori, Alessandro "Grain Distribution on Late Republican Rome," pp 146-151. [https://www.academia.edu/853118/Grain_Distribution_in_Late_Republican_Rome], accessed 17 September 2018</ref> In the 3rd century AD, the dole of grain was replaced by bread, probably during the reign of [[Septimius Severus]] (193–211 AD).  Severus also began providing [[olive oil]] to residents of Rome, and later the emperor [[Aurelian]] (270–275) ordered the distribution of [[wine]] and [[pork]].{{sfn|Erdkamp|2013 |pp=266–267}} The doles of bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the [[Western Roman Empire]] in 476 AD.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1353/jla.2012.0015 | title=The Roman Grain Supply, 442–455| journal=Journal of Late Antiquity| volume=5| issue=2 | year=2012| last1=Linn| first1= Jason| s2cid=161127852 | pages = 298–321}}.</ref> The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 4502066 |title = The Organization of the Grain Trade in the Early Roman Empire|journal = The Economic History Review|volume = 60|issue = 2|pages = 313–332|last1 = Kessler|first1 = David|last2 = Temin |first2 = Peter|s2cid = 154086889|year = 2007|doi = 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00360.x}} p. 316.</ref>

In addition to food, the Roman Republic also supplied free entertainment, through ''[[ludi]]'' (public games).  Public money was allocated for the staging of ''ludi,'' but the presiding official increasingly came to augment the splendor of his games from personal funds as a form of [[public relations]]. The sponsor was able to cultivate the favor of the people of [[Rome]].<ref>[[Helen Lovatt]], ''Status and Epic Games: Sport, Politics, and Poetics in the Thebaid'' {{ISBN|978-0-52184742-1}} (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 10</ref>

===Islamic caliphates===
The concept of states taxing for the welfare budget was introduced to the Arabs in the early 7th century by caliph Omar, most likely adapted from the newly Roman territories.<ref>Miaschi, John (25 April 2017). [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-a-welfare-state.html  What Is A Welfare State?]  The World Atlas, accessed 24 October 2019.</ref> ''[[Zakat]]'' is also one of the [[five pillars of Islam]] and is a mandatory form of 2.5% [[Wealth tax]] to be paid by all individuals holding above a basic threshold ([[nisab]]) to provide for the needy once a year after [[Ramadan]]. [[Umar]] (584–644), leader of the [[Rashidun Caliphate]] (empire), established a welfare state  through the [[Bayt al-mal]] (treasury), which for instance was used to stockpile food in every region of the Islamic Empire reserved for Muslims in the Peninsula.<ref name= "Edinburgh">{{cite book| last= Crone|first= Patricia |title= Medieval Islamic Political Thought | publisher= Edinburgh University Press | pages= 308–309 | isbn= 0-7486-2194-6| year= 2005 }}</ref>

=== Modern ===
[[Otto von Bismarck]] established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with [[Otto von Bismarck#Social legislation|social-welfare legislation]], in 1880s [[Imperial Germany]].<ref name=Vis>{{cite book|last1=Kersbergen|first1=Kees van|last2=Vis|first2=Barbara|title=Comparative Welfare State Politics: Development, Opportunities, and Reform|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQL3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA38|year=2013 |publisher=Cambridge UP|page=38|isbn= 978-1-10765247-7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Wimmer|first=Andreas|date= 13 February 2019 |title=Why Nationalism Works|journal= Foreign Affairs: America and the World|language=en-US|url= https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2019-02-12/why-nationalism-works |access-date=30 August 2020|issn= 0015-7120}}</ref> Bismarck extended the privileges of the [[Junker]] social class to ordinary Germans.<ref name=Vis/> His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the [[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]] used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program.<ref>Moritz Busch, ''Bismarck: Some secret pages from his history,'' Macmillan, New York (1898) Vol. II, p. 282</ref> German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace.<ref name= Austria>{{cite journal| first= Margarete |last= Grandner| title= Conservative Social Politics in Austria, 1880–1890| journal= Austrian History Yearbook| volume= 27 |year= 1996| pages= 77–107|doi= 10.1017/S006723780000583X|s2cid= 143805293|url= http://purl.umn.edu/90596}}</ref>

In [[Switzerland]], the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 limited working hours for everyone, and gave maternity benefits.<ref name=Austria/>  The [[Public Welfare Policy in Switzerland|Swiss welfare state]] also arose in the late 19th century; its existence and depth varied individually by [[Cantons of Switzerland|canton]]. Some of the programs first adopted were emergency relief, elementary schools, and homes for the elderly and children.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.geschichtedersozialensicherheit.ch/synthese/#c34|title=Geschichte der Sozialen Sicherheit-Synthese |language= de-DE|access-date=8 December 2017}}</ref>

In the [[Austro-Hungarian Empire]], a version was set up by Count [[Eduard von Taaffe]] a few years after Bismarck in Germany. Legislation to help the working class in Austria emerged from [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[Christian right|conservatives]]. Von Taffe used Swiss and German models of social reform, including the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 German laws that insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace to create the 1885 Trade Code Amendment.<ref name= Austria/>

Changed attitudes in reaction to the worldwide [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, which brought unemployment and misery to millions, were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries. During the Great Depression, the welfare state was seen as a "middle way" between the extremes of [[communism]] on the left and unregulated ''[[laissez-faire]]'' [[capitalism]] on the right.<ref name="WF EPE">{{cite encyclopedia|year=1999|title=Welfare state|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Political Economy|publisher=Routledge|editor-last=O'Hara|editor-first=Phillip Anthony|page=1245|isbn=978-0-415-24187-8}}</ref> In the period following World War II, some countries in Western Europe moved from partial or selective provision of [[social service]]s to relatively comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" coverage of the population. Other Western European states did not, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and France.{{sfn|Esping-Andersen| 1990 |p=108}} Political scientist [[Eileen McDonagh]] has argued that a major determinant of where welfare states arose is whether or not a country had a historical monarchy with familial foundations (a trait that [[Max Weber]] called [[patrimonialism]]); in places where the monarchic state was viewed as a parental steward of the populace, it was easier to shift into a mindset where the industrial state could also serve as a parental steward of the populace.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Eileen |last=McDonagh |author-link=Eileen McDonagh |title=Ripples from the First Wave: The Monarchical Origins of the Welfare State |journal=Perspectives on Politics |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=992–1016 |date=December 2015 |doi=10.1017/S1537592715002273|s2cid=146441936 }}</ref>

The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash welfare benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind welfare services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions, welfare states can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among their citizens, as well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they spend their time.<ref>{{cite book |last=Esping-Andersen |first=Gøsta |title=Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies |year=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0198742005 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Rice |first=James Mahmud |author2=Robert E. Goodin |author3=Antti Parpo  |date=September–December 2006 |title=The Temporal Welfare State: A Crossnational Comparison |journal=Journal of Public Policy |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=195–228 |url=http://www.jamesmahmudrice.info/Welfare.pdf |doi=10.1017/S0143814X06000523 |issn=0143-814X |hdl=10419/31604 |s2cid=38187155 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070615181613/http://www.jamesmahmudrice.info/Welfare.pdf |archive-date=15 June 2007 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Analysis ===
Historian of the 20th-century [[Fascism|fascist movement]], [[Robert Paxton]], observes that the provisions of the welfare state were enacted in the 19th century by [[Christian right|religious conservatives]] to counteract appeals from [[trade union]]s and [[History of socialism|socialism]].<ref name= "Paxton way">{{cite news| first= Robert O.| last= Paxton| title= Vichy Lives! – In a way| url= http://www.nybooks.com:80/articles/archives/2013/apr/25/vichy-lives-in-a-way/?pagination=false| work= The New York Review of Books| date= 25 April 2013| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130414234702/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/25/vichy-lives-in-a-way/?pagination=false| archive-date= 14 April 2013| access-date= 16 May 2020| url-status= live}}</ref> Later, Paxton writes "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states…  They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."<ref name= "Paxton way"/> In Germany, [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[Nazi Party]] maintained the welfare state established by previous German governments, but restructured it so as to help only [[Aryan race|Aryan]] individuals considered worthy of assistance, excluding "alcoholics, tramps, homosexuals, prostitutes, the 'work-shy' or the 'asocial', habitual criminals, the hereditarily ill (a widely defined category) and members of races other than the Aryan."<ref name= Evans>[[Richard J. Evans]], ''The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939,'' New York: The Penguin Press, 2005, p. 489</ref> Nevertheless, even with these limitations, over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the [[Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt|National Socialist People's Welfare]] by 1939.<ref name=Evans/>

When social democratic parties abandoned [[Marxism]] after [[World War II]], they increasingly accepted the welfare state as a political goal, either as a temporary goal within capitalism or an ultimate goal in itself.<ref name= "Paxton way"/>

A theoretical addition from 2005 is that of Kahl in her article "The religious roots of modern policy: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Protestant traditions compared." She argues that the welfare state policies of several European countries can be traced back to their religious origins. This process has its origin in the "poor relief" systems, and social norms present in Christian nations. The example countries are categorized as follows: Catholic – Spain, Italy and France; Lutheran – Denmark, Sweden and Germany; Reformed Protestant – Netherlands, the UK and the USA. The Catholic countries had a late adoption of welfare benefits and social assistance, the latter being splintered and meagre, due to several religious and social factors. Giving alms was an important part of Catholic society as the wealthy could resolve their sins through participation in the act. As such, begging was allowed and was subject to a greater degree of acceptance. Poverty was seen as being close to grace and there was no onus for change placed onto the poor. These factors, coupled with the power of the church meant that state provided benefits did not arise until late in the 20th century. Additionally, social assistance was not done at a comprehensive level, each group in need had its assistance added incrementally. This accounts for the fragmented nature of social assistance in these countries.<ref name="Kahl 91-126">Kahl, Sigrun (2005). ''The religious roots of modern poverty policy: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Protestant traditions compared.'' European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 1, Religion and Society, pp. 91–126.</ref>

