Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Assessing where vulnerable groups fare worst: a global multilevel analysis on the impact of welfare regimes on disability across different socioeconomic groups


Background Investigations on health differences within welfare states between low- and high-socioeconomic groups are mainly conducted in Europe. With the aim of gaining global insight on the extent welfare regimes influence personal disability for the most vulnerable, we explore how these health differences vary between low- and high-socioeconomic groups.

Methods The World Health Survey data were analysed on 199 595 adults from 46 countries using the welfare regime classification developed by Wood and Gough. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate welfare regime differences in self-reported disability according to individual educational attainment and employment status.

Results As compared with the low educated in the European-conservative regime, the odds of having a higher prevalence of disability was found among low-educated people residing in the informal-security regime of South Asia, with OR being 3.16 (95% CI 2.23 to 4.47). While state-organised regimes seemed to offer more protection against disability to the low educated, the productivist regime of East Asia trailed closely behind, with OR being 1.10 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.60) for the low educated. Similar findings were also observed in the unemployed.

Conclusions State-organised regimes of Europe and the productivist regime of East Asia seem to contain protecting features against disability for all citizens and especially for the most vulnerable. Apart from the productivist regime of East Asia, the low educated and the unemployed seem to carry the greatest health burden within more insecure regimes, highlighting a deficiency in social provisions within these regimes aimed at protecting the most vulnerable.

  • Global health
  • multilevel
  • welfare state
  • disability
  • World Health Survey
  • mental health
  • deprivation
  • psychosocial factors
  • housing
  • social inequalities

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd