Lecture 4 (Welfare Regimes and Commercialisation of Citizenship) Flashcards
(38 cards)
Two approaches to cope with the problem of compossibility
- Create a queue to decide who is entitled or gets priority for a certain rights, base the order of the queue on policies/procedures
Results in road to serfdom because the government will have ration.
- Commodify or marketise the compossible rights, and make them dependent on the cash nexus (market mechanism)
Results in certain rights being taken from certain groups of people because they cannot afford them
Risk management
The ways risk can be distributed or organised within a welfare state
Three principles of risk management (Esping-Andersen)
- Reciprocity
- Cash nexus (market mechanism)
- Authoritative redistribution
Reciprocity (risk management)
Families, church members, etc. (mutualist associations) share risk according to need and ability
Mutualist associations
When association between two parties is beneficial for both (e.g. in sharing risk acc. need and ability)
Cash nexus (risk management)
Due to risk calculability, risk can be traded on the market
Meaning of calculability of risk
By using existing information and numbers, you can calculate how likely certain outcomes are
Requirements for trading risk (2)
- Wealth
- Knowledge
The veil of ignorance in risk trading
You trade risk based on impartial information (e.g. you do not know if you will get sick, into a car crash, etc.)
Commodification of risk results in… (2) (from insurers perspective)
- Good risks
- Bad risks
Good risks
Those who are not likely to make an insurance claim
Bad risks
Those who are likely to make an insurance claim, or cost a lot of money on the long term
Risk pooling
A strategy for the insurers to protect themselves against high costs from bad risks: they increase insurance costs for all clients (victimising good risks)
Authoritative redistribution (risk management)
When centralised administrations (often authorities) are redistributions of risk. For example, this is how it is possible that the strongest shoulders have to carry the most risk.
3 Reasons for risk management being considered a collective task, and became subject to public policy
- The fate of individuals can have collective consequences
- Society recognises that risk management is deserving of public consideration (sense of justice)
- Risk increasingly originates from sources beyond individual control due to increasing complexity of society
The contradiction of the commodification of labour (Esping-Andersen)
The welfare state decommodifies labour, whereas the market still commodifies it
Market clearing
All participants to the labour market need to be effectively commodified and adjust their offered labour to supply and demand. In this way, market participation is directly linked to survival (you have to participate in the market to earn money with which you can at least afford basic necessities for survival).
Participants of the market are not free agents.
Effect of the welfare state on the market mechanism
The welfare state causes distortions of the market mechanism, moving it away from an ideal cash nexus. This happens because welfare states offer cash benefits that make it possible to survive independent of the labour market - people can then withhold labour, demand changes via labour unions, and certain services are no longer part of the market (e.g. healthcare, public transport, etc.)
The three complementary meanings of the decommodification of labour (after introducing welfare state)
- Cash benefits allow for withholding labour (e.g. waiting for a better opportunity, or better working environment)
- Welfare states allow for the rise of trade unions that can demand less ideal working circumstances from market POV, but better for workers
- Some services become independent of the market (e.g. healthcare, public transport, etc.)
The feminine critique of decommodification by Orloff and Daly
The decommodification of labour assumes that all the labour of all individuals was commodified in the first place - but this only reflects the relationship between male workers and the welfare regime. Women’s labour is often only partly commodified (part-time work) or not at all. Therefore, they cannot be (fully) decommodified.
How welfare states can help decommodify women (Esping-Andersen)
- Women have to be commodified first. In order for this to happen, the welfare state must defamilialise them - reduce the dependency of women on unpaid labour, the taking care of the family (e.g. by offering free childcare services, allow for parental leave).
- Once women’s labour is commodified, their labour can be second-instance decommodified. Women can become decommodified when care is the basis of a right, and not only results from unpaid labour from women.
Familialism (social outcomes)
Welfare state system prioritising the family as responsible for care and welfare of its members, rather than relying on the government
(Limit’s women’s participation in the labour market - keeps them from commodifying)
Defamilialism (social outcomes)
Welfare state policies reduce individual’s dependence on family members for care and financial support.
(Relieves women from unpaid caregiving responsibilities, promoting greater autonomy and independence from other family members such as a breadwinning husband)
Public familialism (policy mechanism)
Welfare state policies that explicitly state that families are the primary providers of care and welfare for their members
(State provides little to no support via social services or cash benefits, and often legally prescribes familial responsibilities)