Lutheran states were early to provide welfare and late to provide social assistance but this was done uniformly. Poverty was seen as more of an individual affliction of laziness and immorality. Work was viewed as a calling. As such these societies banned begging and created workhouses to force the able-bodied to work. These uniform state actions paved the way for comprehensive welfare benefits, as those who worked deserved assistance when in need. When social assistance was delivered for those who had never worked, it was in the context of the uniform welfare provision. The concept of Predestination is key for understanding welfare assistance in Reformed Protestant states. Poor people were seen as being punished, therefore begging and state assistance was non existent. As such churches and charities filled the void resulting in early social assistance and late welfare benefits. The USA still has minimal welfare benefits today, because of their religious roots, according to Kahl.<ref name="Kahl 91-126"/>

Also from 2005, Jacob Hacker stated that there was "broad agreement" in research on welfare that there had not been welfare state retrenchment. Instead, "social policy frameworks remain secure."<ref>{{cite book|last=Hacker|first= Jacob|title=Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2005|chapter=Policy Drift: The Hidden Politics of US Welfare State Retrenchment}}</ref>

== Forms ==
{{see also|Welfare spending#Forms|Social democracy|Christian democracy}}

{{christian Democracy sidebar}}
{{social democracy sidebar}}
{{liberalism sidebar}}
Broadly speaking, welfare states are either '''universal''', with provisions that cover everybody; or '''selective''', with provisions covering only those deemed most needy. In his 1990 book, ''The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism'', Danish sociologist [[Gøsta Esping-Andersen]] further identified three subtypes of welfare state models; liberal, social-democratic, and conservative.<ref name="Bo Rothstein"/>

Esping-Anderson development of the three subtypes of welfare regimes were categorized under three dimensions: 1) state and market relations or the relationship between the state and market, 2) stratification or social relations and relationships, 3) social citizenship rights or whether or not an individual is dependent on the labor market.<ref name="Esping-Andersen2">{{harvnb|Esping-Andersen|1990|page=228}}</ref>

Since the building of the decommodification index is limited{{efn|According to the French sociologist [[Georges Menahem]], Esping-Andersen's "decommodification index" aggregates both qualitative and quantitative variables for "sets of dimensions" which fluid, and pertain to three very different areas. These characters involve similar limits of the validity of the index and of its potential for replication. Cf. {{harvnb|Menahem|2007}}.}} and the typology is debatable, these 18 countries could be ranked from most purely social-democratic (Sweden) to the most liberal (the United States).<ref name="FS regime">{{cite journal|last1=Ferragina|first1=Emanuele|last2=Seeleib-Kaiser|first2=Martin|year=2011|title=Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures|url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01347336/file/Welfare_regime_debate.pdf|journal=Policy & Politics|volume=39|pages=583–611|doi=10.1332/030557311X603592|number=4|s2cid=146986126|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226005038/https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01347336/file/Welfare_regime_debate.pdf|archive-date=26 February 2020|url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|597}} Ireland represents a near-hybrid model whereby two streams of unemployment benefit exist: contributory and means-tested. However, payments can begin immediately and are theoretically available to all Irish citizens even if they have never worked, provided they are habitually resident.<ref>{{cite news| url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title= Benefits in Europe: country by country| first= Edward |last= Malnick| date= 19 October 2013| work= The Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Social stigma varies across the three conceptual welfare states. Particularly, it is highest in liberal states, and lowest in social democratic states.<ref name="Esping-Andersen" /> Esping-Andersen proposes that the universalist nature of social democratic states eliminate the duality between beneficiaries and non-recipients, whereas in means-tested liberal states there is resentment towards redistribution efforts. That is to say, the lower the percent of GDP spent on welfare, the higher the stigma of the welfare state.<ref name="Esping-Andersen"/> Esping-Andersen also argues that welfare states set the stage for post-industrial employment evolution in terms of employment growth, structure, and stratification. He uses Germany, Sweden, and the United States to provide examples of the differing results of each of the three welfare states.<ref name="Esping-Andersen"/>

According to Evelyne Huber and John Stephens, different types of welfare states emerged as a result of prolonged government by different parties. They distinguish between social democratic welfare states, Christian democratic welfare states, and "wage earner" states.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Huber|first=Evelyne|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45276711|title=Development and crisis of the welfare state : parties and policies in global markets|date=2001|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|others=John D. Stephens|isbn=0-226-35646-9|location=Chicago|oclc=45276711}}</ref>

According to the Swedish political scientist [[Bo Rothstein]], in non-universal welfare states, the state is primarily concerned with directing resources to "the people most in need". This requires tight bureaucratic control in order to determine who is eligible for assistance and who is not. Under universal models such as Sweden, on the other hand, the state distributes welfare to all people who fulfill easily established criteria (e.g. having children, receiving medical treatment, etc.) with as little bureaucratic interference as possible. This, however, requires higher taxation due to the scale of services provided. This model was constructed by the Scandinavian ministers [[Karl Kristian Steincke]] and [[Gustav Möller]] in the 1930s and is dominant in Scandinavia.<ref name="Bo Rothstein">[[Bo Rothstein]], ''Just Institutions Matter: the Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 18–27.</ref>

Sociologist [[Lane Kenworthy]] argues that the Nordic experience demonstrates that the modern social democratic model can "promote economic security, expand opportunity, and ensure rising living standards for all ... while facilitating freedom, flexibility and market dynamism."<ref>[[Lane Kenworthy|Kenworthy, Lane]] (2014). ''Social Democratic America''. [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|0199322511}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=eVTSAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9 p. 9].</ref>

American political scientist [[Benjamin Radcliff]] has also argued that the universality and generosity of the welfare state (i.e. the extent of [[decommodification]]) is the single most important societal-level structural factor affecting the quality of human life, based on the analysis of time serial data across both the industrial democracies and the American States. He maintains that the welfare state improves life for everyone, regardless of social class (as do similar institutions, such as pro-worker labor market regulations and strong labor unions).<ref>{{cite book| author-link= Benjamin Radcliff| last= Radcliff| first= Benjamin| year= 2013| title= The Political Economy of Human Happiness| place= New York| publisher= Cambridge University Press}}</ref>{{efn|See also [http://benjaminradcliff.com/scholarly-articles/ "this collection of full-text peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this subject"] by Radcliff and colleagues (such as "Social Forces," "The Journal of Politics," and "Perspectives on Politics," among others)}}

=== Gender and welfare ===
Esping-Andersen's welfare typology is often criticized by feminists for being gender blind.<ref name="Nakray-2021">{{Cite journal |last=Nakray |first=Keerty |date=December 2021 |title=Gender, welfare state regimes and social policy beyond advanced capitalism: Pathways to decommodification in middle-income countries |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spol.12711 |journal=Social Policy & Administration |language=en |volume=55 |issue=7 |pages=1197–1223 |doi=10.1111/spol.12711 |s2cid=233887743 |issn=0144-5596|url-access=subscription }}</ref> According to Keerty Nakray, Esping-Andersen's three types of dimensions (state and market relations, stratification, and social citizenship rights) does not acknowledge unpaid care-work done by women within the household economy. This failure of recognizing unpaid work is due to the fact that welfare states are focused on the male-breadwinner concept.<ref name="Nakray-2021" /> Because Esping-Andersen argued that the welfare state set the stage for employment evolution, the lack of gender analysis creates an unintended emphasis on male employment.

Sociologist [[Ann Shola Orloff]] reframes the three dimensions with a gendered lens. As she reframes, Orloff incorporates gender and expands the decommodification index within three dimensions: 1) focus on families and the welfare states in state and market relations, 2) including the relationship between gender and labor in stratifications on social provisions, 3) how men and women are dependent on the labor market and the effect of welfare on decommodification for both genders.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Orloff |first=Ann Shola |date=June 1993 |title=Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095903 |journal=American Sociological Review |volume=58 |issue=3 |pages=303–328 |doi=10.2307/2095903|jstor=2095903 |s2cid=53453651 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Reframing the decommodification index with a gendered lens ensures women doing care-work don't get left behind within the welfare state.

=== UBI as a replacement for the welfare state ===
[[Universal basic income]] (UBI) has been proposed as a replacement for the traditional welfare state where social protection schemes are also [[Social policy|social policies]] with a precise aim that can be regarded as [[Social engineering (political science)|social engineering]]. The focus of the UBI is granting individuals more [[freedom]] in determining life choices by providing a lifetime of financial security regardless of one's career preferences or lifepath.<ref>{{Cite web |title="Universal income is more than a new form of welfare state" |url=https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/braincamps/economy/has-the-pandemic-revived-debate-over-universal-basic-income/universal-income-is-more-than-just-a-new-form-of-welfare-state/ |access-date=3 April 2023 |website=Polytechnique Insights |language=en-GB}}</ref>

According to statements of [[American Enterprise Institute]]-affiliated Libertarian/conservative scholar [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]], recalled and sanctioned by the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the [[Mercatus Center]] at George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist<ref>{{Cite web |title=Veronique de Rugy |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/author/veronique-de-rugy/ |access-date=7 April 2023 |website=National Review |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Veronique de Rugy |url=https://gtnf.org/veronique-de-rugy |access-date=7 April 2023 |website=GTNF 2023 |language=en-US |archive-date=10 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410130223/https://gtnf.org/veronique-de-rugy |url-status=dead }}</ref> Veronique de Rugy, as of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI in the US would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the US system put in place at that date.<ref>{{Cite web |date=4 June 2020 |title=Is a Universal Basic Income Program Worth the Costs?, by Veronique de Rugy |url=https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/06/20/is-a-universal-basic-income-program-worth-the-costs |access-date=11 February 2024 |website=www.creators.com |language=en}}</ref> By 2020, it would have been nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.<ref>{{Cite web |last=de Rugy |first=Veronique |date=7 June 2016 |title=Universal Basic Income's Growing Appeal |url=https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/universal-basic-incomes-growing-appeal |access-date=3 April 2023 |website=Mercatus Center}}</ref>

== By country {{anchor|By country}} ==
{{see also|Welfare spending#By country}}

=== Australia ===
{{see also|Social security in Australia}}
Prior to 1900 in Australia, charitable assistance from benevolent societies, sometimes with financial contributions from the authorities, was the primary means of relief for people not able to support themselves.<ref name = abs-1988/> The 1890s economic depression and the rise of the trade unions and the [[Australian Labor Party#History|Labor parties]] during this period led to a movement for welfare reform.<ref name = dict-syd-2008>{{cite web|year= 2008|first= Stephen|last= Garton|title=  Health and welfare|work= The Dictionary of Sydney|access-date= 23 December 2014|url= http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/health_and_welfare|url-status= live| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120815071913/http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/health_and_welfare|archive-date= 15 August 2012}}</ref>

