ABSTRACT
This chapter shows why we should not confuse real-typical welfare state theory and methodology with ideal-typical welfare state theory and methodology. It focuses on the most prominent, outstanding and/or useful alternatives in classifying ideal-types in welfare state comparison. The government and social welfare professionals act as agents of change and advocates for more social welfare. The chapter discusses and analyzes the particular advantages of both real-typical and ideal-typical methods in welfare state analysis, as well as referring to more recent developments in the study of welfare state research. It clarifies the methodological differences between identifying ideal-typical and real-typical welfare models. The business of comparing comparative welfare state analyses to one another is an interesting undertaking, with its very own rewards and pitfalls. In fact, comparing real-typical studies with ideal-typical studies is like comparing apples with pears, or chickens with ducks.
