This post is based on a blog in the Journal of Social Policy by Zahid Mumtaz, Antonios Roumpakis and Mulyadi Sumarto. Click here to access the article.
The concept of hybridisation in welfare regime literature denotes the presence of multiple forms of welfare regimes in a given context. This means that in any given country, some people might be successfully incorporated into state protection (welfare state regime), others rely on community and family arrangements (informal security regime), and some are dependent on highly personalised politico-military patrons (insecurity regime). This indicates the presence of a hybrid welfare regime in a country.
Hybrid welfare regimes do not entirely satisfy the characteristics of a given analytical category but instead reflect a combination of characteristics. Scholars have argued that the hybridisation of welfare regimes occurs for two main reasons. First, countries may transition from one welfare regime to another. Second, the analytical framework of welfare regimes may not fully capture the complex reality of a given country. As a result, various studies in the global welfare regime literature have aimed to uncover these transitions and introduced additional forms of welfare regimes, such as ‘informal productive,’ ‘liberal productive,’ and ‘informal protective’ regimes.
In this study, we argue that what is presented in the global welfare regime literature as an analytical problem of classification or transitioning could also, in fact, be a methodological issue. The issue is related to both data availability and the comparative and international scope of social policy analysis. We presented a novel methodology of data collection – survey and interviews – based on multistage sampling that captured formal and informal provisions at the disposal of households in Pakistan at one point in time. The collected data were explored using a K-means clustering algorithm.
We then found four distinct types of welfare regimes present in Pakistan. 8.2% of the sample population enjoyed benefits of a Potential welfare state regime, around 16.7% of the surveyed population benefited from a More Effective informal security regime, 68.4% of the population was incorporated into a Less Effective informal security regime, and 6.7% into an Insecurity regime. The results show that Pakistan demonstrates features of an informal security regime.
The findings of the study shed light on the multifaceted nature of inequalities prevalent in a low-income country like Pakistan. It revealed a landscape where disparities exist across various segments of society. For instance, 8.2% of the sampled population appeared to benefit from a Potential welfare state regime, characterised by robust publicly provided welfare benefits. These individuals had access to social safety nets and government-supported programmes aimed at addressing their needs.
Conversely, a considerable portion of the population relied on informal mechanisms to meet basic necessities, often without support from formal welfare systems. This group included individuals who resorted to community networks, informal employment, or familial assistance to make ends meet, highlighting the inadequacies or inaccessibility of formal welfare provisions for many. Moreover, the study underscored regional disparities within Pakistan, with certain areas experiencing heightened levels of deprivation compared to others. These disparities are exacerbated by historical factors, such as past conflicts or ongoing socio-political instability, which further marginalised vulnerable communities and hindered access to essential formal and informal services.
The implications of the study extend beyond academic discourse, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners working in the field of social policy and development. The article makes a significant contribution to the discourse on welfare regime analysis by proposing a novel methodological framework for capturing hybridisation within welfare regimes. The methodology presented in the study, by focusing on the interplay between formal and informal welfare provision in Pakistan, allows us to confidently determine the most common welfare regime in the country, thereby providing a tool for researchers to determine the presence of different welfare regimes in a country. As such, the article represents a significant step forward in understanding the complexities of welfare provision in the Global South and underscores the importance of innovative methodological approaches in welfare regime analysis. We acknowledge however that the study was unable to capture the benefits enjoyed by elites, arguing for further research in this area.
By analysing the complexities of welfare provision and recognising how various segments of the population are integrated into different welfare regimes, policymakers can gain valuable insights to tailor interventions more effectively. Understanding the diverse welfare landscapes within a country enables policymakers to allocate resources where they are most needed and to design programmes that better meet the specific needs of different demographic groups.
The study underscores the significance of prioritising social protection interventions, particularly in underdeveloped regions where populations are disproportionately affected by conflicts and insecurity. These areas often experience heightened levels of socio-economic deprivation, exacerbating existing inequalities and hindering the prospects of sustainable development. By focusing on these vulnerable communities and implementing targeted social protection measures, policymakers can mitigate the adverse impacts of conflicts and promote inclusive growth.
Finally, the findings emphasise the importance of adopting a holistic approach to welfare provision, which encompasses both formal and informal mechanisms. Recognising the role of informal networks and community-based support systems is crucial, especially in contexts where formal welfare systems may be inadequate or inaccessible to certain populations. Policymakers can leverage these existing networks to complement formal interventions and extend the reach of social protection programmes to marginalised groups.
About the authors
Zahid Mumtaz is LSE Fellow at the London School of Economics.
Antonios Roumpakis is Senior Lecturer at the University of York.
Mulyadi Sumarto is Senior Researcher at Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia.
The Social Policy Blog 