In 1900, New South Wales and Victoria enacted legislation introducing non-contributory pensions for those aged 65 and over. Queensland legislated a similar system in 1907 before the [[Deakin government (1905–1908)|Deakin government]] introduced a national aged pension under the ''Invalid and Old-Aged Pensions Act 1908''. A national invalid disability pension was started in 1910, and a national maternity allowance was introduced by the [[Andrew Fisher|Fisher government]] in 1912.<ref name = abs-1988>{{cite web|year= 1988|title= History of Pensions and Other Benefits in Australia| work= Year Book Australia, 1988  |publisher= Australian Bureau of Statistics|access-date= 23 December 2014|url= http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141223142853/http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument|archive-date= 23 December 2014}}</ref><ref name = australia-wr-2000/>

In the 1920s and 1930s, detailed proposals were developed for [[National Insurance (Australia)|a comprehensive national insurance scheme]] covering medical, disability, unemployment and pension benefits. Multiple royal commissions were held on the subject and the scheme was legislated as the ''[[National Health and Pensions Insurance Act 1938]]''. However, the scheme was ultimately abandoned for cost reasons in the lead-up to the Second World War.<ref>{{cite book |first=James |last=Gillespie |year=1991 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |location=Cambridge |title=The Price of Health: Australian Governments and Medical Politics 1910–1960 |oclc=49638492 |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49638492 |isbn=9780521523226|pages=91–99}}</ref>

During the Second World War, the federal government created a welfare state by enacting national schemes for: child endowment in 1941; a widows' pension in 1942; a wife's allowance in 1943; additional allowances for the children of pensioners in 1943; and unemployment, sickness, and special benefits in 1945.<ref name = abs-1988/><ref name=australia-wr-2000>{{cite web|date=September 2000 |first=Peter|last=Yeend|title=Welfare Review|publisher=Parliament of Australia|access-date=23 December 2014| url= http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/welfarebrief| url-status= live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141223134852/http://www.peeep.us/2cbb82ee|archive-date=23 December 2014}}</ref>

[[Medicare (Australia)|Medicare]] is Australia's publicly funded universal health care insurance scheme. Initially created in 1975 by the [[Whitlam]] Labor government under the name "Medibank". The Fraser Liberal government made significant changes to it from 1976 leading to its abolition in late 1981. The Hawke government reinstated universal health care in 1984 under the name "Medicare".

=== Brunei ===
[[Brunei]] operates a comprehensive welfare state, primarily funded by its substantial oil and gas revenues, which account for approximately 65% of its GDP and 90% of government income. This wealth enables the government to provide citizens with extensive benefits, including free education, free or heavily subsidized healthcare, public housing, and various subsidies on essential goods like fuel and food. Notably, Bruneians pay no personal [[income tax]], and the state covers many living expenses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hashim |first1=Hafiizh |last2=Druce |first2=Stephen C. |last3=Julay |first3=Abdul Hai |title=Brunei Darussalam's Economic Diversification Drive: An Assessment of the Socioeconomic and Geopolitical Issues and Challenges. Overcoming Path Dependence? |journal=Brunei Darussalam's Economic Transition in a Shifting Global Asia |series=Asia in Transition |date=2025 |volume=23 |pages=21–38 |doi=10.1007/978-981-97-6926-1_2|isbn=978-981-97-6925-4 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

However, Brunei's heavy reliance on [[hydrocarbon resources]] poses sustainability challenges, especially amid global shifts toward [[renewable energy]]. Recognizing this, the government has initiated economic diversification efforts under the "Wawasan Brunei 2035" vision, aiming to reduce dependence on oil and gas by developing sectors like technology, tourism, and agriculture. Despite these initiatives, progress has been gradual, and the long-term viability of Brunei's welfare model remains contingent on successful economic transformation.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bakar |first1=Rasidah Hj Abu |title=Brunei sets goals for diversifying economy beyond oil |url=https://thescoop.co/2021/01/08/brunei-sets-goals-for-diversifying-economy-beyond-oil/ |website=The Scoop |access-date=28 April 2025 |date=8 January 2021}}</ref>

=== Canada ===
Canada's [[Social programs in Canada|welfare programs]]<ref name="Canada">[https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/reports/welfare-income-2009/chapter1.html Chapter 1: What is Welfare?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306044624/https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/reports/welfare-income-2009/chapter1.html |date=6 March 2019 }} Retrieved: 4 March 2019.</ref> are funded and administered at all levels of government (with 13 different<ref name="Canada"/> provincial/territorial systems), and include health and medical care, public education (through graduate school), social housing and social services. Social support is given through programs including Social Assistance, Guaranteed Income Supplement, Child Tax Benefit, Old Age Security, Employment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans.<ref>[https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/welfare-state Welfare State.] Retrieved: 4 March 2019.</ref>

=== China ===
{{main|Social welfare in China}}
China traditionally relied on the extended family to provide welfare services.<ref>{{cite book| first1= A. B. |last1= Susanto | first2= Patricia |last2= Susanto|title= The Dragon Network: Inside Stories of the Most Successful Chinese Family Businesses|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=xq18xB7SpPgC&pg=PA22|year= 2013|publisher= Wiley|page=22|isbn= 978-1-11833938-1}}</ref> The [[one-child policy]] introduced in 1978 has made that unrealistic, and new models have emerged since the 1980s as China has rapidly become richer and more urban. Much discussion is underway regarding China's proposed path toward a welfare state.<ref>{{cite book| first = Scott | last = Kennedy|title= Beyond the Middle Kingdom: Comparative Perspectives on China's Capitalist Transformation|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=p_5D_eElygkC&pg=PA89|year= 2011|publisher= Stanford U.P.|page= 89|isbn= 978-0-80477767-4}}</ref> Chinese policies have been incremental and fragmented in terms of social insurance, privatization, and targeting. In the cities, where the rapid economic development has centered, lines of cleavage have developed between state-sector and non-state-sector employees, and between labor-market insiders and outsiders.<ref>{{cite journal| first= Xian |last= Huang|s2cid= 18306913| title= The Politics of Social Welfare Reform in Urban China: Social Welfare Preferences and Reform Policies| journal= Journal of Chinese Political Science |date= March 2013| volume= 18| number= 1| pages= 61–85|doi= 10.1007/s11366-012-9227-x|url= https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/The-Politics-of-Social-Welfare-Reform/991031550236404646}}</ref>

=== France ===
{{main|Health care in France|Social protection in France|Social security in France}}
After 1830, French [[liberalism]] and economic modernization were key goals.  While liberalism was individualistic and laissez-faire in the United Kingdom and the United States, in France liberalism was based instead on a solidaristic conception of society, following the theme of the French Revolution, ''[[Liberté, égalité, fraternité]]'' ("liberty, equality, fraternity").  In the Third Republic, especially between 1895 and 1914  "Solidarité" ["solidarism"] was the guiding concept of a liberal social policy, whose chief champions were the prime ministers [[Leon Bourgeois]] (1895–96) and [[Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau]] (1899–1902).<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0020859000001759 |title = The Official Social Philosophy of the French Third Republic: Léon Bourgeois and Solidarism|journal = International Review of Social History|volume = 6|issue = 1|pages = 19–48|year = 1961|last1 = Hayward|first1 = J. E. S.|jstor=44581447|doi-access = free}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Jack Hayward|title=Fragmented France: Two Centuries of Disputed Identity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-ZgSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|year=2007|publisher=Oxford UP|page=44|isbn=9780199216314}}</ref> The French welfare state expanded when it tried to follow some of Bismarck's policies.<ref>Allan Mitchell, ''The Divided Path: The German Influence on Social Reform in France After 1870'' (1991) [https://www.questia.com/library/99372318/the-divided-path-the-german-influence-on-social-reform  online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190414012952/https://www.questia.com/library/99372318/the-divided-path-the-german-influence-on-social-reform |date=14 April 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 286694|title = The Welfare State in France, 1870–1914|journal = French Historical Studies|volume = 18|issue = 3|pages = 821–838|last1 = Nord|first1 = Philip|year = 1994|doi = 10.2307/286694}}</ref> Poor relief was the starting point.<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 286593|title = Origins of the French Welfare State: Poor Relief in the Third Republic, 1871-1914|journal = French Historical Studies|volume = 13|issue = 1|pages = 47–78|last1 = Weiss|first1 = John H.|year = 1983|doi = 10.2307/286593}}</ref> More attention was paid to industrial labour in the 1930s during a short period of socialist political ascendency, with the [[Matignon Accords (1936)|Matignon Accords]] and the reforms of the [[Popular Front (France)|Popular Front]].<ref>{{cite book| first= Paul V. |last= Dutton| title= Origins of the French welfare state: The struggle for social reform in France, 1914–1947| publisher= Cambridge University Press| year= 2002| url= http://www.newbooks-services.de/MediaFiles/Texts/3/9780521673563_Intro_001.pdf | via= newbooks-services.de | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180723122539/http://www.newbooks-services.de/MediaFiles/Texts/3/9780521673563_Intro_001.pdf | archive-date= 23 July 2018 | url-status= dead }}</ref> Paxton points out these reforms were paralleled and even exceeded by measures taken by the [[Vichy France|Vichy regime]] in the 1940s.

