This study bridges the study of social inclusion with welfare regime theory. By linking social inclusion with welfare regimes, we establish a novel analytical framework for assessing global trends and national divergences in social inclusion based on a multidimensional view of the concept. While scholars have developed typologies for social inclusion and welfare regimes independent of each other, limited insights exist on how social inclusion relates to welfare regime typologies. We develop a social inclusion index for 225 countries using principal component analysis with 10 measures of social inclusion from the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals Indicators Database. We then employ clustering algorithms to inductively group countries based on the index. We find six “worlds” of social inclusion based on the index and other social factors – the Low, Mid, and High Social Inclusion regimes and the Low, Mid, and High Social Exclusion regimes.

During the global COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have expanded the level and coverage of current social insurance and social assistance programs as well as implemented new programs. Based on three separate datasets, V-Dem V-Party dataset; fourteen structured expert interviews; and a dataset of 114 social security measures, we study the link between the welfare regime, pandemic-related social policy measures, and incumbents’ ideological stand. Does the pandemic-related social policy measures mirror the political attitudes of the incumbents? What role did the welfare regime play? We scrutinise eight OECD countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, and the US) representing three different welfare regimes: corporatist-conservative countries, liberal countries, and socio-democratic countries. The key findings of this article show that the pandemic-related social policy measures did not mirror the political attitudes of the incumbents.

This study provides a comparative analysis of the evolution of skill formation systems in Japan and South Korea, considering the nuances in active labour market policies (ALMPs) and institutional transformations in the post-industrial landscape. Both nations initially adopted segmentalist skill formation systems; however, they now exhibit divergent paths. Korea, in particular, has undergone institutional changes from segmentalist to a liberal skill formation system, with firms reducing their involvement in skill formation, resulting in a pronounced skill formation gap. Firms have curtailed their role in skill formation in alignment with environmental changes, and ALMPs have primarily centred on job creation for the elderly and small- and medium-sized enterprise employment subsidies. Conversely, Japan has maintained consistent policy approaches despite similar environmental changes. This study highlights that these divergent trajectories are rooted in the different stages of institutional maturity established during industrialization.

In this paper, we conduct an in-depth review of and commentary on two frameworks for international comparative work focused on education systems and skill formation – specifically, welfare regime and production regime approaches. We focus on how tertiary education is understood to function relationally within a national policy repertoire and explore the interplay between education and economic systems. Whereas the welfare regime literature illuminates why some regimes are conducive to human capital production and create more equitable educational and labour market opportunities, the production regime literature focuses on the ways that actors such as government, educational institutions, and unions optimise skill formation. These two theoretical perspectives offer both rival and complementary explanations of varying patterns in public investment, differentiation in education systems, and participation rates in tertiary education across countries. Our analytical account provides useful insights for understanding different national education policies and framing future research, including informing these perspectives with the more recent theoretical contributions of the social investment approach. In relation to changing conceptions of the knowledge economy, education, skill development, and the nature of employment, these two theoretical perspectives continue to provide useful conceptual lenses to examine the education/skill /employment nexus.

Poverty prevention is a central concern of welfare states, and the redistribution of financial resources has been a major strategy to realise it. The differences in addressees, extent, and conditions of this redistribution have been intensively studied. The relevance of family in poverty prevention policies, though, has hardly been analysed, although all forms of welfare redistribution “factor in” family in one way or another, and particularly so in poverty prevention. We analyse how family membership impacts welfare state redistribution to the poor to identify redistributive logics in terms of family, that is the unequal redistribution of public resources to particular family types. We systematically analyse and present the similarities and differences in these redistributive logics, using the micro-simulation model EUROMOD for the countries of the EU. The results show that poor families benefit from anti-poverty measures in form of additional benefits, but family-related financial obligations often exceed these.

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is among the most important services for children and their parents as it promotes children’s development and enables mothers’ employment. Previous research has shown that there is an educational gradient as children of mothers with a low education level participate less in ECEC services, but less is known about the development of this inequality. This study, using EU-SILC survey data, focuses on the development of inequality in ECEC use of children under 3 years of age during 2004–2019, and on disparities between three categories of education levels among mothers. The results show that, together with increasing ECEC participation rates, overall inequality has increased in Europe. Inequality has increased between low- and other education levels, whereas in a few cases, a decrease has happened between medium- and high-educated mothers. It is important to pay attention to socioeconomic disparities with rising participation rates.