In the modern world we know three different models of the welfare state. In each region we know a different one.
In the Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and Finland the Scandinavian model is used. The keyword in this model is ‘flexicurity’, this is a combination of a flexible labour market and a strong social security system. The benefit of this system is that the flexible labour market allows for the easy dismissal of employees and ensures the people that they can find another job without much trouble. In this way there are many people with a job., because If you make it easier for people to work, it may be the case that more will. Another great advantage of the Scandinavian model is the strong social security system. It provides high benefits for its citizens. The con about this model is that it doesn’t give the employees any security, because of the easy dismissal of a job. Another very important disadvantage is that all citizens bear a heavy collective tax and may not choice for themselves where they spent their income on.

The next model is called the anglo-saxon model, this one is used for example in England and the United States . You can think of this model as the opposite of the Scandinavian model. This means they don’t have extensive social security, because liberal values like self-sufficiency, freedom and private initiative are considered to be more important. Many people think this is a great model, because people may choose for themselves where their income is being spent on. People who are against the model can reason that because of the lack of social security, people with less money will not be able to receive the help when needed.

the third and last model is the Rhineland or corporatist model. This model is used in the Netherlands and is a combination of the two models mentioned above. The free market is partly contained by the well-developed collective sector and on the other hand the government. Social security is important, but less available than in the Scandinavian model. Therefore people are partly free to choice where to spent their income on and partly have the security when they fail. This often is very important for many people. The only thing you can argue on this model is that it’s that for example women do not benefit so much, because they don’t get well enough supported by the government when they get a child.

My decision is very clear of which of these three models I prefer and that is the Rhineland or corporatist model. It challenges people to do their job great and work hard. It gives people a change, but doesn’t do the work for them. I think it’s great that there is a minimum of social security so no one will fall to hard and will always by slightly supported by the government. This model is already used in the Netherlands and to my opinion it’s doing great so therefore I choice the Rhineland or corporatist model to be my preference.

Renske van Dokkum, A4d