=== Germany ===
{{main|Welfare in Germany}}
Some policies enacted to enhance social welfare in Germany were Health Insurance 1883, Accident Insurance 1884, Old Age Pensions 1889 and National Unemployment Insurance 1927. [[Otto von Bismarck]], the powerful [[Chancellor of Germany]] (in office 1871–90), developed the first modern welfare state by building on a tradition of welfare programs in [[Prussia]] and [[Saxony]] that had begun as early as in the 1840s. The measures that Bismarck introduced – old-age [[pension]]s, [[Accidental death and dismemberment insurance|accident insurance]], and employee health insurance – formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His paternalistic programs aimed to forestall social unrest and to undercut the appeal of the new [[History of the Social Democratic Party of Germany#German Empire (1863–1918)|Social Democratic Party]], and to secure the support of the [[working class]]es for the [[German Empire]], as well as to reduce emigration to the United States, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist.<ref>E. P. Hennock, ''The Origin of the Welfare State in England and Germany, 1850–1914: Social Policies Compared'' (2007)</ref><ref>Hermann Beck, ''Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia, 1815–1870'' (1995)</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Streeck|first1=Wolfgang|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s16hvDNAytQC|title=Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies|last2=Thelen|first2=Kathleen Ann|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-928046-9|pages=28|language=en}}</ref> Bismarck further won the support of both industry and skilled workers through his high-[[tariff]] policies, which protected profits and wages from American competition, although they alienated the [[Economic liberalism|liberal]] intellectuals who wanted [[free trade]].<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 3114686|title = Rulers of the Ruhr: Leadership and Authority in German Big Business before 1914|journal = The Business History Review|volume = 53|issue = 1|pages = 40–64|last1 = Spencer|first1 = Elaine Glovka|year = 1979|doi = 10.2307/3114686| s2cid=154458964 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 2114256|title = The Protectionist Interests of the German Iron and Steel Industry, 1873-1879|journal = The Journal of Economic History|volume = 22|issue = 1|pages = 59–70|last1 = Lambi|first1 = Ivo N.|year = 1962|doi = 10.1017/S0022050700102347| s2cid=154067344 }}</ref>

During the 12 years of rule by [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[Nazi Party]], the welfare state established by previous German governments was maintained, but it was restructured so as to help only [[Aryan race|Aryan]] individuals considered worthy of assistance, excluding "alcoholics, tramps, homosexuals, prostitutes, the 'work-shy' or the 'asocial', habitual criminals, the hereditarily ill (a widely defined category) and members of races other than the Aryan."<ref name=Evans/> Nevertheless, even with these limitations, over 17 million German citizens received assistance under the auspices of the [[Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt]] (NSV) by 1939.<ref name=Evans/> The agency projected a powerful image of caring and support for those who were seen as full members of the German racial community, but it also inspired fear through its intrusive questioning and the threat of opening investigations on those who did not fulfill the criteria for support.<ref>[[Richard J. Evans]] (2005). ''The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939''. New York City, New York: The Penguin Press. p. 489-490.</ref>

=== India ===
{{main|Social security in India}}
The [[Directive Principles of India|Directive Principles of State Policy]], enshrined in Part IV of the [[Indian Constitution]] reflects that India is a welfare state. Food security to all Indians is guaranteed under the [[National Food Security Act, 2013]] where the government provides food grains to people at a very subsidised rate.

Since 2001, India has developed a strong welfare state with continuous increase in government expenditure on the social sector over the years. The general government's expenditure on social security and welfare which includes health insurances and public hospitals, education, grants for housing, financial transfers to the poor, free bus or metro tickets, unemployment benefits and a variety of social pensions was approximately {{INRConvert|7164000|c}} in 2022, representing 8.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1793817|title=GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING ON SOCIAL SERVICES INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY DURING THE PANDEMIC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/top-11-states-social-welfare-spends-to-hit-10-year-high-of-rs-4-lakh-crore-in-fy24-crisil/articleshow/102985245.cms?from=mdr|title=Top 11 states' social welfare spends to hit 10-year-high of Rs 4 lakh crore in FY24: Crisil|work=The Economic Times |date=23 August 2023|via=The Economic Times - The Times of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1894916|title=Press Release: Press Information Bureau}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://cag.gov.in/uploads/download_audit_report/2022/04--Chapter--2-065001a4055e248.66143861.pdf | title=Chapter II - Social Sector | website=cag.gov.in}}</ref>

=== Sri Lanka ===
In 1995, the government started the Samurdhi (Prosperity) program aimed at reducing poverty, having replaced the [[Janasaviya|Jana Saviya]] poverty alleviation programme that was in place at the time.<ref>{{cite web |last1= Irigoyen |first1=Claudia |title=The Samurdhi Programme in Sri Lanka |date=30 May 2017 |url= https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/samurdhi-programme-sri-lanka/ |publisher=Centre for Public Impact |access-date=13 May 2020}}</ref>

=== Singapore ===
In [[Singapore]], the government provides financial and social support through a variety of social assistance schemes for lower and middle-income Singaporeans. The [[Ministry of Social and Family Development]] runs ComCare, a program which provides income support for low-income citizen households through various schemes for short-to-medium term assistance, long-term assistance, child support, and urgent financial needs.<ref>{{cite web |title=ComCare |url=https://www.msf.gov.sg/ComCare/Pages/default.aspx |website=msf.gov.sg |publisher=Ministry of Social and Family Development |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181015153032/https://www.msf.gov.sg/ComCare/Pages/default.aspx |archive-date=15 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[Community Development Council]]s also run various local assistance schemes within their districts.<ref>{{cite web |title=Getting help |url=https://www.cdc.org.sg/about-cdc/getting-help |website=cdc.org.sg |publisher=People's Association |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181015153005/https://www.cdc.org.sg/about-cdc/getting-help |archive-date=15 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[Ministry of Manpower (Singapore)|Ministry of Manpower]] runs a Silver Support Scheme which provides additional financial support for low-income elderly with no family support.<ref>{{cite web |title=Silver Support Scheme |url=https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/silver-support-scheme |website=mom.gov.sg |publisher=Ministry of Manpower |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181015114508/https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/silver-support-scheme |archive-date=15 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Meanwhile, the [[Ministry of Health (Singapore)|Ministry of Health]] also runs MediFund to assist anyone on their behalf to pay off the rest of their medical bills after initial government subsidies, [[Healthcare in Singapore|other health financing schemes]] as well as funds from the [[Central Provident Fund]] has been used.<ref>{{cite web |title=MediFund |url=https://www.moh.gov.sg/cost-financing/healthcare-schemes-subsidies/medifund |website=moh.gov.sg |publisher=Ministry of Health |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524015928/https://www.moh.gov.sg/cost-financing/healthcare-schemes-subsidies/medifund |archive-date=24 May 2019 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 2012, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) was introduced. It is a medical card that provides extended subsidies exclusively for Singaporean citizens usually from lower-to-middle income households, as well as the older generations, where they could receive treatment for common illnesses, chronic health problems and specific dental issues at private clinics for free. The intentions behind the scheme were to encourage Singaporeans to use such a card and tap into the private healthcare sector for common or minor chronic illnesses, as well as dental care, to reduce the strain at public community hospitals. Originally, only a blue and orange card existed, depending on their household income.<ref name="CHAS"/> The CHAS scheme was further expanded in 2019 to include a new green card that provides for all Singaporeans no matter their household income. As a result, all Singaporeans became covered for chronic and common illnesses as well as dentistry at privately owned clinics. Subsidies for complex chronic conditions was also increased.<ref name="CHAS">{{cite web |last1=Liu |first1=Vanessa |title=New Chas green card benefits, and enhanced subsidies for other Chas cards and Merdeka Generation start on Nov 1|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/new-chas-green-card-benefits-and-enhanced-subsidies-for-other-chas-cards-and-merdeka |website=www.straitstimes.com |access-date=30 April 2022 |language=en |date=1 November 2019}}</ref>

In addition, the [[National Council of Social Service]] coordinates a range of 450 non-government [[voluntary welfare organisation]]s to provide social services, while raising funds through [[The Community Chest of Singapore]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Our Organisation |url=https://www.ncss.gov.sg/About-Us/Our-Organisation |website=ncss.gov.sg |publisher=National Council of Social Service |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181015153040/https://www.ncss.gov.sg/About-Us/Our-Organisation |archive-date=15 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Taking the [[World Bank]]'s [[poverty threshold|International Poverty Line]] (IPL)'s [[poverty threshold]] into account, the population of Singaporeans living below the poverty line is virtually non-existent.<ref name="StatSG">{{cite web |title=Household Income – Latest Data |url=https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/household-income/latest-data |website=singstat.gov.sg |publisher=Singapore Department of Statistics |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181015153117/https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/household-income/latest-data |archive-date=15 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Singapore also has one of the highest housing ownership rates in the world – over 90 percent – owing to the government's policy of constructing extensive and quality public housing throughout the country and providing extensive subsidies for its citizens to obtain them.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Majendie |first1=Adam |title=Why Singapore Has One of the Highest Home Ownership Rates |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/behind-the-design-of-singapore-s-low-cost-housing |website=Bloomberg.com |access-date=30 April 2022 |language=en |date=8 July 2020}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
{{main|Welfare state in the United Kingdom}}
About the British welfare state, historian Derek Fraser wrote:
{{blockquote | It germinated in the social thought of late Victorian liberalism, reached its infancy in the collectivism of the pre-and post-Great War [[statism]], matured in the universalism of the 1940s and flowered in full bloom in the consensus and affluence of the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s it was in decline, like the faded rose of autumn. Both UK and US governments are pursuing in the 1980s monetarist policies [[wikt:inimical#Adjective|inimical]] to welfare.<ref>{{cite book| first= Derek |last= Fraser | title= The evolution of the British welfare state: a history of social policy since the Industrial Revolution | edition= 2nd | year= 1984| page= 233}}</ref>}}

The modern welfare state in the United Kingdom began operations with the [[Liberal welfare reforms|Liberal welfare reforms of 1906–1914]] under [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] Prime Minister [[H. H. Asquith]].<ref>{{cite book| first = Francis G. | last = Castles|title= The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=lLawRZJhlqAC&pg=PA67|year= 2010 |publisher= Oxford Handbooks Online|page= 67 |display-authors=etal|isbn= 978-0-19957939-6 | via= Google Books}}</ref> These included the passing of the [[Old Age Pensions Act 1908]], the introduction of [[free school meal]]s in 1909, the [[Labour Exchanges Act 1909]], the [[Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909]], which heralded greater [[government intervention]] in [[economic development]], and the [[National Insurance Act 1911]] setting up a [[national insurance contribution]] for unemployment and health benefits from work.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor = 1852870 |title = David Lloyd George: Land, the Budget, and Social Reform|journal = The American Historical Review|volume = 81|issue = 5|pages = 1058–1066|last1 = Gilbert |first1 = Bentley Brinkerhoff|year = 1976|doi = 10.2307/1852870}}</ref><ref>Derek Fraser 1973, ''The evolution of the British welfare state: a history of social policy since the Industrial Revolution''.</ref>

