scholarly journals Citizenship and the Welfare State: A Critique of David Miller's Theory of Nationality

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Hibbert
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Moral Diversity ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Social Unity ◽  
Moral Dimensions ◽  
Post War ◽  
Ethical Relations ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

Abstract.For much of the post-war period of welfare state formation, T.H. Marshall's idea of shared entitlement to universal social rights of citizenship formed the theoretical foundations of social democratic political reforms and legitimacy. This approach has been updated by contemporary egalitarian theorists, such as John Rawls. The ongoing politics of restructuring have led to a growing number of arguments against the motivational capacity of an institutional account of social unity. This paper examines a particular argument against rights-based citizenship—David Miller's theory of nationality. Miller argues that “pure” citizenship rests on self-interest, and thus when differences in risk are explicit it can only legitimate minimal redistribution. Strong welfare states require pre-political ties and must be embedded in the ethical relations of shared nationality. Against Miller's position, it is advanced that shared citizenship has both effective motivational and moral dimensions. It can also address the problems the nationality thesis faces in reconciling its account of motivation with the moral diversity that is constitutive of pluralist societies.Résumé.Dans l'après-guerre, au moment de la formation des Etats-providence, la mise en place et la justification des politiques social-démocrates s'appuyèrent en grande majorité sur la théorie de T.H. Marshall à propos du rôle joué par les droits sociaux dans l'intégration civique. Cette approche a été actualisée par des théoriciens égalitariens tels que John Rawls. Les politiques actuelles de restructuration de l'Etat-providence ont provoqué la multiplication d'un certain type de critiques soulignant les insuffisances de cette approche institutionnelle du lien social en termes de ressources motivationnelles. Cet article examine l'une ces critiques, formulée par David Miller dans sa théorie sur la nationalité. Miller soutient que la citoyenneté “pure” repose sur l'intérêt personnel et qu'elle ne peut justifier qu'une redistribution minimale, lorsque les différences engagées sont manifestes. Pour affirmer leur autorité, les Etats-providence ont besoin d'être fondés sur des liens prépolitiques et soutenus par les rapports de solidarité d'une nationalité commune. A l'encontre de la position défendue par Miller, on avancera que la citoyenneté possède de façon effective une dimension qui est à la fois morale et motivationnelle. En outre, elle est à même d'affronter les problèmes que soulève la thèse sur la nationalité, en réconciliant sa conception de la motivation avec la diversité morale inhérente aux sociétés pluralistes.

scholarly journals THE LIBERAL AND LIBERTARIAN VIEW OF THE WELLFARE STATE

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-176
Author(s):  
Kire Sharlamanov
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Current Topic ◽  
The World ◽  
Collapse Of Communism ◽  
A Current ◽  
Libertarian View ◽  
The Welfare State

The reduction of the state of well-being is a current topic both in the general and in the professional public. There is debate in the professional public about the reasons that caused the welfare state to decline. An important part of the researchers point out that the collapse of communism, among other things, has resulted in a reduction of welfare states around the world. However, the number of analysts who consider that the idolatical movements and the debates between the Liberals and the Libertarian have also influenced the practices associated with the reduction of the welfare state. In order to understand the differences between these two ideological doctrines, in this text we will consider the basic positions of the most prominent liberal author John Rawls and the most notable libertarian author Robert Noizick.

3. Birth of the welfare state

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Garland
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
National Insurance ◽  
Post War ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
The Welfare State

‘Birth of the welfare state’ describes the embryonic version of the welfare state in Germany with Chancellor Bismarck’s social insurance laws in the 1880s. A decade later governments in Denmark, New Zealand, and Australia launched the first old age pension schemes. In the early 1900s Liberal governments in Britain introduced workmen’s compensation, old age pensions, labour exchanges, and a system of National Insurance for sickness, invalidity, and unemployment. In the 1930s President Roosevelt established the American welfare state with the ‘New Deal’ legislation. The new welfare states were expanded post-war and by 1960 every developed nation had a core of welfare state institutions and every government had accepted responsibility for managing its national economy.

