having no other information but the words themselves-- a state is an institution within the greater complex that is a society and society is a conglomeration of interdependent institutions...does this mean a welfare society must have a welfare state..i am not sure..  the two different terms may be in use only because the welfare state carries a negative connotation --i.e. a state that uses dole outs to control and manipulate its population.  So perhaps welfare society emphasizes cooperation over control...just a guess, hope it helps...

jam

I will use some defenitions 

1.Society is a voluntary collection of people; the state is a compulsory organization.

2.Society does not have territories; the state has territories.

3.Society is not a political organization; the state is a political organization.

4.Society demands obedience through their customs, traditions and moralities; the state demands obedience through laws of the state.

(http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-state-and-society/#ixzz3YEFL54GQ) 

A welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. A welfare society may exist  without such state, as Balazs Kotosz mentioned before me. 

Traslating in Spanish I can make this difference:

A welfare society can make a welfare state of an person, or a group of persons...

A welfare society is dependent of government of this society, can have a political hue.

A welfare state is more generally for me, can be only about health, about an only person, or several, or all.

 The Welfare State refers to the institution of unviersal protection of the citizenry through pensions and benefits that arose in the course of post war period in Europe. It has been under siege for the last thirty years at least because of the fiscal drag it is seen as applying to the market economy. Anderson's four worlds of welfare capitalism and Francis Castles commentary and extension are useful texts. A welfare society (in an English context at least) might refer to a civil arrangement to deliver welfare in one form or another  to the public at large, or a target sector.. I dont think it is used in the same way as welfare state.

I think the answer could be found in the debates on the Welfare State. I would suggest the following work: 

Young-Sun Hong (1955): Welfare, Modernity and the Weimar State, 1919-1933;

 Princeton University Press; Princeton.

From what flows out of these debates, a Welfare State is based on the concept of Citizenship and connects philosophically to Social Contract and Social Democracy based approaches. Concept of Social Labour is crucial towards understanding it. A Welfare Society on the other hand may or may not connote such an idea. There were for instances different welfare societies operating simultaneously based on very different reasoning. Welfare Societies could be for instance charity based. And charity does not draw its analytic from a citizenship or rights based approach.

I don't think the "Welfare Society" exists as a scientific concept, let alone as a counterpart of Welfare State. If we tried to construct such concept, we would probably get to a definition of a society based on universal solidarity, wherein all activities and relationships are meant to provide welfare to all members of such society. In a word - a communist community. Social welfare really is provided to some parts of any society, be it by the state (the Welfare State), or through societal channels such as voluntary charities or traditional communal bonds of solidarity. But such forms of solidarity do not make the whole society a "welfare society".

Simply liberty and autonomy.

The term welfare state is used to describe state-financed public systems of social security, health, welfare, pensions for individuals which is paid for from taxation and individual contributions. and is managed by the elected government of the day. These are collective arrangements. 

Welfare society is a neo-liberal ideological concept which means exactly the opposite. In a welfare society individuals are responsible for providing for their own welfare and purchase these services in the market place. This is a privatized arrangement.

Surely, Barry, welfare state is not less ideological concept than welfare society or market.  It embodies Mises's idea of "onnipotent Government" that is a sort of modern travesty of Leviathan by clothes of democracy stessing its ideal of equality. On the contrary, the concept of welfare society or market, we derive from Friedman, is the place in which all the individuals can freely associate to provide for the needs of others, That's why I chosed the words liberty and autonomy. 

Dear all,

Thank You all for the input to these concepts understanding. But it was exactly Barry Hake, who answered what I wanted to prove. In this respect it is interesting to observe how welfare society's discourse (instead of welfare state''s) under the ruling elites is entering even science programmes (like in Lithuania) like the Trojan horse. The question arises - are social scientists blind to what is happening or really satisfied with that? I see a big problem here, but, may be, I am wrong?

The Welfare State served to build social solidarity into the system of government at a time - the period of post war reconstruction - when (certainly in Australia) its architects were viividly aware of the general misery caused by the simultaneous colllapse of market economies around the world in the 1930s, and dedicated themselves to future proofing society, while remaining within a capitalist system. Arguably outside of the capitalist sphere there was no need for such a construction. The neo-liberal movement (and I tend to agree with Barry over Raffaele here) targeted the Welfare State for ideological reasons (but using an extreme economic argument) that saw government interference as inherently damaging to social progress. The label welfare society fits the attraction of neo-liberals to the idea that charities can deliver welfare far better than the state (a distortion of terms all the same). This is leading to a tolerance of perpetuating misery within our communities at times of prosperity, and dangerous political instability at other times, that has lead in its turn to a very new global concept of the Security State, one built on suspicion, fear, the retraction of rights and freedoms, in the name of the defence of a neo liberal order..On just about any score this is regressive. Hence my original suggestion to leave ' welfare society' to denote the very old fashioned notion of a private charity.

Dear Raffaele,

Of course the welfare state is ideologically driven by social-democratic parties in democratic states.

Your reference to Friedman on welfare society is correct - it is neo-liberal ideology as pointed out by Stephen Horn. 

Dear All,                                                                              

I am only a modest entomologist who would like to experience welfare. Would you be as kind as to explain more clearly both notions (welfare state, welfare society) with some easily recognisable examples.

I have still a question: are there pseudo-welfare states?

Dear Andras,

In welfare state all arrangements of social security are provided - state social insurance, state social assistance, state accumulative pensions funds, private accumulative pensions funds, state social services (stationary and non-stationary), private social services, non-governmental social services. State is playing the decisive role in social protection and private sector  playing only additional, supplementary role. The person if he can not, is not left to die,

In welfare society state plays only the minimal role for minimum security, while main provisions lie on private and non-governmental services. Everybody;s escape from poverty, also including social risk, in welfare society lies on his own abilities, not paying attention if he can or can not. If he can not, so it is his own affair. Welfare society consists of individual atomised personalities who fight for  their welfare and protection personally, everybody fights against everybody and against all.

In welfare  state social solidarity is the key question. Also the solidarity between generations, between young and old, between on risk and those who are not on social risk. Social risk means old age, maternity, invalidity, illness, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

In welfare society there is no solidarity, also no solidarity between generations, young are themselves striving for private provisions and individually caring or not caring about their old and sick parents. State social insurance does not come to help in neo-liberal welfare society.

Of course, there are failed welfare states or, as I call, minimal welfare states as in Eastern Europe or Latin America. Of course, there is more pseudo-welfarism in liberal-marginal anglo-saxon countries than in continental Europe or Nordic countries. The overall economic development level in all Western countries is high, but in some Western countries social security is much better than in the others, although economic level does not differ so much. The shift to welfare society;s discourse is dangerous because of inreasing social costs, but I think, also increasing economic costs, as socially vulnerable are not only the burden for economics, but also a reserve for economics in the case if part of them are integrated into labour market and active societal life.