Khalid works as a driver in a private firm. He gets a monthly salary of twenty-five thousand rupees.His old mother, wife and two children depend on him for food, shelter, clothing and for other material needs. They share a single room house for which he pays five thousand rupees as rent every month. He has to commute five days a week to his work place office on his motor bike which costs him about two thousand rupees each month in terms of fuel and maintenance expenses.He pays on average two thousand rupees a month as electricity and gas consumption bills. Though his children attend government school despite his wife and his sheer desire to send them to relatively better private school but they know after paying for house rent and utilities bills they are left with hardly fifteen thousand rupees to meet all other needs including food and seasonal clothing of five members of the family. Such families constitute a bulk of Pakistani society who despite being income poor in terms of World Bank $1.90 a day income per person either fail to qualify for means-tested cash transfer programme of government or a fear of social stigma associated with being certified poorprevents them from seeking such support. Khalid is one of those millions of Pakistanis who suffer silently despite actively participating in market as human capital.They experience helplessness as a lived reality every day.They look towards state for help but they find no space to negotiate or make claims as their citizenship rights. Before coming back to plight of Khalid, a brief detour would be helpful in clarifying the big picture. In the ruling economic order of this age, market is the sole arena towin or lose in the battle over partaking a share in the commodities which satisfy basic and/or higher order human needs. Everything which can be traded in the market is a commodity including the humans themselves as bearers of their capacity to labour which they can trade in the market at a price determined by forces of supply and demand.This commodification of virtually everything renders those who by some misfortune, like getting sick or old, remain incapable of selling their labour or fetch a low priceof their human capital deprived of a good life. In some cases, the work is not even acknowledged as work. The care work done by millions of women in support of their families remains unaccounted for simply because it remains outside the market.Is this heartless society-turned-market that epitome of human civilization which we tirelessly keep boasting about? If at all we want to call Pakistan a welfare state, it can be classified loosely resembling the liberal or minimalist welfare regime. If we have to imitate, the social-democratic model of Scandinavian states merits worth research for adoption and adjustment in perspective of local socio-economic conditions It was in this backdrop, the socialist ideas found growing reception among the European masses which ultimatelymade the post-World War II era European states realize that it would be no longer possible to sustain capitalismunless it is given a humaneface. Consequently, an array of modern welfare states emerged which varied in formative principles, intensity and coverage. The Danish scholar Gosta Esping-Andersen has given a very influential typology of three different welfare regimes in modern democratic capitalist states.At one end, in terms of intensity and extensiveness of welfare provision stands social-democratic regime in which key drivers of welfare are notions of equality, solidarity and maximum possible emancipation of citizens from a commodified form of life.The Scandinavian welfare magnates resemble this type.In the middle stand the corporatist-conservative regime with comparatively extensive welfare provision while guarding the existing social class structure. At the other end stands liberal welfareregime where minimalist or residual measuresemploying devices likemeans-tests and tight entry-exit mechanisms characterise the welfare system. If at all we want to call Pakistan a welfare state, it can be classified loosely resembling the liberal or minimalist welfare regime.If we have to imitate, the social-democratic model of Scandinavian states merits worth research for adoption and adjustment in perspective of local socio-economic conditions. The Routledge Handbook of the Welfare States has defined welfare as ‘the highest possible access to economic resources, a high level of well-being, including the happiness of the citizens, a guaranteed minimum income to avoid living in poverty, and, finally, having the capabilities to ensure the individual a good life’. The meaning of welfare may vary depending on nature of citizen-state relationship. If we look at citizenship experience of Khalid and teeming millions even below his level of earning it is obvious that attainment of a higher order welfareof citizens needs redefining terms of citizen-state engagement.There is need to bring rights discourse in this process. The Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan gives a hint of radical state socialism when it says the state shall secure the well-being of the people ‘by preventing the concentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands of a few’ and aims at reduction of income inequality in clause ‘e’. The same article further states that the state shall provide basic necessities of life including food, clothing, housing, education and health if any citizen permanently or temporarily becomes incapable of work. This article is part of the chapter titled ‘Principles of Policy’ in the book of constitution. But the principles of policy do not create binding claims akin to the constitutional fundamental rights of the citizens. Practically, Pakistan has followed a feeble residual welfare model over past decades wherein citizens like Khalid can access a limited state provided health care and education facilities. Recently, for a means-test qualified segment of population, the access to privately provided better quality health services has been introduced. But more intensive welfare provision like income maintenance in case of temporary or permanent failure to participate in market is yet a distant dream.(Continued) Acknowledgement: The contents of this article are based on works of T.H. Marshall, KarlPolayni, GostaEsping-Anderson and Hartley Dean. The writer is a development policy analyst