This study develops a pandemic-specific typology of welfare regimes to analyze how welfare states adapted to the COVID-19 crisis. Using hierarchical cluster analysis, 32 welfare states are categorized into 4 typologies—High-Performance, Selective-Strength, Transitional, and Low-Performance—based on economic support, healthcare capacity, and public health measures. To assess the impact of these typologies, multivariate analysis of covariance examines differences in social and economic outcomes, including poverty, unemployment, income inequality, COVID-19 morality, mental health disorders, life satisfaction, and government effectiveness. The findings reveal that High-Performance regimes demonstrated the most balanced crisis responses, integrating robust economic interventions, strong healthcare infrastructures, and proactive public health policies. In contrast, Low-Performance regimes faced significant challenges due to weaker institutional capacity, limited economic support, and fragmented healthcare systems. The study also highlights the hybridization of welfare states, where traditional welfare principles were adapted through crisis-management strategies to enhance responsiveness. By bridging traditional welfare state theory with crisis adaptability, this study contributes to the theoretical and policy discourse on welfare state resilience. The results underscore the importance of institutional coordination, adaptive governance, and hybrid welfare models that balance long-term stability with short-term adaptability. These insights provide a foundation for strengthening welfare state preparedness in the face of future global crises beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
AbbeyEJKhalifaBAAOduwoleMO, et al. (2020) The global health security index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among organization for economic cooperation and development countries. PLOS ONE15(10): e0239398.
2.
AidukaiteJ (2009) Old welfare state theories and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe: Challenges and implications. Communist and Post-Communist Studies42(1): 23–39.
3.
AlaAWilderJJonassaintNL, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and the uncovering of health care disparities in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada: Call to action. Hepatology Communications5(10): 1791–1800.
4.
Alfonso ViguriaUCasamitjanaN (2021) Early interventions and impact of COVID-19 in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(8): 4026.
5.
AminjonovUBargainOBernardT (2023) Gimme shelter. Social distancing and income support in times of pandemic. European Economic Review157: 104507.
6.
AteşCKaymazÖKaleHE, et al. (2019) Comparison of test statistics of nonnormal and unbalanced samples for multivariate analysis of variance in terms of type-I error rates. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine2019: 1–8.
7.
AugelloMBonoVRovitoR, et al. (2023) Immunologic interplay between HIV/AIDS and COVID-19: Adding fuel to the flames?Current HIV/AIDS Reports20(2): 51–75.
8.
BambraC (2007) Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare16(4): 326–338.
9.
BambraCEikemoTA (2008) Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: A comparative study of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health63(2): 92–98.
10.
BambraCRiordanRFordJ, et al. (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health74(11): 964–968.
11.
BejanRNikolovaK (2022) COVID-19 amongst western democracies: A welfare state analysis. Social Theory & Health20(2): 123–151.
12.
BélandDDinanSRoccoP, et al. (2021) Social policy responses to COVID -19 in Canada and the United States: Explaining policy variations between two liberal welfare state regimes. Social Policy & Administration55(2): 280–294.
13.
BélandDHeAJRameshM (2022) COVID-19, crisis responses, and public policies: From the persistence of inequalities to the importance of policy design. Policy and Society41(2): 187–198.
14.
BenevolenskiVIvanovaNJakobsonL (2023) Social origins theory: Untapped potential and the test by the pandemic crisis. Nonprofit Policy Forum14(4): 317–344.
15.
BosaICastelliACastelliM, et al. (2022) Response to COVID-19: Was Italy (un)prepared?Health Economics, Policy and Law17(1): 1–13.
16.
BrewerMTassevaIV (2021) Did the UK policy response to Covid-19 protect household incomes?The Journal of Economic Inequality19(3): 433–458.
17.
BrownSSaundersLKrauseJ (2012) Racial disparities in depression and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury: A mediational model. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation18(3): 232–240.
18.
BuhrDStoyV (2015) More than just welfare transfers? A review of the scope of Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime typology. Social Policy and Society14(2): 271–285.
19.
BurströmBHemströmÖDohenyM, et al. (2024) The aftermath of COVID-19: Mortality impact of the pandemic on older persons in Sweden and other Nordic countries, 2020–2023. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health53(5): 456–464.
20.
BusemeyerMR (2022) The welfare state in really hard times: Political trust and satisfaction with the German healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of European Social Policy32(4): 393–406.
21.