The [[People's Budget]] was introduced by the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], David Lloyd George, in 1909 to fund the welfare reforms. After much opposition, it was passed by the [[House of Lords]] on 29 April 1910.<ref name= "liberalhistory">{{cite web|url= http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history |title= 1909 People's Budget|publisher= Liberal Democrat History Group|access-date=6 October 2006 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060930235610/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history |archive-date= 30 September 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Mr. Lloyd George |last=Raymond |first= E. T. |author-link = E. T. Raymond |year= 1922 |publisher=George H. Doran co |page= [https://archive.org/details/mrlloydgeorge0000raym/page/136 136] |url= https://archive.org/details/mrlloydgeorge0000raym |quote= April 29.}}</ref>

The [[History of the minimum wage#United Kingdom|minimum wage was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1909]] for certain low-wage industries and expanded to numerous industries, including farm labour, by 1920. However, by the 1920s, a new perspective was offered by reformers to emphasize the usefulness of [[family allowance]] targeted at low-income families as the alternative to relieving poverty without distorting the labour market.<ref>Jane Lewis, [https://hssh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/hssh/article/view/38926 "The English Movement for Family Allowances, 1917–1945"]. ''Histoire sociale/Social History'' 11.22 (1978) pp. 441–59.</ref><ref>John Macnicol, ''Movement for Family Allowances, 1918–45: A Study in Social Policy Development'' (1980).</ref> The trade unions and the Labour Party adopted this view. In 1945, family allowances were introduced; minimum wages faded from view. Talk resumed in the 1970s, but in the 1980s the Thatcher administration made it clear it would not accept a national minimum wage. Finally, with the return of Labour, the [[National Minimum Wage Act 1998]] set a minimum of £3.60 per hour, with lower rates for younger workers. It largely affected workers in high-turnover service industries such as fast-food restaurants, and members of ethnic minorities.<ref>Pat Thane2002, ''Cassell's Companion to Twentieth Century Britain'' pp. 267–68.</ref>

December 1942 saw the publication of the ''Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services'', commonly known as the [[Beveridge Report]] after its chairman, Sir [[William Beveridge]]. The Beveridge Report proposed a series of measures to aid those who were in need of help, or in poverty and recommended that the government find ways of tackling what the report called "the five giants": Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. It urged the government to take steps to provide citizens with adequate income, adequate health care, adequate education, adequate housing, and adequate employment, proposing that "all people of working age should pay a weekly [[National Insurance]] contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired, or widowed." The Beveridge Report assumed that the [[National Health Service]] would provide free health care to all citizens and that a Universal Child Benefit would give benefits to parents, encouraging people to have children by enabling them to feed and support a family.

The [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]], and then the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] all adopted the Beveridge Report's recommendations.<ref>Beveridge, ''Power and Influence''</ref> Following the Labour election victory in the [[1945 United Kingdom general election|1945 general election]] many of Beveridge's reforms were implemented through a series of Acts of Parliament. On 5 July 1948, the [[National Insurance Act 1946|National Insurance Act]], [[National Assistance Act 1948|National Assistance Act]] and [[National Health Service Act 1946|National Health Service Act]] came into force, forming the key planks of the modern UK welfare state. In 1949, the [[Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949|Legal Aid and Advice Act]] was passed, providing the "fourth pillar"<ref>{{cite web | url= https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/praise-legal-aid-dont-bury-it/5042498.fullarticle | title= Praise legal aid; don't bury it | first=Catherine | last=Baksi | date=1 August 2014 | work=The Law Society Gazette | access-date=10 June 2018| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180612143639/https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/praise-legal-aid-dont-bury-it/5042498.fullarticle | archive-date=12 June 2018 }}</ref> of the modern welfare state, access to advice for legal redress for all.

Before 1939, most health care had to be paid for through non-government organisations – through a vast network of friendly societies, trade unions, and other insurance companies, which counted the vast majority of the UK working population as members. These organizations provided insurance for sickness, unemployment, and disability, providing an income to people when they were unable to work. As part of the reforms,{{clarify|reason=Which reforms?|date=December 2023}} the [[Church of England]] also closed down its voluntary relief networks and passed the ownership of thousands of church schools, hospitals and other bodies to the state.<ref>{{cite news |author=Bagehot |title=God in austerity Britain |url=http://www.economist.com/node/21541399 |newspaper=The Economist |access-date=19 December 2023 |date=10 December 2011}}</ref>

Welfare systems continued to develop over the following decades. By the end of the 20th century parts of the welfare system had been restructured, with some provision channelled through [[non-governmental organization]]s which became important providers of social services.<ref name="globall">Pawel Zaleski [https://www.scribd.com/document/77295298/2006-Global-Nongovernmental-Administrative-System ''Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector''], [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: "Civil Society in the Making", IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006</ref>

=== United States ===
{{main|History of Social Security in the United States|Social programs in the United States}}
The United States developed a limited welfare state in the 1930s.<ref name= "Walter I. Trattner 2007 15">{{cite book | first =Walter I. | last = Trattner|title=From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America | edition = 6th |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=r0PZdo5fXfgC&pg=PR15|year=2007 |publisher= Free Press|page=15|isbn= 978-1-41659318-8}}</ref>  The earliest and most comprehensive philosophical justification for the welfare state was produced by an American, the sociologist [[Lester Frank Ward]] (1841–1913), whom the historian [[Henry Steele Commager]] called "the father of the modern welfare state".

Ward saw social phenomena as amenable to human control. "It is only through the artificial control of natural phenomena that science is made to minister to human needs" he wrote, "and if social laws are really analogous to physical laws, there is no reason why social science should not receive practical application such as have been given to physical science."<ref>Quoted in Thomas F. Gosset 1997, ''Race: The History of an Idea in America'' Oxford University Press, [1963], p. 161.</ref> Ward wrote:
{{blockquote|The charge of paternalism is chiefly made by the class that enjoys the largest share of government protection. Those who denounce it are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it. Nothing is more obvious today than the single inability of capital and private enterprise to take care of themselves unaided by the state; and while they are incessantly denouncing "paternalism," by which they mean the claim of the defenceless laborer and artisan to a share in this lavish state protection, they are all the while besieging legislatures for relief from their own incompetency, and "pleading the baby act" through a trained body of lawyers and lobbyists. The dispensing of national pap to this class should rather be called "maternalism," to which a square, open, and dignified paternalism would be infinitely preferable.<ref>Lester Frank Ward 1950, ''Forum'' XX, 1895, quoted in Henry Steele Commager's ''The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880s'' New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 210.</ref>}}

Ward's theories centred around his belief that a universal and [[Comprehensive school|comprehensive]] system of education was necessary if a democratic government was to function successfully. His writings profoundly influenced younger generations of [[progressivism|progressive]] thinkers such as [[Theodore Roosevelt]], [[Thomas Dewey]], and [[Frances Perkins]] (1880–1965), among others.<ref>Henry Steele Commager ed. 1967, ''Lester Ward and the Welfare State'' New York: Bobbs-Merrill.</ref>

The United States was the only industrialized country that went into the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s with no social insurance policies in place. In 1935 [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s [[New Deal]] instituted significant social insurance policies. In 1938 Congress passed the [[Fair Labor Standards Act]], limiting the work week to 40 hours and banning child labor for children under 16, over stiff congressional opposition from the low-wage South.<ref name="Walter I. Trattner 2007 15"/>

The [[History of Social Security in the United States|Social Security law]] was very unpopular among many groups – especially farmers, who resented the additional taxes and feared they would never be worth it. They lobbied hard for exclusion. Furthermore, the Treasury realized how difficult it would be to set up payroll deduction plans for farmers, for housekeepers who employed maids, and for non-profit groups; therefore, they were excluded. State employees were excluded for constitutional reasons (the federal government in the United States cannot tax state governments). Federal employees were also excluded.

The [[Great Society]] was enacted by President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] between 1964 and 1968, aimed at eliminating poverty, reducing racial injustice, and expanding social welfare in the country. The Great Society sought to build on the legacy of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal reforms of the 1930s, and planned to use the power of the federal government in order to address [[Income inequality in the United States|economic inequality]], improve education and healthcare, and promote [[Civil rights movement|civil rights]].

By 2013, the U.S. remained the only major industrial state without a uniform national sickness program. American [[Health care finance in the United States|spending on health care]] (as a percent of GDP) is the highest in the world, but it is a complex mix of federal, state, philanthropic, employer and individual funding. The US spent 16% of its GDP on health care in 2008, compared to 11% in France in second place.<ref>{{cite book| first = Soeren | last = Mattke|title= Health and Well-Being in the Home: A Global Analysis of Needs, Expectations, and Priorities for Home Health Care Technology|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=bmKInEI1PzQC&pg=PT33|year=2011 |publisher= Rand Corp |pages=33–|display-authors= etal|isbn= 978-0-83305279-7}}</ref>

Some scholars, such as Gerard Friedman, argue that [[Labor unions in the United States|labor-union]] weakness in the [[Southern United States]] undermined unionization and social reform throughout the United States as a whole, and is largely responsible for the anemic U.S. welfare state.<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 2566376|title = The Political Economy of Early Southern Unionism: Race, Politics, and Labor in the South, 1880–1953|journal = The Journal of Economic History|volume = 60|issue = 2|pages = 384–413|last1 = Friedman|first1 = Gerald|year = 2000|doi = 10.1017/S0022050700025146|s2cid = 154931829}}</ref> Sociologists [[Loïc Wacquant]] and John L. Campbell contend that since the rise of [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] ideology in the late 1970s and early 1980s, an expanding carceral state, or government system of [[Incarceration in the United States|mass incarceration]], has largely supplanted the increasingly retrenched social welfare state, which has been justified by its proponents with the argument that the citizenry must take on personal responsibility.<ref>{{cite journal |title= Neoliberalism's penal and debtor states: A rejoinder to Loïc Wacquant |author= John L. Campbell|journal=[[Theoretical Criminology]] |date= 2010 |volume=14 |issue=1|page=68 |doi=10.1177/1362480609352783|s2cid= 145694058}}</ref><ref>[[Loïc Wacquant]]. ''[https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/prisons-of-poverty Prisons of Poverty].'' [[University of Minnesota Press]] (2009). [https://books.google.com/books?id=Bja4pNc2Ra8C&pg=PA55 p. 55] {{ISBN|0816639019}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | url= https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol7/iss1/5/ |title = Feeding the School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Convergence of Neoliberalism, Conservativism, and Penal Populism|journal = Journal of Educational Controversy|volume = 7|issue = 1|date = January 2013|last1 = Mora|first1 = Richard |last2 = Christianakis|first2 = Mary}}</ref> Scholars assert that this transformation of the welfare state to a post-welfare punitive state, along with neoliberal structural adjustment policies and the globalization of the U.S. economy, have created more extreme forms of "destitute poverty" in the U.S. which must be contained and controlled by expanding the criminal justice system into every aspect of the lives of the poor.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States|publisher=[[Routledge]]|year=2015|isbn= 978-0-41-567344-0|editor-last=Haymes|editor-first=Stephen N.|location=London and New York|pages=3–4|editor-last2=de Haymes|editor-first2=María V.|editor-last3= Miller|editor-first3=Reuben J.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qnHfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3}}</ref>

