1 The Welfare State in Liberal Market Economies:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent scholarship in comparative political economy has developed a new approach for understanding the organization of economic systems. Led by Hall and Soskice (2001), the Varieties of Capitalism literature argues that the configuration of institutions within a country can be understood as a comprehensive economic system – either a coordinated or a liberal market economy (CME or LME). In LMEs, which are characterized by a market orientation and the absence of strong labour institutions, welfare state spending is often seen as a hindrance to efficiency. It is curious to observe, then, that there is considerable variation in the welfare states maintained by the different LME countries. Why have these countries, which are all impacted by similar global market pressures, not adopted similar, minimal welfare states? This paper argues that welfare policy in LMEs is the outcome of government decision-making that takes into account the degree to which social policies undermine firm profitability and the political considerations of organized opposition, re-election, and economic performance. Through an examination of developments in Canada over the last two decades, this paper demonstrates that there is a substantial area of social policy that LMEs can (and do) offer their citizens when political conditions allow. By legislating for the specific conditions of a country, this paper concludes that it is possible for LMEs to have a significant social democratic element in their social policy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".