CantillonBSeeleib-KaiserMVan Der VeenR (2021) The COVID-19 crisis and policy responses by continental European welfare states. Social Policy & Administration55(2): 326–338.
22.
CantóOFigariFFiorioCV, et al. (2022) Welfare resilience at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in a selection of European countries: Impact on public finance and household incomes. Review of Income and Wealth68(2): 293–322.
23.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021) SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant — United States, December 1–8, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(50): 1731–1734. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7050e1.htm (accessed 27 November 2024).
24.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) Genomic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 variants: Predominance of the delta variant — United States, April 2021–November 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report71(6): 206–211. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106a4.htm (accessed 27 November 2024).
25.
CicciaR (2017) A two-step approach for the analysis of hybrids in comparative social policy analysis: A nuanced typology of childcare between policies and regimes. Quality & Quantity51(6): 2761–2780.
26.
Cruz-MartínezGPellisserySVelázquez LeyerR (2023) Have social policy responses to COVID-19 been institutionalised?Social Policy and Society22(3): 475–494.
27.
De CarvalhoGSchmidAFischerJ (2021) Classifications of health care systems: Do existing typologies reflect the particularities of the Global South?Global Social Policy21(2): 278–300.
28.
De Oliveira TeixeiraLMUribeFARMoreiraHLF, et al. (2024) Associations between retirement, social security policies and the health of older people: A systematic review. BMC Public Health24(1): 2473.
29.
DeemingC (2017) The lost and the new ‘liberal world’ of welfare capitalism: A critical assessment of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a Quarter Century Later. Social Policy and Society16(3): 405–422.
30.
DorlachT (2023) Introduction: Exploring the long-term social policy consequences of COVID-19. Global Social Policy23(2): 343–347.
31.
DoumasDMMidgettA (2020) Witnessing cyberbullying and internalizing symptoms among middle school students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education10(4): 957–966.
32.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Repr. Princeton Paperbacks: sociology / economics). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
Esping-AndersenG (2000) The sustainability of welfare states into the twenty-first century. International Journal of Health Services30(1): 1–12.
34.
FarnsworthKIrvingZ (2024) Crises of the welfare state, resilience, and pessimism of the intellect. Social Policy & Administration58(2): 248–263.
35.
FerreJC (2024) Welfare regimes in twenty-first-century Latin America. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy39(2): 101–127.
36.
FinkelsteinDMHardingJFPaulsellD, et al. (2022) Economic well-being and health: The role of income support programs in promoting health and advancing health equity: Study examines income support programs and their role in promoting health and advancing health equity. Health Affairs41(12): 1700–1706.
37.
FreemanRFrisinaL (2010) Health care systems and the problem of classification. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice12(1–2): 163–178.
38.
GatechompolSAvihingsanonAPutcharoenO, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and HIV infection co-pandemics and their impact: A review of the literature. AIDS Research and Therapy18(1): 28.
39.
GovenderPSivakumarV (2020) Application of k-means and hierarchical clustering techniques for analysis of air pollution: A review (1980–2019). Atmospheric Pollution Research11(1): 40–56.
40.
GreerSLKingEJDa FonsecaEM, et al. (2020) The comparative politics of COVID-19: The need to understand government responses. Global Public Health15(9): 1413–1416.
41.
Güngördü-ArıoğluMTunçalpD (2024) Understanding the processes of organizational hybridization: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 15 October. DOI: 10.1007/s11301-024-00465-6.
42.
HaldaneVJungA-SNeillR, et al. (2021) From response to transformation: How countries can strengthen national pandemic preparedness and response systems. BMJ375: e067507.
43.
HaleTAngristNHaleAJ, et al. (2021) Government responses and COVID-19 deaths: Global evidence across multiple pandemic waves. PLOS ONE16(7): e0253116.
HenriksenLSSmithSRZimmerA (2015) Welfare mix and hybridity. Flexible adjustments to changed environments. Introduction to the special issue. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations26(5): 1591–1600.
46.
HustinxLVerschuereBDe CorteJ (2014) Organisational hybridity in a post-corporatist welfare mix: The case of the third sector in Belgium. Journal of Social Policy43(2): 391–411.
47.
Jae MoonMSuzukiKParkTI, et al. (2021) A comparative study of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and Japan: Political nexus triad and policy responses. International Review of Administrative Sciences87(3): 651–671.
48.
JewettRLMahSMHowellN, et al. (2021) Social cohesion and community resilience during COVID-19 and pandemics: A rapid scoping review to inform the United Nations research roadmap for COVID-19 recovery. International Journal of Health Services51(3): 325–336.
49.
JiYShaoJTaoB, et al. (2021) Are we ready to deal with a global COVID-19 pandemic? Rethinking countries’ capacity based on the Global Health Security Index. International Journal of Infectious Diseases106: 289–294.
50.
JungA-SHaldaneVNeillR, et al. (2021) National responses to COVID-19: Drivers, complexities, and uncertainties in the first year of the pandemic. BMJ375: e068954.
51.
KaarsholmP (2020) Scares and possibilities: The COVID-19 emergency, the disruption of globalization, and the reinvention of the welfare state. In: EckertAHentschkeF (eds) Corona and Work around the Globe. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 111–119. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110718249-015/html (accessed 15 October 2024).
52.
KargıBCocciaMUçkaçBC (2023) Findings from the first wave of Covid-19 on the different impacts of lockdown on public health and economic growth. International Journal of Economic Sciences12(2): 21–39.
53.
KiessJNormanLTempleL, et al. (2017) Path dependency and convergence of three worlds of welfare policy during the Great Recession: UK, Germany and Sweden. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy33(1): 1–17.
54.
KimT (2024) Did the COVID-19 pandemic fuel public support for social protection?Journal of Social Policy. Epub ahead of print 18 September. DOI: 10.1017/S004727942400014X.
55.
Lessa KerstenetzkyCPereira GuedesG (2021) Great recession, great regression? The welfare state in the twenty-first century. Cambridge Journal of Economics45(1): 151–194.
56.
LiKFoutzNZCaiY, et al. (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns and stimulus payments on low-income population’s spending in the United States. PLOS ONE16(9): e0256407.
57.
MandaraJ (2003) The typological approach in child and family psychology: A review of theory, methods, and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review6: 129–146.
58.
MathieuERitchieHRodés-GuiraoL, et al. (2020) COVID-19 Pandemic. Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus (accessed 27 November 2024).
59.
MazziottaMParetoA (2024) Principal component analysis for constructing socio-economic composite indicators: Theoretical and empirical considerations. SN Social Sciences4(6): 114.
60.
MellishTILuzmoreNJShahbazAA (2020) Why were the UK and USA unprepared for the COVID-19 pandemic? The systemic weaknesses of neoliberalism: A comparison between the UK, USA, Germany, and South Korea. Journal of Global Faultlines7(1): 9–45.
61.
MinBH (2022) Hybridization in government–civil society organization relationships: An institutional logic perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership32(3): 409–428.
62.
MumtazZRoumpakisASumartoM (2023) Overcoming hybridisation in global welfare regime classifications: Lessons from a single case study. Journal of Social Policy54(4): 1113–1133.
63.
MurtaghFLegendreP (2014) Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement ward’s criterion?Journal of Classification31(3): 274–295.
64.
NorströmTRamstedtM (2024) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality in Sweden—Did it differ across socioeconomic groups?European Journal of Epidemiology39(2): 137–145.
65.
O’DonoghueCSologonDMKyzymaI (2023) Novel welfare state responses in times of crises: The COVID-19 crisis versus the great recession. Socio-economic Review21(1): 501–531.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024a) Benefits and wages: Net replacement rates in unemployment (Edition 2023). OECD Social and Welfare Statistics (database). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9d8cab58-en (accessed 27 November 2024).
70.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024b) Benefits and wages: Strictness of benefit activation requirements (Edition 2023)’, OECD Social and Welfare Statistics (database). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/2938dd0f-en (accessed 27 November 2024).
PalierBGarritzmannJLHäusermannS, et al. (2022) How democracies transform their welfare states: The reform trajectories and political coalitions of inclusive, stratified, and targeted social investment strategies in capitalist democracies. In: GarritzmannJLHäusermannSPalierB (eds) The World Politics of Social Investment: Volume II, 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 402–476. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/book/41905/chapter/354764069 (accessed 16 November 2024).
76.
PereirinhaJACPereiraE (2021) Social resilience and welfare systems under COVID-19: A European comparative perspective. Global Social Policy21(3): 569–594.
77.
PowellM (2015) ‘A re-specification of the welfare state’: Conceptual issues in ‘the three worlds of welfare capitalism. Social Policy and Society14(2): 247–258.
78.
R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
79.
RedbirdBHarbridge-YongLMerseyRD (2022) The social and political impact of the covid-19 pandemic: An introduction. RSF: the Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences8(8): 1–29.
80.
ReiblingNAriaansMWendtC (2019) Worlds of healthcare: A healthcare system typology of OECD countries. Health Policy123(7): 611–620.
81.
RiceD (2013) Beyond welfare regimes: From empirical typology to conceptual ideal types. Social Policy & Administration47(1): 93–110.
82.
RoseSMPaterraMIsaacC, et al. (2021) Analysing COVID-19 outcomes in the context of the 2019 Global Health Security (GHS) Index. BMJ Global Health6(12): e007581.
83.
SakuraiY (2021) Possible challenges to the welfare state in a post-COVID-19 society: An illustration from a citizen’s perspective. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Civic & Political Studies16(2): 21–35.
84.
ShahidiFVRamrajCSod-ErdeneO, et al. (2019) The impact of social assistance programs on population health: A systematic review of research in high-income countries. BMC Public Health19(1): 2.
85.
SirovátkaTSaxonbergSCsudaiE (2024) Emergency welfare states in action: Social policy adaptations to COVID -19 in the Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia. Social Policy & Administration58(1): 93–107.
86.
SologonDMO’DonoghueCKyzymaI, et al. (2022) The COVID—19 resilience of a continental welfare regime—Nowcasting the distributional impact of the crisis. The Journal of Economic Inequality20(4): 777–809.
87.
SoonSChouCCShiS (2021) Withstanding the plague: Institutional resilience of the East Asian welfare state. Social Policy & Administration55(2): 374–387.
88.
SummersJKvalsvigABarnardLT, et al. (2023) Improvements and persisting challenges in COVID-19 response compared with 1918–19 influenza pandemic response, New Zealand (Aotearoa). Emerging Infectious Diseases29(9): 1827–1836.
89.
SunYHuXXieJ (2021) Spatial inequalities of COVID-19 mortality rate in relation to socioeconomic and environmental factors across England. Science of the Total Environment758: 143595.
90.
SzemzőHMosqueraJPolyákL, et al. (2022) Flexibility and adaptation: Creating a strategy for resilience. Sustainability14(5): 2688.
91.
SzikraDÖktemKG (2023) An illiberal welfare state emerging? Welfare efforts and trajectories under democratic backsliding in Hungary and Turkey. Journal of European Social Policy33(2): 201–215.
92.
TashiroAShawR (2020) COVID-19 pandemic response in Japan: What is behind the initial flattening of the curve?Sustainability12(13): 5250.
93.
Taylor-GoobyP (2016) The divisive welfare state. Social Policy & Administration50(6): 712–733.
94.
Taylor-GoobyPHeuerJ-OChungH, et al. (2020) Regimes, social risks and the welfare mix: Unpacking attitudes to pensions and childcare in Germany and the UK through deliberative forums. Journal of Social Policy49(1): 61–79.
95.
TootsABachmannJ (2010) Contemporary welfare regimes in Baltic states: Adapting post-communist conditions to post-modern challenges. Studies of Transition States and Societies2(2): 31–44.
96.
TzagkarakisS-IPappasIKritasD (2020) Covid-19 has brought back the necessity of the welfare state: The Greek case. HAPSc Policy Briefs Series1(1): 67.
97.
VisBVan KersbergenKHylandsT (2011) To what extent did the financial crisis intensify the pressure to reform the welfare state?Social Policy & Administration45(4): 338–353.
98.
WeisstannerD (2022) COVID-19 and welfare state support: The case of universal basic income. Policy and Society41(1): 96–110.
99.
WendtCFrisinaLRothgangH (2009) Healthcare system types: A conceptual framework for comparison. Social Policy & Administration43(1): 70–90.
100.
WolffSLadiS (2020) European union responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Adaptability in times of permanent emergency. Journal of European Integration42(8): 1025–1040.
101.
WoodGGoughI (2006) A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy. World Development34(10): 1696–1712.
World Health Organization (n.d.) World Health Statistics. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/data (accessed 27 November 2024).
111.
YuceHStaussHPersadA (2024) Use of population weighted density index for coronavirus spread in the United States. Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research11(2): 1–8.
112.
ZhouYR (2024) HIV/AIDS, SARS, and COVID-19: The trajectory of China’s pandemic responses and its changing politics in a contested world. Globalization and Health20(1): 1.