Social Policy in Europe in the Twentieth Century

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-201
Author(s):  
Paul Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
National Income ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Benefits ◽  
State Expenditure ◽  
Post War ◽  
Economic Growth Rates ◽  
European Welfare States

The 1980s proved to be a tough decade for European welfare states. The post-war ‘welfare consensus’, which perhaps had never been quite so strong or coherent as many contemporary historians and commentators had assumed, was finally laid to rest. The five great spectres identified by Beveridge want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness had not been humbled by public welfare provision despite its ever growing scale and cost. At the beginning of the 1980s the OECD published a report on The Welfare State in Crisis which pointed out that as welfare state expenditure had roughly doubled as a percentage of national income in most west European countries since the late 1950s, so economic growth rates had plummeted. The European welfare states appeared to produce few positive welfare benefits, and this minimal achievement was produced at enormous cost which was to the detriment of overall economic growth and societal well-being.

scholarly journals Democratization, post-industrialization, and East Asian welfare capitalism: the politics of welfare state reform in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Fleckenstein ◽  
Soohyun Christine Lee
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
East Asian ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Capitalism ◽  
State Reform ◽  
New Politics ◽  
Political Economies ◽  
Production Regime ◽  
Post War

This review article provides an overview of the scholarship on the establishment and reform of East Asian welfare capitalism. The developmental welfare state theory and the related productivist welfare regime approach have dominated the study of welfare states in the region. This essay, however, shows that a growing body of research challenges the dominant literature. We identify two key driving factors of welfare reform in East Asia, namely democratization and post-industrialization; and discuss how these two drivers have undermined the political and functional underpinnings of the post-war equilibrium of the East Asian welfare/production regime. Its unfolding transformation and the new politics of social policy in the region challenge the notion of “East Asian exceptionalism”, and we suggest that recent welfare reforms call for a better integration of the region into the literature of advanced political economies to allow for cross-fertilization between Eastern and Western literatures.

scholarly journals Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Obinger ◽  
Klaus Petersen ◽  
Peter Starke
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Demand Side ◽  
National Narratives ◽  
Military Conflict ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
Welfare State Development ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Welfare State

The Introduction presents the overarching research question of the book, namely the question of whether and how war between nations has influenced the development of advanced welfare states. This question has received only scant attention from the welfare state literature so far. The Introduction reviews the fragmented literature in history and social science with a focus on national narratives and revisionist positions, and argues for a comparative angle which puts the various causal mechanisms linking mass war and welfare state development. These mechanisms are systematized, using a heuristic of supply- vs. demand-side mechanisms and three distinct phases of military conflict: war preparation, mobilization, and the post-war period.

scholarly journals Strong Welfare States Do Not Intensify Public Support for Income Redistribution, but Even Reduce It among the Prosperous: A Multilevel Analysis of Public Opinion in 30 Countries

Societies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Evans ◽  
Jonathan Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Multilevel Model ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Income Redistribution ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Group Solidarity ◽  
Income Distributions ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Welfare State

How tightly linked are the strength of a country’s welfare state and its residents’ support for income redistribution? Multilevel model results (with appropriate controls) show that the publics of strong welfare states recognize their egalitarian income distributions, i.e., the stronger the welfare state, the less the actual and perceived inequality; but they do not differ from their peers in liberal welfare states/market-oriented societies in their preferences for equality. Thus, desire for redistribution bears little overall relationship to welfare state activity. However, further investigation shows a stronger relationship under the surface: Poor people’s support for redistribution is nearly constant across levels of welfarism. By contrast, the stronger the welfare state, the less the support for redistribution among the prosperous, perhaps signaling “harvest fatigue” due to paying high taxes and longstanding egalitarian policies. Our findings are not consistent with structuralist/materialist theory, nor with simple dominant ideology or system justification arguments, but are partially consistent with a legitimate framing hypothesis, with an atomistic self-interest hypothesis, with a reference group solidarity hypothesis, and with the “me-and-mine” hypothesis incorporating sociotropic and egotropic elements. Database: the World Inequality Study: 30 countries, 71 surveys, and over 88,0000 individuals.

