Unraveling Universalism: A Multidimensional Approach to Welfare State Analysis


Kaitlin Wannamaker, McGill University

The concept of universalism in welfare states is a topic of significant debate among scholars and policymakers, particularly concerning its role in influencing inequality and poverty reduction. Despite its frequent use, the term ‘universalism’ often lacks a clear, widely accepted definition, leading to divergent interpretations and applications in both policy-making and academic discourse. This paper seeks to demystify the concept of universalism by meticulously mapping out its conceptual and operational terrain, thereby enriching our understanding of its influence on welfare state outcomes. At the heart of the debate on welfare state design are two competing approaches: the targeted allocation of social benefits towards the impoverished versus a universal approach that encompasses all citizens. This binary view, however, oversimplifies a much more intricate reality. Conceptually, universalism can be approached from two distinct perspectives: structural and content-based. Structurally, universalism is perceived either as a point on a spectrum opposite to targeting or as an entirely separate concept. Content-wise, it is either viewed as a policy principle that emphasizes the equitable application of welfare policies or as a policy design distinguished by specific institutional features. This conceptual framework serves as the groundwork for a deeper exploration into the operational aspects of universalism within welfare states. Operationalizing universalism involves the categorization of two distinct clusters of indicators: outcome measures and institutional measures. Outcome measures assess the effectiveness of universalistic policies through the distribution of benefits across different segments of the population. Institutional measures, in contrast, scrutinize the structural elements of welfare states, such as the presence of means testing and the coverage of public services. This bifurcation is helpful for understanding the multifaceted nature of universalism and its varying impacts on welfare states. The research builds on these conceptual and operational distinctions to investigate how different interpretations of universalism affect the design and efficacy of welfare policies. It employs a comparative analysis across a selection of OECD countries, using quantitative methods and data from sources such as the Comparative Welfare State Dataset. This analysis sheds light on the nuances in the relationship between universalism and welfare state outcomes. It highlights how diverse measures of universalism have distinct implications for social spending, social transfers, poverty, and inequality. Additionally, this paper also delves into the practical implications of different universalism measures. It analyzes how policy decisions influenced by these measures can lead to varied outcomes in welfare states’ ability to address social inequalities. This aspect of the research underscores the significance of aligning policy intentions with appropriate measures of universalism, ensuring that the welfare policies formulated are not only theoretically sound but also practically effective in achieving their intended goals. In conclusion, this paper emphasizes the necessity of conceptual precision and the alignment between theoretical intentions and practical measurement in studies of the welfare state. By offering a comprehensive framework for understanding and measuring universalism, it contributes to theoretical debates and practical policymaking. The insights provided by this research aim to contribute to the creation of more generous and robust welfare states, adept at combating poverty and inequality in an increasingly complex and diverse global landscape.

This paper will be presented at the following session: