Esping-Anderson (1990) describes different types of welfare state regimes in his book “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”. His book is one of the most cited works in welfare state literature. This is due to all the good things stated by Esping-Anderson in his book, but also to some arguments which are considered controversial according to some authors (see Bambra, 2007 for a detailed review). Before elaborating on Esping-Anderson's critique, his welfare state regime types will be developed in more detail. Esping-Anderson analyzed and described the 18 countries that, at his time, were part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). country). He proposed two distinct dimensions: 1. decommodification and 2. stratification. By commodification he means that the individual person and their labor are commodified, indicating that labor is the individual's primary commodity (the product to satisfy their basic living needs) in the market. Thus, decommodification refers to the activities and efforts of government to reduce individuals' dependence on the market (of their labor) for their well-being. Examples include unemployment, health and pension insurance. These are also used as metrics to measure decommodification when comparing welfare states. As for stratification, it aims for an individual's status as a citizen to compete with, or even replace, their class position. Esping-Anderson argues that welfare states play an important role in maintaining or breaking down social stratification. Based on these two principles, he deduced three different types of welfare state regimes. He makes a distinction between liberals and Christian Democrats... middle of paper ... welfare state. In these countries, welfare goals linked to reducing poverty and income inequality are enabled by redistribution rather than high levels of spending. This is consistent with the work of Korpi and Palme (1998). Criticisms have also been made regarding the gender blindness of Esping-Anderson's (1990) work. It should not have taken into account the role of women when it came to decommodification, stratification and the provision of social protection (Lewis, 1992; Sainsbury, 1994). Esping-Anderson (1990) has also been criticized for his decision to organize the classification principle around pensions, sickness benefits and unemployment benefits. In doing so, it ignores that welfare states also aim to provide services such as health care and social services (Kautto, 2002). Methodological critiques: Castles, 1993, Kangas, 1994 and Ragin., 1994