Other scholars such as Esping-Andersen argue that the welfare state in the United States has been characterized by private provision because such a state would better reflect the racial and sexual biases within the private sector. The disproportionate number of racial and sexual minorities in private sector jobs with weaker benefits, he argues, is evidence that the American welfare state is not necessarily intended to improve the economic situation of such groups.<ref name="Esping-Andersen"/>

==By region==
=== Latin America ===
Welfare states in [[Latin America]] have been considered as "welfare states in transition",<ref>Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1996). Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economy. London: Sage Publications.</ref> or "emerging welfare states".<ref>Huber, Evelyne, & John D. Stephens (2012). Democracy and the Left. Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.</ref> Welfare states in Latin America have been described as "truncated": generous benefits for formal-sector workers, regressive subsidies and informal barriers for the poor to obtain benefits.<ref>{{Cite journal|last= Holland |first=Alisha C.|date=2018|title= Diminished Expectations: Redistributive Preferences in Truncated Welfare States |journal= World Politics|language=en|volume=70|issue=4|pages=555–594|doi=10.1017/S0043887118000096|issn=0043-8871|doi-access= free}}</ref> Mesa-Lago has classified the countries taking into account the historical experience of their welfare systems.<ref>Mesa-Lago, Carmelo (1994). ''Changing Social Security in Latin America''. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.</ref> The pioneers were Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, as they started to develop the first welfare programs in the 1920s following a bismarckian model. Other countries such as Costa Rica developed a more universal welfare system (1960s–1970s) with social security programs based on the Beveridge model.<ref>Carlos Barba Solano, Gerardo Ordoñez Barba, and Enrique Valencia Lomelí (eds.), Más Allá de la pobreza: regímenes de bienestar en Europa, Asia y América. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte</ref> Researchers such as Martinez-Franzoni<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00013.x| title=Welfare Regimes in Latin America: Capturing Constellations of Markets, Families, and Policies| journal=Latin American Politics and Society| volume=50| issue=2| pages=67–100| year=2008| last1=Franzoni| first1=Juliana Martínez| s2cid=153771264| hdl=10669/77373| hdl-access=free}}</ref> and Barba-Solano<ref>Barba Solano, Carlos (2005). [https://www.academia.edu/18641797 Paradigmas y regímenes de bienestar]. Costa Rica: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales</ref> have examined and identified several welfare regime models based on the typology of Esping-Andersen. Other scholars such as Riesco<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00643.x|title = Latin America: A new developmental welfare state model in the making?| journal=International Journal of Social Welfare| volume=18| pages=S22–S36|year = 2009|last1 = Riesco|first1 = Manuel}}</ref> and Cruz-Martinez<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1007/s11205-013-0549-7|title = Welfare State Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (1970s–2000s): Multidimensional Welfare Index, its Methodology and Results| journal=Social Indicators Research| volume=119| issue=3 | pages=1295–1317|year = 2014|last1 = Cruz-Martínez|first1 = Gibrán|s2cid = 154720035|url = https://osf.io/download/5c54e0c3e16f550019871899/}}</ref> have examined the welfare state development in the region.

About welfare states in Latin America, Alex Segura-Ubiergo wrote:
{{blockquote|Latin American countries can be unequivocally divided into two groups depending on their 'welfare effort' levels. The first group, which for convenience we may call welfare states, includes Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil. Within this group, average social spending per capita in the 1973–2000 period was around $532, while as a percentage of GDP and as a share of the budget, social spending reached 51.6 and 12.6 percent, respectively. In addition, between approximately 50 and 75 percent of the population is covered by the public health and pension social security system. In contrast, the second group of countries, which we call non-welfare states, has welfare-effort indices that range from 37 to 88. Within this second group, social spending per capita averaged $96.6, while social spending as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of the budget averaged 5.2 and 34.7 percent, respectively. In terms of the percentage of the population actually covered, the percentage of the active population covered under some social security scheme does not even reach 10 percent.<ref>Segura-Ubiergo, Alex (2007). ''The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy and Development''. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–31</ref>}}

=== Middle East ===
{{Expand section|date=November 2022}}
[[Saudi Arabia]],<ref>{{cite journal| url= https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/817.htm | title= Saudi Arabia| journal= Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2000| date= 23 February 2001| access-date= 23 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20061026213956/http://www.saudinf.com/main/h814.htm Social Services]}}, Saudinf.</ref><ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InSectionID=1516&InNewsItemID=1746| title= The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – A Welfare State| website= mofa.gov.sa| publisher= Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Saudi Arabia| place= Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, London| url-status= dead| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070428001552/http://www.mofa.gov.sa/Detail.asp?InSectionID=1516&InNewsItemID=1746| archive-date= 28 April 2007| access-date= 23 July 2018| df= dmy-all}}</ref> [[Kuwait]],<ref>{{cite journal|first1= Sulayman |last1= Khalaf | first2= Hassan |last2= Hammoud|s2cid= 153891759 | title= The Emergence of the Oil Welfare State| journal= [[Dialectical Anthropology]]| volume= 12| year= 1987| number= 3| pages= 343–357|doi= 10.1007/BF00252116 }}</ref> and the [[United Arab Emirates]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Krane|first=Jim|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mJWrVWZuUJEC|title=City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism|date=15 September 2009|publisher=St. Martin's Publishing Group|isbn=978-1-4299-1899-2|pages=10|language=en}}</ref> are examples of welfare states in the Middle East.

=== Nordics ===
{{main|Nordic model}}
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare [[Social policy|policies]] of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting [[gender equality]], [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution and liberal use of the expansionary fiscal policy.<ref name= "Esping-Andersen">{{harvnb|Esping-Andersen|1990|page =228}}</ref>

While there are differences among the Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through [[taxation]].<ref name="The Nordic Council">{{cite web |url= http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/areas-of-co-operation/the-nordic-welfare-model/about-the-nordic-welfare-model |title=About the Nordic welfare model |publisher =The Nordic Council |access-date=2 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407084537/http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/areas-of-co-operation/the-nordic-welfare-model/about-the-nordic-welfare-model |archive-date=7 April 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

== Effects ==
{{See also|Welfare spending#Effects}}

=== Effects of welfare on poverty ===
{{Main|Welfare's effect on poverty}}

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most Western countries whose welfare states constitute at least a fifth of GDP.<ref name="Kenworthy">{{Cite journal |jstor = 3005973|title = Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment|journal = Social Forces|volume = 77|issue = 3|pages = 1119–1139|last1 = Kenworthy|first1 = Lane|year = 1999|doi = 10.2307/3005973|url = http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130810134045/http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf|archive-date = 10 August 2013|url-status = live}}</ref><ref name="Bradley et al.">{{Cite journal |jstor = 3088901|title = Determinants of Relative Poverty in Advanced Capitalist Democracies|journal = American Sociological Review|volume = 68|issue = 1|pages = 22–51|last1 = Moller|first1 = Stephanie|last2 = Huber|first2 = Evelyne|last3 = Stephens|first3 = John D.|last4 = Bradley|first4 = David|last5 = Nielsen|first5 = François|year = 2003|doi = 10.2307/3088901}}</ref>
{|class="sortable wikitable"
|-
!rowspan=2|Country
!colspan=2|Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991)<br />(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)<ref name="Kenworthy"/>
!colspan=2|Relative poverty rate (1970–1997)<ref name="Bradley et al."/>
|-
!Pre-welfare
!Post-welfare
!Pre-welfare
!Post-welfare
|-
|{{flag|Sweden}}||23.7||5.8||14.8||4.8
|-
|{{flag|Norway}}||9.2||1.7||12.4||4.0
|-
|{{flag|Netherlands}}||22.1||7.3||18.5||11.5
|-
|{{flag|Finland}}||11.9||3.7||12.4||3.1
|-
|{{flag|Denmark}}||26.4||5.9||17.4||4.8
|-
|{{flag|Germany}}||15.2||4.3||9.7||5.1
|-
|{{flag|Switzerland}}||12.5||3.8||10.9||9.1
|-
|{{flag|Canada}}||22.5||6.5||17.1||11.9
|-
|{{flag|France}}||36.1||9.8||21.8||6.1
|-
|{{flag|Belgium}}||26.8||6.0||19.5||4.1
|-
|{{flag|Australia}}||23.3||11.9||16.2||9.2
|-
|{{flag|United Kingdom}}||16.8||8.7||16.4||8.2
|-
|{{flag|United States}}||21.0||11.7||17.2||15.1
|-
|{{flag|Italy}}||30.7||14.3||19.7||9.1
|-
|}

=== Effects of social expenditure on economic growth, public debt and education ===
{{See also|List of countries by social welfare spending}}

Researchers have found very little correlation between economic performance and social expenditure.<ref name="atkinson1995">{{cite book |last=Atkinson |first=A. B. |title=Incomes and the Welfare State |year=1995|publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0521557962 }}</ref> They also see little evidence that social expenditures contribute to losses in productivity; economist Peter Lindert of the [[University of California, Davis]] attributes this to policy innovations such as the implementation of "pro-growth" tax policies in real-world welfare states.<ref name="lindert2004">{{cite book |last=Lindert |first=Peter |title=Growing Public: Social Spending And Economic Growth Since The Eighteenth Century |url=https://archive.org/details/growingpublicsoc00lind_0 |url-access=registration |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0521821759 }}</ref> Social expenses have also not contributed significantly to public debt. Martin Eiermann wrote:
{{blockquote|According to the [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], social expenditures in its 34 member countries rose steadily between 1980 and 2007, but the increase in costs was almost completely offset by GDP growth. More money was spent on welfare because more money circulated in the economy and because government revenues increased. In 1980, the OECD averaged social expenditures equal to 16 percent of GDP. In 2007, just before the financial crisis kicked into full gear, they had risen to 19 percent – a manageable increase.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Eiermann|first=Martin|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/european-financial-crisis_b_2015125|title=The Myth of the Exploding Welfare State|date=29 October 2012|work=[[HuffPost]]|access-date=April 2, 2024}}</ref>}}

A Norwegian study covering the period 1980 to 2003 found welfare state spending correlated negatively with student achievement.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Does a generous welfare state crowd out student achievement? Panel data evidence from international student tests | url=https://ideas.repec.org/p/twi/respas/0031.html| year=2008| last1=Falch| first1=Torberg| last2=Fischer| first2=Justina AV| journal=Twi Research Paper Series}}</ref> However, many of the top-ranking OECD countries on the 2009 [[Programme for International Student Assessment|PISA]] tests are considered welfare states.<ref>{{cite news| last= Shepherd| first= Jessica| date= 7 December 2010| url= https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading |title= World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science?| work= The Guardian| access-date= 28 November 2013}}</ref>

== Criticism and response ==
{{main|Criticism of welfare}}
Early conservatives, under the influence of [[Thomas Malthus]] (1766–1834), opposed every form of social insurance "root and branch". Malthus believed that the poor needed to learn the hard way to practice frugality, self-control and chastity. Traditional conservatives also protested that the effect of social insurance would be to weaken private charity and loosen traditional social bonds of family, friends, religious and non-governmental welfare organisations.<ref>{{cite journal| url= https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf |first= James Rolph |last= Edwards| title= The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity| journal= Journal of Libertarian Studies| volume= 21| number= 2 | year= 2007| pages= 3–20| via= mises.org| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080306025923/https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf| archive-date= 6 March 2008| url-status= live}}</ref>

On the other hand, [[Karl Marx]] opposed piecemeal reforms advanced by middle-class reformers out of a sense of duty. In his ''Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League'', written after the failed revolution of 1848, he warned that measures designed to increase wages, improve working conditions and provide social insurance were merely bribes that would temporarily make the situation of working classes tolerable to weaken the revolutionary consciousness that was needed to achieve a socialist economy.{{efn|"However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable."<ref>{{cite book| url= http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm |first= Karl |last= Marx| title= Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League| year= 1850| access-date= 5 January 2013 | via= Marxists.org}}</ref>}} Nevertheless, Marx also proclaimed that the Communists had to support the bourgeoisie wherever it acted as a revolutionary progressive class because "bourgeois liberties had first to be conquered and then criticised".<ref>{{cite journal| url= http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1897/04/marx-reform.htm | first= Eduard |last= Bernstein| title= Karl Marx and Social Reform| journal= Progressive Review| number= 7| date= April 1897}}</ref>

In the 20th century, opponents of the welfare state have expressed apprehension about the creation of a large, possibly self-interested, bureaucracy required to administer it and the tax burden on the wealthier citizens that this entailed.<ref>{{cite book| first= Alan |last= Ryan| title= The Making of Modern Liberalism| publisher= Princeton and Oxford University Presses| year= 2012| pages= 26 and passim}}</ref>

[[Conservatism in the United States|Conservative]] and [[Libertarianism in the United States|libertarian]] groups such as [[The Heritage Foundation]]<ref name="Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements">{{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20100626104921/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Confronting-the-Unsustainable-Growth-of-Welfare-Entitlements-Principles-of-Reform-and-the-Next-Steps Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements: Principles of Reform and the Next Steps]}}", The Heritage Foundation</ref> and the [[Cato Institute]]<ref name="Welfare and the Culture of Poverty">Niskanen, A. [http://www.cato.org/cato-journal/springsummer-1996/welfare-culture-poverty Welfare and the Culture of Poverty]''The Cato Journal'' Vol. 16 No. 1</ref> argue that welfare creates dependence, a disincentive to work and reduces the opportunity of individuals to manage their own lives.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |year=2008 |title=Welfare State |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |publisher=[[SAGE Publications|SAGE]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |last=Tanner |first=Michael |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-first=Ronald |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |pages=540–42 |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n327 |isbn=978-1-4129-6580-4 |lccn=2008009151 |oclc=750831024 |quote= |authorlink=|url-access=subscription }}</ref> This dependence is called a "[[culture of poverty]]", which is said to undermine people from finding meaningful work.<ref name="Welfare and the Culture of Poverty" /> Many of these groups also point to the large budget used to maintain these programs and assert that it is wasteful.<ref name="Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements" />

In the book ''Losing Ground'', [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]] argues that welfare not only increases poverty, but also increases other problems such as [[single-parent household]]s, and crime.<ref>{{cite book |last=Murray |first=Charles |url= |title=Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 |publisher=Basic Books |year=1984 |pages=58, 125, 115 |authorlink=Charles Murray (political scientist)}}</ref>

In 2012, political historian [[Alan Ryan]] pointed out that the modern welfare state stops short of being an "advance in the direction of socialism. [...] [I]ts egalitarian elements are more minimal than either its defenders or its critics think". It does not entail advocacy for [[social ownership]] of industry. Ryan further wrote:
{{blockquote|The modern welfare state, does not set out to make the poor richer and the rich poorer, which is a central element in socialism, but to help people to provide for themselves in sickness while they enjoy good health, to put money aside to cover unemployment while they are in work, and to have adults provide for the education of their own and other people's children, expecting those children's future taxes to pay in due course for the pensions of their parents' generation. These are devices for shifting income across different stages in life, not for shifting income across classes. Another distinct difference is that social insurance does not aim to transform work and working relations; employers and employees pay taxes at a level they would not have done in the nineteenth century, but owners are not expropriated, profits are not illegitimate, cooperativism does not replace hierarchical management.<ref>{{cite book| first= Alan |last= Ryan| title= On Politics, Book Two: A History of Political Thought From Hobbes to the Present| publisher= Liveright| year= 2012| pages= 904–905}}</ref>}}

In 2017, historian [[Walter Scheidel]] argued that the establishment of welfare states in the West in the early 20th century could be partly a reaction by elites to the [[Bolshevik Revolution]] and its violence against the bourgeoisie, which feared violent revolution in its own backyard. They were diminished decades later as the perceived threat receded. Scheidel spoke to ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]''<nowiki/>'s Matt Taylor in an interview:
{{blockquote|It's a little tricky because the US never really had any strong leftist movement. But if you look at Europe, after 1917 people were really scared about communism in all the Western European countries. ''You have all these poor people, they might rise up and kill us and take our stuff.'' That wasn't just a fantasy because it was happening next door. And that, we can show, did trigger steps in the direction of having more welfare programs and a rudimentary safety net in response to fear of communism. Not that they [the communists] would invade, but that there would be homegrown movements of this sort. American populism is a little different because it's more detached from that. But it happens roughly at the same time, and people in America are worried about communism, too{{snd}}not necessarily very reasonably. But that was always in the background. And people have only begun to study systematically to what extent the threat, real or imagined, of this type of radical regime really influenced policy changes in Western democracies. You don't necessarily even have to go out and kill rich people{{snd}}if there was some plausible alternative out there, it would arguably have an impact on policy making at home. That's certainly there in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. And there's a debate, right, because it becomes clear that the Soviet Union is really not in very good shape, and people don't really like to be there, and all these movements lost their appeal. That's a contributing factor, arguably, that the end of the [[Cold War]] coincides roughly with the time when inequality really starts going up again, because elites are much more relaxed about the possibility of credible alternatives or threats being out there.<ref>{{cite news |last=Taylor |first= Matt|date=22 February 2017 |title=One Recipe for a More Equal World: Mass Death|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/one-recipe-for-a-more-equal-world-mass-death/|work=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]] |access-date=9 April 2017}}</ref>}}

=== The welfare queen ===
{{Main|Welfare queen}}

Some argue that the public opinion on welfare in the US is in part a product of racist and classist political and ideological campaigns.<ref name="Foster-2008">{{Cite journal |last=Foster |first=Carly Hayden |date=2008 |title=The Welfare Queen: Race, Gender, Class, and Public Opinion |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41674659 |journal=Race, Gender & Class |volume=15 |issue=3/4 |pages=162–179 |jstor=41674659 |issn=1082-8354}}</ref> The popular concept of the [[welfare queen]], a person taking advantage of the welfare system, came to be as a result of one such effort. In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign|Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign]] relied on anti-poor tactics and the anti-black strategy of putting down the black vote in order to win the favor of the white populace. Thus, racist stereotypes and polarizing [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog-whistles]] of this era gave birth to this fictitious character.<ref name="The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education-2007">{{Cite journal |date=2007 |title=Looking Back: Ronald Reagan, a Master of Racial Polarization |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25073820 |journal=The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education |issue=58 |pages=33–36 |jstor=25073820 |issn=1077-3711}}</ref><ref name="Covert-2019">{{Cite magazine |last=Covert |first=Bryce |date=2 July 2019 |title=The Myth of the Welfare Queen |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/154404/myth-welfare-queen |access-date=29 March 2024 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

The first version of the welfare queen was a lazy and selfish woman, living off of state benefits and having many children to obtain as much financial support as possible. In another case, it was a man buying T-bone steaks with [[Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program|food stamps]], while the rest of the country struggled to put food on the table. While never stated directly, it was presumed by the public that both characters were, of course, black people, who were lazily exploiting the system and lived lavishly, while the regular hard-working middle-class American, imagined by the public to be white, had to foot the bill.<ref name="The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education-2007" />

In "The Welfare Queen: Race, Gender, Class, and Public Opinion", Carly Hayden Foster analyzes Martin Gilens' writing in "Why Americans Hate Welfare" and argues that race interacts with [[gender]] and [[Social class in the United States|class]]. These aspects together are then key determinants in whether or not there is public support for welfare. According to her analysis, survey respondents are more likely to support welfare spending if the mother reliant on welfare is described as white, while a black welfare mother fares significantly less support.<ref name="Foster-2008" /> It is argued that this is in part because of the idea that the black mother would then have an incentive to have more black babies, but is in general interrelated with the perceived reproductive behavior of the mother,<ref name="Foster-2008" /> which in this case is affected by the enduring [[Stereotypes of African Americans|Jezebel stereotype]] that presents black women as inherently sexually promiscuous.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Jezebel Stereotype – Anti-black Imagery – Jim Crow Museum |url=https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/jezebel/index.htm |access-date=29 March 2024 |website=jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu}}</ref>  Similarly, public support of welfare is unlikely in the case of poor single mothers.

