Iraq’s Hybrid Welfare Regime: Understanding a Fragmented System of Social Protection

This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy by Siena Caridi-Ross and Zahid Mumtaz.

When we think of welfare states, high-income countries such as Sweden, Germany, or Australia usually come to mind. These countries align with Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s influential typology of social democratic, conservative, and liberal welfare regimes. Yet not all states fit neatly into these categories. Iraq, shaped by colonial legacies, oil dependency, sectarian divisions, and decades of conflict, represents a strikingly different case. Its welfare system defies simple classification, instead embodying what scholars describe as a hybrid welfare regime – a fragmented system in which elements of state provision, informal support, and outright insecurity operate simultaneously.

This hybridity is not accidental but deeply rooted in Iraq’s political and economic history. Formal workers, especially in the public sector, access pensions, healthcare, and paid leave. Most informal workers rely on kinship, tribal ties, or religious charities, while displaced populations survive largely on inconsistent aid. Such overlapping realities mirror the framework articulated by Wood and Gough and later developed by Mumtaz and colleagues, which highlights the coexistence of welfare, informal security, and insecurity regimes across much of the Global South.

Colonial Legacies and the Roots of Inequality

Iraq’s hybrid welfare system has clear colonial origins. During the British Mandate (1920–1932), welfare policies were designed less to promote universal rights than to consolidate control. The 1922 pension law favoured colonial administrators and a narrow urban elite, while rural populations relied on patronage, as tribal leaders traded loyalty for land and authority. This reinforced inequality and entrenched a welfare order rooted in hierarchy and dependency rather than inclusion. Independence in 1932 did little to dismantle this pattern. The monarchy maintained contributory social security schemes, but they reached only a fraction of urban formal workers. Rural households continued to depend on family, religious charities, and local networks for support. The post-colonial state, therefore, inherited the inequalities and exclusions of the mandate period, perpetuating a bifurcated system in which elites and formal workers were shielded while the majority remained outside.

Ba’athist Ambitions and Selective Expansion

The Ba’athist era (1968–2003) marked Iraq’s ambitious attempt to build a modern welfare system. Funded by rising oil revenues, the regime expanded healthcare, education, and social insurance. By the mid-1980s, Iraq’s healthcare system was among the stronger in the Middle East, and school enrolments rose substantially. Welfare became a key instrument of state legitimacy, signalling progress and modernisation. Yet this expansion was selective. Benefits accrued primarily to public sector workers, urban residents, and politically favoured groups. Rural workers and those in the informal economy – then as now, the majority – were excluded. Sectarian dynamics further skewed access, with Sunni areas often privileged over Shi’a and Kurdish regions. Even at its tipping point, Iraq’s welfare system operated as a hybrid regime: a mix of state generosity for some, informal reliance for many, and insecurity for those on the margins.

Sanctions, Conflict, and Welfare Collapse

The 1990s devastated Iraq’s welfare system. Post-Gulf War sanctions crippled oil revenues, driving up poverty, infant mortality, and educational decline. The government’s Public Distribution System (PDS) offered food rations but was politicized and uneven. As the state weakened, religious charities, tribal leaders, and NGOs filled gaps, benefiting communities with strong networks. The 2003 U.S. invasion and sectarian conflict further fractured welfare: millions were displaced, many losing access to even minimal support. Informal religious mechanisms such as Zakat among Sunni communities and Khums among Shi’a communities became vital safety nets. Humanitarian agencies, including the UNHCR, the IOM, and the World Food Programme, delivered critical aid, but their interventions were often temporary, fragmented, and subject to political pressures.

Contemporary Fragmentation

Iraq’s welfare system remains deeply unequal. Public sector employees, including those under the Kurdistan Regional Government, retain comprehensive benefits such as pensions, healthcare, and maternity leave, while private sector workers receive more limited protection. This corporatist-style model is narrow, fragile, and undermined by fiscal instability, corruption, and dependence on oil. By contrast, about two-thirds of the workforce is informal – concentrated in agriculture, construction, and petty trade – excluded from social insurance and reliant on kinship, tribal, or religious support. Such informal aid is uneven, shaped by local resources and sectarian divides. The most vulnerable are over a million displaced people, often excluded from both state and community systems, surviving on fragmented humanitarian aid. This landscape exemplifies an insecurity regime marked by exploitation, vulnerability, and unreliable welfare.

Why Hybridity Matters

Interpreting Iraq’s welfare system as hybrid is more than an exercise in classification; it carries important analytical and policy implications. First, it highlights the limits of Eurocentric models like Esping-Andersen’s, which cannot capture contexts where formal, informal, and insecure systems overlap. A hybrid lens instead reveals how these welfare forms coexist, interact, and generate inequalities.

Second, acknowledging hybridity highlights the fallacy of assuming that formal systems will inevitably expand to displace informal ones. In Iraq, formal benefits are concentrated among elites and public employees, leaving rural and informal workers marginalized unless policies deliberately integrate formal and informal protection.

Third, welfare divides fuel political instability. Exclusion fosters mistrust in state institutions and exacerbates sectarian and regional tensions. In Iraq’s fragile social contract, inequitable welfare provision risks fuelling further conflict. Inclusive reforms that extend protection to informal workers, link with community networks, and involve humanitarian actors could instead rebuild trust and foster social cohesion.

The Road Ahead

Iraq’s welfare system is best understood as a fragmented hybrid regime shaped by colonial legacies, oil dependence, cultural networks, and conflict. While public employees enjoy benefits, most informal workers rely on community and religious support, and displaced populations face deep insecurity. The result is a patchwork that leaves millions vulnerable. For policymakers, this demands reforms that bridge formal and informal systems rather than replicating Eurocentric models. For scholars, Iraq provides a critical case that advances welfare regime debates in the Global South by foregrounding fragmentation and hybridity.

---

Reference

Caridi-Ross, Siena, and Zahid Mumtaz. 2025. “A Hybrid Classification Approach for Exploring Iraq’s Welfare Regime.” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 41(2): 160–80. doi: 10.1017/ics.2025.10080.

About the Authors

Siena Caridi-Ross is a Consultant at 31ten Consulting.

Zahid Mumtaz is a Lecturer in Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, UK, and a Visiting Fellow in Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.