Esping-Anderson (1990) describes different types of welfare state regimes in his book “Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”. His book is one of the most cited books in welfare state literature. This is due to all the positive things that Esping-Anderson states in his book, but also because of some topics considered controversial according to some authors (see Bambra, 2007 for a detailed critique). Before delving into the criticism of Esping-Anderson, his types of welfare state regime will be explored. Esping-Anderson analyzed and described, in his time, the 18 countries that were part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Villages). He identified two distinct dimensions: 1. de-commodification and 2. stratification. By commodification, he means that the individual person and his work are commodified, which indicates that labor is the individual's primary commodity (produced to satisfy the basic needs of life) in the market. Thus, de-commodification refers to government activities and efforts aimed at reducing individuals' dependence on the market (on their labor) for their well-being. Examples of this include insurance against unemployment, health and pensions. These are also used as measures, to measure de-commodification when comparing welfare states. Regarding stratification, it aimed to make an individual's status as a citizen compete with or even replace this individual's class position. With this Esping-Anderson argues that welfare states play a significant role in maintaining or breaking down social stratification. Based on these two principles, he deduced three different types of welfare state regimes. Distinguishes between liberals, Christian Democrats......paper center......elfar state. In these countries, the welfare objectives of poverty reduction and income inequality are made possible by redistribution rather than high levels of spending. This is in line with the work of Korpi and Palme (1998). There has also been criticism of the gender blindness of Esping-Anderson's (1990) work. It would not have taken into account the role of women in considering de-commodification, stratification and welfare provision (Lewis, 1992; Sainsbury, 1994). Esping-Anderson (1990) has also been criticized for his decision to organize the classification principle according to pensions, sickness benefits and unemployment benefits. In doing so, it ignores that welfare states are also about the provision of services such as healthcare and social services (Kautto, 2002). Methodological criticisms: Castles, 1993, Kangas, 1994, and Ragin, 1994