Revisiting the 'Dual Welfare State': Sickness, Injury & Unemployment Programs in Two 'Liberal' Regimes

In the 1990s, feminist scholars such as Sainsbury (1993) argued that some countries developed systems of social provision that focused either on social insurance or on social assistance programs, with varying outcomes for men and women. This paper investigates aspects of what Sainsbury called the ‘dual welfare state’, using Canada and New Zealand as case studies. Although both have been labelled as ‘liberal’ or ‘residual’ welfare regimes, the paper focuses on differences in program design for sickness, injury and unemployment that contribute to gendered outcomes. The paper finds that the Canadian programs in these three areas are delivered mainly as social insurance while sickness and employment programs in New Zealand are based on social assistance. Canadian programs exclude many women or pay them less than men, as benefits are based on labour market participation and employment earnings. However, Canadian programs also use the individual as the unit of analysis, providing higher levels of benefits and greater autonomy for partnered women working full-time than do similar programs in New Zealand. This analysis shows that social programs continue to be underpinned by cultural ideas about family and gendered work, about who deserves state assistance, and what role the state should play in promoting health and wellbeing. Social insurance and social assistance not only lead to gendered outcomes but they also generate different consequences for women in varying circumstances, even within similar types of welfare regimes