The widespread assumption that welfare recipients are fraudulent and lazy apparently guides public opinion. In "The Crime of Survival" Jullily Kohler-Hausmann defends the position that anti-fraud campaigns as it relates to welfare worsen public perception of welfare recipients and frame them as criminals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kohler-Hausmann |first=Julilly |date=2007 |title="The Crime of Survival": Fraud Prosecutions, Community Surveillance, and the Original "Welfare Queen" |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25096482 |journal=Journal of Social History |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=329–354 |doi=10.1353/jsh.2008.0002 |jstor=25096482 |issn=0022-4529|url-access=subscription }}</ref> He goes on to cite Martin Gilens who in "Why Americans Hate Welfare" argues:
{{blockquote|[A] large majority of Americans agree that government should provide monetary support to those who are unable to support themselves. But the perception of welfare abuse is widespread. Indeed, as the survey evidence … suggests, it would be hard to exaggerate the level of cynicism toward welfare recipients held by the American public. This perception of welfare recipients' dishonesty and freeloading is at the core of Americans' conviction that welfare spending should be cut.<ref name="Foster-2008" /><ref name="Gilens-1999">{{Cite book |last=Gilens |first=Martin |title=Why Americans hate welfare: race, media and the politics of antipoverty policy |date=1999 |publisher=University Press of Chicago |isbn=978-0-226-29364-6 |series=Studies in communication, media, and public opinion |location=Chicago (Ill.)}}</ref>}}

This sentiment was perpetrated by the Reagan administration and he himself addressed the supposed fraud in public programs in his first inaugural address. During his presidency, welfare spending tighetened and the anti-fraud rhetoric was used to justify big cuts to welfare programs.<ref name="Covert-2019" /> Regarding this period, Martin Gilens cites Julius Wilson, who writes:
{{blockquote|As the economic situation worsened, Ronald Reagan was able to convince many working- and middle-class Americans that the decline in their living standards was attributable to expensive programs for the poor…}}

Martin Gilens argues that economic circumstance is a deciding factor in the public opinion on welfare. He says that during the period of growing economy, people are willing to share their profits with the less fortunate, but this generosity disappears in times of economic turmoil, as people are primarily preoccupied with their own well-being and are less willing to provide for the poor because their own situation takes precedence.<ref name="Gilens-1999" />

He cites Michael Katz, who claims that the [[1973–1975 recession|stagflation]] following the [[1973 oil crisis|1973 energy crisis]] caused the public opinion to shift toward a negative attitude toward the expansion of the social welfare state, as people who worried for their financial future were in search of a scape-goat for their economic losses, in this case welfare recipients.<ref name="Gilens-1999" />

== See also ==
{{columns-list|colwidth=25em|
* [[Constitutional economics]]
* [[Corporate welfare]]
* [[Economic security]]
* [[Flexicurity]]
* [[Free rider problem]]
* [[Happiness economics]]
* [[Hidden welfare state]]
* [[Involuntary unemployment]]
* [[Guaranteed minimum income]]
* [[Nanny state]]
* [[Social policy]]
* [[Social protection]]
* [[Social stratification]]
* [[State Socialism (Germany)]]
* [[Welfare capitalism]]
* [[Welfare economics]]
* [[Welfare reform]]
* [[Welfare state in the United Kingdom]]

; Models
* [[European social model]]
* [[Nordic model]]
* [[Social programs in the United States]]
* [[Third Way]]

; Transfer of wealth
* [[Cloward–Piven strategy]]
* [[Transfer payment]]

; Housing
* [[Council house]]
* [[Housing estate]]
* [[Public housing]]
* [[Subsidized housing]]
}}

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== Further reading ==

{{Refbegin|2}}
* {{cite journal| doi=10.1177/0952872002012002114| title=Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report| journal=Journal of European Social Policy| volume=12| issue=2| pages=137–158| year=2002| last1=Arts| first1=Wil| last2=Gelissen| first2=John| s2cid=154811175| url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258136528}}
* {{cite book| last =Bartholomew| first =James| title =The Welfare of Nations| publisher =Biteback| date =2015| page =448| url =https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations| isbn =978-1849548304}}
* {{cite book|author=Castles, Francis G.|title=The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lLawRZJhlqAC&pg=PA67|year=2010|publisher=Oxford Handbooks Online|page=67|display-authors=etal|isbn=9780199579396}}
* [[Gøsta Esping-Andersen|Esping-Andersen, Gøsta]]; Politics against markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1985).
* {{cite book| title= The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism| publisher = Princeton University Press| date = 1990| isbn = 978-0069028573 | title-link = The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism|first=Gøsta |last=Esping-Andersen|location=Princeton NJ}}
* Ferre, Juan Cruz (2023). "Welfare regimes in twenty-first-century Latin America". ''Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy'' 39 (2): 101–127.
* Huddie, Paul, and Amy Carney. "Military welfare history: what is it and why should it be considered?." ''War & Society'' 42.4 (2023): 305–316. on welfare for soldiers and their families; also impact of warfare on welfare state [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07292473.2023.2245252 online] 
* [[Lane Kenworthy|Kenworthy, Lane]]. ''[http://global.oup.com/academic/product/social-democratic-america-9780199322510?cc=us&lang=en&# Social Democratic America].'' [[Oxford University Press]] (2014). {{ISBN|0199322511}}
* Korpi, Walter; "The Democratic Class Struggle"; London: Routledge (1983).
* Koehler, Gabriele and Deepta Chopra; "Development and Welfare Policy in South Asia"; London: Routledge (2014).
* {{cite journal | doi=10.1080/01402380008425373 |title = The Scandinavian welfare state in the 1990s: Challenged but viable|journal = West European Politics|volume = 23|issue = 2|pages = 209–228|year = 2000|last1 = Kuhnle|first1 = Stein|s2cid = 153443503}}
* Kuhnle, Stein. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=4yEAp_BdfGkC Survival of the European Welfare State]'' 2000 Routledge {{ISBN|041521291X}}
* {{cite journal| doi=10.1111/j.1468-246X.2007.00281.x| title=The decommodified security ratio: A tool for assessing European social protection systems| journal=International Social Security Review| volume=60| issue=4| pages=69–103| year=2007| last1=Menahem| first1=Georges| s2cid=64361693| url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00198398/file/ISSR-2007-4-TheDSRatoolforassessing.pdf| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180720193922/https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00198398/file/ISSR-2007-4-TheDSRatoolforassessing.pdf| archive-date=20 July 2018| url-status=live}}
* Obinger, Herbert, Klaus Petersen, and Peter Starke, eds. ''Warfare and welfare: Military conflict and welfare state development in western countries'' (Oxford University Press, 2018) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pWhiDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22military+welfare&ots=HpV1SJJtHh&sig=6xkZrA9o1cZM08hg1bOJVCW6q7Q online].
* Pierson, P. (1994). ''Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
* {{cite journal|jstor = 25053959|title = The New Politics of the Welfare State|journal = World Politics|volume = 48|issue = 2|pages = 143–179|last1 = Pierson|first1 = Paul|s2cid = 55860810|year = 1996|doi = 10.1353/wp.1996.0004|url = http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Pierson1996.pdf|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170414160715/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Pierson1996.pdf|archive-date = 14 April 2017|url-status = dead}}
* [[Bo Rothstein|Rothstein, Bo]]. ''Just institutions matter: the moral and political logic of the universal welfare state'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
* [[Benjamin Radcliff|Radcliff, Benjamin]] (2013) ''The Political Economy of Human Happiness'' (New York: Cambridge University Press).
* {{cite journal|url=https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/renewal/22-3-4/clement-attlee-and-foundations-british-welfare-state|title=Clement Attlee and the foundations of the British welfare state|date=2014|first1=Rachel|last1=Reeves|first2=Martin|last2=McIvor|journal=Renewal|volume=22|issue=3–4|pages=42–59|access-date=30 January 2020|archive-date=6 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806100153/https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/renewal/22-3-4/clement-attlee-and-foundations-british-welfare-state|url-status=dead}}
* Van Kersbergen, K. ''Social Capitalism'' (London: Routledge, 1995).
* {{cite journal| doi=10.1177/0020715212469512| title=Regimes and cultures of social security: Comparing institutional models through nonlinear PCA| journal=International Journal of Comparative Sociology| volume=53| issue=5–6| pages=444–477| year=2012| last1=Vrooman| first1=J Cok| s2cid=154903810| url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236972021}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Wikiquote}}

=== Data and statistics ===
* OECD
** [http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_33929_1_1_1_1_1,00.html Health Policy and Data: Health Division]
** [http://www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure OECD – Social Expenditure database (SOCX)]
** [http://www.oecd.org/els/socialpoliciesanddata/benefitsandwagescountryspecificinformation.htm Figures on wages and benefit systems in various OECD member states]
* [https://archive.today/20130620195520/http://aei.pitt.edu/view/euar/Development_of_the_Social_Situation.html Contains information on social security developments in various EC member states from 1957 to 1978]
* [https://archive.today/20130620195548/http://aei.pitt.edu/view/euar/Social_Developments.html Contains information on social security developments in various EC member states from 1979 to 1989]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140116101718/http://aei.pitt.edu/31986/1/COM_(93)_531_final.pdf Contains information on social assistance programmes in various EC member states in 1993]
* [http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/sofia/08711.pdf Contains detailed information on the welfare systems in the former Yugoslav republics]
* [http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2194-benefits-taxation-poverty.pdf The impact of benefit and tax uprating on incomes and poverty (UK)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514220327/http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2194-benefits-taxation-poverty.pdf |date=14 May 2013 }}

{{library resources box|by=no|onlinebooks=no|others=no|about=yes|label=Welfare state}}
{{authority control}}
{{social democracy}}{{Christian Democracy}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Welfare State}}
[[Category:Welfare state| ]]
[[Category:Capitalism]]
[[Category:Comparative politics]]
[[Category:Government aid programs]]
[[Category:Social democracy]]
[[Category:Democratic socialism]]
[[Category:Christian democracy]]