{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015343562374916611, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.550218340611353, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Tittmuss to Anderson: A Comparative Analysis of the Indian and Swedish Welfare States

Welfare states are important societal institutions for tackling and preventing poverty. The focus of most international welfare state research is on comparisons of OECD countries; often coming with an implicit desire for understanding and learning different solutions to social problems. Titmuss and Esping-Andersen have developed models or regime types that allow classifying welfare states. Also, the welfare state literature of other than these OECD countries refers to these classifications frequently and tries to understand the welfare states by these means. 
This paper discusses Titmuss and Esping-Andersen’s approaches in the light of a comparison between the Indian and the Swedish welfare state, particularly poverty alleviation through social assistance schemes. This is combined with reflections about how the two countries could learn from each others’ institutions and arrangements. It concludes by stating that while India can certainly learn from the Swedish approach to guarantee a decent standard of living to the whole population, Sweden – given decreasing homogeneity in the society – could perhaps also learn from the Indian way of allowing for diversity. However, the fundamentally different geographical and population size, culture, economic strength etc need to be taken into account when classifying and comparing the two countries, and reflecting about potential policy learning.