Warfare and Welfare

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Western World ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
State Development ◽  
Welfare State Development ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Impact

This book is concerned with the nexus between warfare and welfare. The relationship between war and welfare states is contested. While some scholars consider war a pacemaker of the welfare state, others have emphasized a sharp trade-off between ‘guns and butter’ and highlighted the negative impacts of war on social protection. However, many of these findings only focus on social spending or are based on studies of individual national cases. From a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective, this book addresses the question of whether and how both world wars have influenced the development of advanced welfare states. Distinguishing between three different phases (war preparation, wartime mobilization, and the post-war period), the volume provides the first systematic comparative analysis of the impact of war on welfare state development in the Western world. The chapters, written by leading scholars in this field, examine both short-term responses to and long-term effects of war in fourteen belligerent, occupied, and neutral countries in the age of mass warfare stretching over the period from c.1860 to 1960. The findings clearly show that war is essential for understanding several aspects of welfare state development and welfare state patterns in advanced democracies.

Risk-Sharing and Social Justice: The Motivational Foundations of the Post-War Welfare State

1986 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dryzek ◽  
Robert E. Goodin
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Political Behaviour ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Sources Of Support ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Welfare State ◽  
Moral Philosophers

Much political behaviour can be interpreted as the pursuit of more or less naked self-interest. Occasionally, though, individuals do apparently exhibit some concern for their fellow human beings. The result is a less cold and dismal world – and one in which moral philosophers can find a role. Our focus here, however, is more on practical problems than philosophical ones. We shall be less concerned with questions of what moralists should demand of people than with questions of how such demands could be enforced upon people. Specifically, we will be asking how it is possible to evoke from people support for policies aiding those less fortunate than themselves. We propose to address this question by exploring the sources of support for the most broadly-based institution presently available for promoting social justice, the welfare state.

scholarly journals Social Capital. Viewing Nordic Paths of Management

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Noralv Veggeland
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mixed Use ◽  
Output Side ◽  
Path Dependent ◽  
Post War

How do Nordic states conduct policies in order to bring people closer to the socio-economic realm, in the sense that they, being social capital, tend to be integrated as active and participatory citizens? How do the interventionist and expensive Nordic welfare states survive in the global age, with demanding and ever changing claims to international competitiveness? This paper addresses these questions. Social capital and partnership building are introduced as terms and policy concepts in order to find answers in the framework of intended or unintended strategic endeavours. As a critical approach claims a contextual conceptualisation, we shall here view different European social models and administrative traditions in relation to comparative basic contexts in order to arrive at analytical answers. Leaning especially on the Anglo-Saxon model, the traditional Scandinavian universal welfare state model of the post-war Keynesian order has gradually been transformed into the contemporary Nordic model (Veggeland 2007). Contextual regulatory innovations and path-dependent processes have generated the survival of universal welfare state arrangements and collective action but with the mixed use of Market-Type Mechanisms (MTM) in the public sector of Anglo-Saxon origin. In summary, this blending of policies has resulted in the advantageous social capital of what is called flexicurity, social security combined with a flexible participatory labour market. We shall discuss both flexicurity policy and participatory subsidiarity defined downwards as contribution to an explanation of why the expensive welfare states of the Nordic type have not only so far been doing well but have also sustained both democratic and output-side legitimacy.

scholarly journals Mass Warfare and the Welfare State – Causal Mechanisms and Effects

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Obinger ◽  
Klaus Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Causal Mechanisms ◽  
Explicit Consideration ◽  
Post War ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Effects Of War ◽  
The Welfare State

The question of whether and how war has influenced the development of advanced Western welfare states is contested. This article provides a systematic review of the state of the art and outlines an agenda for a comparative analysis of the warfare–welfare state nexus that is informed by an explicit consideration of the underlying causal mechanisms. By distinguishing between three different phases (war preparation, warfare and post-war period) it provides a systematic overview of possible causal mechanisms linking war and the welfare state and a discussion of likely effects of war for belligerent, occupied and neutral countries in the age of mass warfare stretching approximately from the 1860s to the 1960s.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document