These traditional methods of social organization have now been dismantled by industrialization, which has put workers’ welfare at risk. Under this model, it is also assumed that the government has more resources because of the increased affluence brought on by industrialization processes, so the government can effectively perform the role of safeguarding its citizens’ welfare. On a larger scale, welfare systems may be regarded as a necessity of the openness of economic systems, which expose workers to external shocks thus causing governments to shield them from these shocks (Huber and Stephens 2).
Alternatively, one may perceive welfare states as a reflection of state capabilities; some nations adopt comprehensive and all-encompassing welfare programs while others do not. These differences arise from the level of power dispersion in those countries as well as their capacities. Other than industrialism and state capacity, welfare systems can also be seen as manifestations of political or class struggles. In this school of thought, state policy is determined by the need to maintain a balance of power between capitalists and socialists. It is presumed that socialists mostly comprise of left wing party supporters and labor organizations; conversely, capitalists consist of right wing politicians as well as the government center. In some instances, left wing politics dominates politics thus putting right-wing advocates on the other end of the spectrum. In this theoretical school, a constant struggle exists between these two groups in the distribution of power. Capitalists want to extract as much output as they can from capital and labor while civil society wants to safeguard society’s interests; more often than not, these two entities clash, and a welfare system prevailed when the left outperforms the right.
After examining how a welfare system comes about, it