We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Du pareil au même ? La position des quatre principales provinces canadiennes dans l'univers des régimes providentiels.
- Authors
Bernard, Paul; Saint-Arnaud, Sébastien
- Abstract
Following the seminal work of Esping-Andersen, many studies have identified a variety of welfare regimes in advanced Western societies. Analyzing a set of quantitative social indicators, using hierarchical cluster analysis, allows the identification of such regimes, which display specific arrangements between markets, the State, and families in the production and distribution of the resources required for the material well-being of people. Indeed we have confirmed, in earlier work (Saint-Arnaud and Bernard, 2003), the existence of four regimes, the three originally proposed by Esping-Andersen -- social-democratic, liberal, and conservative -- to which one must add, as many authors have pointed out, a fourth regime, distinct from the latter, called familialistic. We examine here, using the same methodological approach, the situation of the four largest Canadian provinces -- Québec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia -- in the middle of the 90s, to determine which regime they belong to. The main issue is whether their belonging to the same country makes them very similar to the average profile of Canada, or whether, on the contrary, they display notable divergences, stemming from economic, political and cultural differences among them; the latter would manifest themselves to the extent that many key social policy areas are under provincial jurisdiction and control in the Canadian federation. The results indicate modest, albeit significant, variations: Alberta somewhat resembles the "ultra-liberal" United-States, while Québec leans in the direction of Europe, and to some extent, of social-democracy.
- Subjects
CANADA; PUBLIC welfare; SOCIAL policy; SOCIAL indicators; POLICY sciences; SOCIAL sciences
- Publication
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2004, Vol 29, Issue 2, p209
- ISSN
0318-6431
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.2307/3654694