Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to Women’s New Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S ome years ago, Gøsta Esping-Andersen vowed to dedicate himself to anything but the welfare state.Luckily for sociologists and others interested in the changes and challenges of welfare states, he reneged on that vow.The principal argument of this book, which is certain to be as enticing as it is controversial, is that the thus far incomplete revolution in women's roles is provoking serious disequilibria in societies.Arguing that the term "revolution" is appropriate to describe women's changed and changing roles, Esping-Andersen claims that well-established ways of being and doing have been turned upside-down.He argues that the women's revolution, incomplete as it is, may be the harbinger of new inequalities and possibly even deeper socioeconomic polarization.If this is so, then families and markets, in and of themselves, simply cannot manage.Hence, the need for, and reinvigorated interest in, the welfare state as the only social institution with the requisite capability.Why is this an "incomplete revolution" in women's roles?Esping-Andersen explains that he chose that title to stress two things: the movement from one equilibrium to another, and the "sub-optimal outcomes" apparent in the incomplete transition, including very low fertility levels, and more polarization in family incomes and parental investments in children due to marital homogamy and unequal societal distribution of gender equality.This last point is crucial to the book's argument.If the dual-career norm is limited to, or more prevalent among, those at the top of the social pyramid, then the benefits of two incomes accrue to those couples whose marriages tend, on average, to be more stable (he argues), and who can afford to invest more in their children, as well as to save and plan for their own later years.Esping-Andersen takes a life course perspective from the outset, making the strong case that life cycle stages must be seen as connected.He goes so far as to claim that pension reform begins with babies, while blushing at his venture into what he calls political sloganeering.That said, the life course perspective is key to the extent that widening in-
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".