Drawing on Esping-Andersen's work on different types of welfare regimes (1990), penal systems are often grouped in accordance to their defining characteristics. For example, regarding the treatment of juvenile delinquency Winterdyk (2002) identifies six groups or models: participatory, welfare, corporatism, modified justice, justice, and crime control. For him, Germany belongs to the `justice' model whose defining features comprise adherence to the rule of law, the lawyer as a crucial actor, and the principle that punishment should also take into account educational aspects. The typology of Cavadino and Dignan (2006), on the other hand, distinguishes five models (welfare, justice, minimum intervention, restorative justice, and neo-correctionalist). Germany is seen as a case of `archetypical corporatism' (ibid.: 101), due to the crucial role played by professionals and traditional institutions, the emphasis on social rights, as well as the integration of the individual into corporatist structures. Despite recent changes in a more punitive direction, the German system still seems to be characterised by a `remarkably firm and stable attachment to a mildly welfarist approach' (ibid.: 260). Therefore, whereas Winterdyk focuses primarily on the country's adherence to the rule of law and the role of actors within the legal system, Cavadino and Dignan emphasise historically grown institutional structures and the importance of social policy objectives. There are good arguments in support of both approaches, although the philosophies underlying them differ considerably.