ABSTRACT
During the past six years, international welfare state research has witnessed a revival of ideal-typical welfare state theory and methodology in comparative welfare state analysis (Gough et al., 2004; Wood and Gough, 2004; Aspalter, 2006a, 2011; Aspalter et al., 2009; see also Arts and Gelissen, 2002), while at the same time the growing number of real-typical welfare state studies (e.g., Lee and Ku, 2007; Kwon, 2005; Ramesh, 2004) has continued to leave its mark on the development of international comparative welfare state research. In 2004, Ian Gough, Geof Wood and their colleagues (Gough et al., 2004; Wood and Gough,
2004) presented a new approach of how to classify different welfare state systems according to their degree of institutionalization, covering the entire world. In 2005, Aspalter classified East Asian welfare state systems (Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) according to the ideal-typical method (as started by Esping-Andersen, 1987, 1990; and Titmuss, 1974). Following in this path, in 2009, Aspalter, Kim, and Park paid particular attention to the case of some Eastern Central Europe welfare state systems, focusing on Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia, classifying them as members of the continental group of welfare state systems after demonstrating their re-orientation towards the Corporatist/ Christian Democratic Model over the last one and a half decades, due to the historical, political and cultural affinity of their closest neighbors Germany and Austria. In 2011, Aspalter identified the ideal-typical nature of key welfare state systems in Latin America, particularly Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, determining their own regime-specific ideal-typical characteristics. The new dichotomy between real-typical and ideal-typical welfare state research has
re-energized the academic discussion in the area of comparative welfare state research (see also Aspalter, 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Meier Jæger, 2006; Arcanjo, 2006; Bambra, 2007a, 2007b). This chapter will show why we must not confuse real-typical welfare state theory and
methodology with ideal-typical welfare state theory and methodology. In fact, comparing real-typical studies with ideal-typical studies is like comparing apples with pears, or chickens with ducks. Both real-typical and ideal-typical are different breeds of study, designed for different purposes, each using a different methodological approach. Contrary to real-typical studies, ideal-typical studies go back to the methodology of identifying ‘ideal types’ as invented
and developed by German sociologist Max Weber (which, to note, runs counter to the idea of any kind of ‘perfect’ state of affairs as in the sense of Plato). In the Weberian sense, ideal types are types with characteristics that are, by and large, shared by most members of a common group of research objects, societies, or in our case welfare state systems.
