id=52367146
或许
镇楼
图已经变成习惯了吧。
因为打开word是件很麻烦的事情...

Introducing the Ideal-Typical Welfare Theory and Method
Welfare state systems are not following a universal mold（普遍样板） . It is for this reason that the question “does this or that country or society have a welfare state?” would be not the right question that should be asked to begin with. Since the path-breaking analysis of Esping-Andersen (1990), the world of social policy has switched from a black-and-white understanding of social policy institutions, to a colorful, complex, more advanced notion of welfare regimes, that is, different families or clusters（群落 of welfare state systems exist, sharing in part similar origins, underlying（潜在的）driving forces, ideologies（意识形态） , welfare strategies, institutional design of social welfare and social security systems, and welfare outcomes.
Two decades and a myriad（大量的) of research studies later, it seems that the welfare regime theory as developed of Esping-Andersen remained by and large in tact, with no great changes to the original theory and its prepositions(前置）. While the findings have original tripartite（三方的） classification of Esping-Andersen has been here and there altered (Esping-Andersen, 1998, 1999), the overall idea of having three different kinds of welfare capitalism or welfare regimes—basic mixtures of “welfare potion”—among the most-developed Western countries, basically comprised of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon（英国- 撒克逊）World, is fully in tact.
The theory of welfare regimes, particularly the three groups of welfare state systems identified by Esping-Andersen, have been discussed and applied far and wide. Particularly interesting have been the attempts to apply the groups of welfare state systems in areas like gender（性、性别） policy and family policy, besides many other areas such as, housing policy, education policy, employment policy, and social services. All in all the discussions and research findings reveal the salience（沉默 of the welfare regime theory in inspiring new lines of work, and new angles in existing lines of work in a great number of research areas in social policy.
Nevertheless, the perhaps most important innovation by Esping-Andersen (1990) was left neglected（被忽略的）, having not entered the mainstream of discussion and having not been dealt with in the bulk（体积） of research conducted. Jaeger (2006) and Aspalter (2006) have reopened the another promising chapter in the revolution set forth by Esping-Andersen’s 1990 study, that is, focusing on the methodology of ideal types, and its theoretical implications（含义） and room for innovation and theory development. Esping-Andersen’s 1990 study applied the method of ideal types in welfare regime analysis, which is the exact opposite of the method of real types (Table 1).

乳町赞赞赞，然而下面的是啥