Summary and Conclusion

Abstract

In a widely read review of the comparative capitalism literature, Jackson and Deeg (2006: 31) claim that a ‘major issue dividing opinion in the literature is whether the role of the state and the impact of the welfare state should be included’. This book spilt a lot of ink to give a simple answer: yes, it should be. It suggested that two different approaches, welfare state research and varieties of capitalism, can be integrated into one unified typology. A principal factor and hierarchical cluster analysis validated that countries fit into regimes if the organization of their welfare state and economy is analysed simultaneously. The ensuing clusters consisted of liberal market economies with a liberal welfare state, coordinated market economies with a conservative welfare state and coordinated market economies with a social democratic welfare state. Switzerland and Japan were examples of rather unclear cases.