Kováts Bence: The Financialisation of Housing and Housing-related Family Support in Hungary
›
2. Theoretical foundations
›
2.1. The role of family in the economy and society
›
2.1.1. Family in the political economy
›
2.1.1.3. Three worlds of de-commodification

2.1.1.3. Three worlds of de-commodification

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As a result of the countermovement against commodification, redistribution became the supplementary mechanism applied to offset adverse social impacts of commodification in market economies. The welfare state developing from the 19th century onwards collected a significant part of economic production through taxation and, based on social rights regulating conditions of entitlement, redistributed it among entitled citizens with the aim of mitigating the harms to society brought about by the dominance of exchange over social relations (Marshall, 1950; Esping-Andersen, 1990).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Esping-Andersen (1990) coined the term “welfare state regime” to denote clusters of countries that share similarities in terms of their systems of welfare redistribution. Based on empirical evidence from some high-income countries of the world, Esping-Andersen elaborated a nuanced classification of welfare states in which he analysed the extent and structure of the de-commodification of labour through dependent variables such as the extent of welfare redistribution by the state, the allocation of benefits among social groups, and independent variables such as the formation of cross-class coalition governments in the era of the emergence of the welfare state.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Based on this analysis, Esping-Andersen distinguishes between three types of welfare regimes: the corporatist (conservative), the residual (liberal) and the universalist (social democratic) one. The conservative model characteristic of e.g. Germany, Austria and France, builds on the pre-capitalist tradition of welfare distribution that created distinct welfare programmes for different classes and status groups while welfare benefits are often tied to employment status. In the liberal welfare state characterising e.g. the UK and the US, only people failed by the market are provided with basic assistance, therefore recipients of such benefits and services are stigmatised in contrast to the majority living off the market.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

While the two types mentioned above developed with the aim of curbing the anti-capitalist labour movement, the social democratic welfare state emerged as a result of a successful coalition formation between workers and other social groups, most notably farmers. In Scandinavian countries such as Sweden or Denmark, dominant social democratic parties catering not only to workers, but also the middle class set up a universalistic system of redistribution. In the universalist welfare state, welfare is neither limited to only the poor, nor differentiated by employment status, but is provided to all citizens on the same high level based on social rights. In this way, citizens do not have to rely on the market in accessing a large variety of services (Esping-Andersen, 1990, pp. 23–29).
 
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave