Over the last 10 years, to no small degree, thanks to the work of the outgoing editors Zoë Irving and Kevin Farnsworth, the Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy (hereafter: the Journal) has positioned itself among the leading outlets for international and comparative social policy research.

To date, social long-term care insurance (SLTCI) systems have been introduced in six countries globally: the Netherlands, Israel, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg and South Korea. Applying an actor-centred, multi-dimensional framework and fuzzy-set analysis, the present article investigates the typical characteristics and variations of these SLTCI schemes at introduction and today. In short, we find that the SLTCI model features dominant social contribution financing, a mix of for- and non-profit providers, and state regulation. In light of the relevance of corporate self-regulation often associated with social insurance systems, the dominance of state regulation is unexpected. The analysis also reveals considerable variance between cases, most notably concerning the extent of private individual actors’ involvement. While geographical proximity of countries does not explain differences between SLTCI systems, “temporal clusters” seem to partly drive the variation of SLTCI actor configurations.

Celebrating the 25th birthday of Gøsta Esping-Andersen's seminal book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), this article looks back at the old ‘liberal world’ and examines the new. In so doing, it contributes to debates and the literature on liberal welfare state development in three main ways. First, it considers the concept of ‘liberalism’ and liberal ideas about welfare provision contained within Three Worlds. Here we are also interested in how liberal thought has conceptualised the (welfare) state, and the class-mobilisation theory of welfare-state development. Second, the article elaborates on ‘neo-’liberal social reforms and current welfare arrangements in the English-speaking democracies and their welfare states. Finally, it considers the extent to which the English-speaking world of welfare capitalism is still meaningfully ‘liberal’ and coherent today.

This paper examines the social policy consequences of systemic banking crises or financial crises in 13 Latin American and Caribbean countries between 1990 and 2010. It takes a rationalist approach to political economy to analyse the effect of these crises on aggregate social policy spending and on four distinct social welfare policy programmes – education, health, housing, and social security – benefits of which vary across social groups. The results indicate that banking crises have a statistically strong negative effect on aggregate social expenditure, but the impact is not uniform across the four programmes. While social security spending increases during the course of crises, health and education expenditures decrease in the same period. The results reinforce the view that distributional conflicts overshadow governments’ response and the burden of crises is unevenly shared in a heterogeneous society. These findings are robust to alternative specifications.

This article rounds off the themed section by reviewing broader debates within welfare state modelling relevant to Greater China. More specifically, it examines the now well-established literature around the East Asian ‘model’ of welfare, and related debates on the notion of a ‘productive welfare’ model. In so doing, it challenges simplistic classifications that present the region as representing a single model of welfare and, instead, highlights the diversity of welfare provision found within both Greater China and East Asia more generally. Building on the authors’ earlier published work comparing East Asian welfare systems with those found across the OECD, it also challenges claims that the region is home to a distinct ‘productive’ model of welfare. The article ends by highlighting some key drivers that will shape future debates.

This paper uses qualitative data from a cross-national study of ‘cash for care’ schemes in five European countries (Austria, France, Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom) to consider the concepts of empowerment and independence in relation to both care-users and care-givers. The paper locates the schemes along two axes, one of regulation/non-regulation, the other whether relatives can be paid or not. Each of the schemes has a different impact both on the care relationship and on the labour market for care. In The Netherlands where relatives can be paid, for example, a fully commodified form of informal care emerges; but in Austria and Italy with low regulation, a mix of informal and formal care-givers/workers has emerged with many international migrant workers. In the UK, direct payments allow care-users to employ local care-workers who deliver care for various lengths of time; while in France a credentialised system means that care-work is delivered by qualified workers but for very short intervals. The main conclusion is that none of these schemes have a simple outcome or advantage, and that the contexts in which they occur and the nature of their regulation has to be understood before drawing conclusions about their impact on empowerment and independence on both sides of the care relationship.