Kováts Bence: The Financialisation of Housing and Housing-related Family Support in Hungary
›
2. Theoretical foundations
›
2.2. Approaches to housing support by the family
›
2.2.4. Familialism: a (semi-)peripheral feature?

2.2.4. Familialism: a (semi-)peripheral feature?1

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The above reviews of SEHS and CEEHS show that both housing systems are characterised by a high level of familialism, yet they are explained to be resulting from very different processes: weak industrialisation in SE and the state-socialist past in CEE. In my earlier publication, I argue that much of this similarity in the two regions’ reliance on familialism is caused by the fact that both regions belong to the semiperiphery of the world-economy (Kováts, 2021).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

From the review of CEE housing theory and Allen et al.’s (2004) theory of the SEHS it is clear that SE and CEE authors observe both significant change in their housing systems and their persisting difference from high-income countries. They generally interpret this process by assuming convergence to NWE (to explain change) while simultaneously arguing for strong regional path dependence (to explain persisting difference from NWE). Uncertainty characterising these theories arises from their lack of attention to the fact that much of the difference among regions is structurally created and reinforced (Arrighi, 1990; Wallerstein, 1979) while the world-economy constantly changes (Arrighi, 1990, p. 26). With that in mind, path dependence can have a strong explanatory power in comparative analyses of housing systems occupying similar positions in the hierarchy of the world-economy, however, it alone is by no means sufficient to explain differences among countries falling in distinct tiers.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The variation through which global capitalism transforms different tiers of the world-economy has been most aptly described by Immanuel Wallerstein (1979) and Giovanni Arrighi (1990). The former argues that countries arrange in a hierarchical world-system based on the profitability of their production. Countries with “high-profit, high-technology, high-wage diversified production” constitute the core, while countries with “low-profit, low-technology, low-wage, less diversified production” fall into the category of the periphery (Wallerstein, 1979, p. 97). Favourable position of the core is dependent on the low-profit production performed in the periphery.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In between the two categories lie semiperipheral countries which are characterised by the coexistence of core-like industries and those characteristic of the periphery. The semiperiphery fulfils an intermediary function by acting as a peripheral zone for the core in taking over industrial sectors with decreasing profit-making capacity, and as the core for peripheral areas when production with the least profit-making potential is shifted to them. The existence of the semiperiphery makes the world-economy less polarised and thus lends stability to it (ibid., pp. 69-70). Only a few countries shift their position either downwards to the benefit, or upwards to the detriment of others, at times of downturn of the world-economy (ibid., p. 73).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The most relevant part of Wallerstein’s work to the role of the family in housing is his description of the variegated commodification of labour in the core and the (semi)periphery. As also highlighted in Santos’ (1991) Portuguese case study, in semiperipheral, but even more so in peripheral countries, proletarisation of large part of the workforce is incomplete and most wage-workers belong to the semiproletariat. In contrast with the industrial worker of core countries, they often work in the informal labour market, receive a lower wage and less or no government benefits which they have to compensate for from the rural household- and community-based subsistence economy. The hidden income from subsistence farming, housework, but also intra-family and intra-community transfers of resources allow employers to pay lower wages in these countries and therefore constitutes the advantage of these countries in attracting low-technology and low-wage production (Wallerstein, 1979, pp. 126–127).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

This interpretation resonates well with Allen et al.’s (2004) elucidation of the SEHS in which the lower commodification and de-commodification of labour keep the extent of commodification and de-commodification of housing also low, requiring a more significant role of the family in housing provision, facilitated by lenient regulation.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Application of the theory to the CEEHS is not so straightforward as the region’s development is viewed in terms of a long transformation of a regime originally located outside the capitalist world-economy into a capitalist one, but currently stuck in a transitory position. However, Arrighi (1990, pp. 29–31) and Wallerstein (1979, pp. 108–116) argue CEE never completely withdrew from the capitalist world-economy and remained part of the semiperiphery. A number of empirical works about welfare and housing during state socialism seem to underpin this suggestion. Obviously, commodification was undoubtedly lower while de-commodification was higher during state socialism than in CEE today or in SE countries at the time. Yet, evidence indicates that in other aspects of semiperipherality the region retained similarities with SE.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

First, as Szelényi (1988) presented, in some state-socialist countries such as Hungary large part of industrial workers pursued subsistence farming, indicating proletarianisation was not as complete as in core countries. Second, the welfare literature highlights that familialism was high in some state-socialist countries (Szikra and Szelewa, 2010). Finally, in housing, high figures of self-provision (mostly consisting of self-build during state socialism) in the majority of CEE countries throughout the whole period of state socialism also seem to corroborate familialism and lenient building regulation characterised CEE countries throughout the whole state-socialist period (Soaita and Dewilde, 2019, pp. 50–51).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

These findings indicate that state socialism caused the divergence of CEEHS from SEHS in some aspects, however, the region retained semiperipheral features throughout the whole past century. What is more, hasty housing privatisation after the regime change signals CEE countries quickly gave up their distinctive state-socialist features, such as highly de-commodified housing, immediately after the fall of the state-socialist autocratic regimes, introduced in most countries by Soviet occupation, and returned to a more general semiperipheral path.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Today, similarities between the two regions are represented well by extensive familialist provision of housing such as intergenerational co-residence and self-build in both regions today as referred to extensively in the literature (Allen et al., 2004; Mandic, 2008, 2012; Norris and Domański, 2009; Stephens et al., 2015; Tsenkova, 2009).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

My empirical findings explicated in detail in Kováts (2021) further underpin the significance of the core-semiperiphery division, at least within the EU. Results of the hierarchical cluster analysis of EU member states based on six indicators of the above dimensions of semiperipherality suggest a strong core-semiperiphery division in housing. In comparison with the NWE core, the semiperiphery consisting of CEE, SE and Ireland is characterised by a higher level of semiproletarianisation, lower level of both commodification and de-commodification of housing, higher familialism in housing provision, and a more lenient soft state allowing for housing provision with more involvement of the family.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Further, case studies of postwar self-build in Athens and Budapest suggest a core-semiperiphery division has not only emerged after 1989, and SEHS and CEEHS might have borne similarities even in the postwar period when the literature accentuates CEEHS followed a very different development path from countries not experiencing state socialism. The two case studies indicate building regulation was not lenient only in Athens but also in state-socialist Budapest, while self-build as a familialist form of housing provision was even more supported in state-socialist Budapest than Athens in the postwar decades (Kováts, 2021). Evidence from the two case studies show that familialism was significant in housing during the state-socialist period in the region and should therefore be explored in more depth.
1 This section is derived in part from my article (Kováts, 2021) published in Housing, Theory and Society in 2021 by Taylor & Francis, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2020.1813801
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