The State of Care: Rethinking the Distributive Effects of Familial Care Policies in Liberal Welfare States

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hila Shamir
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 269-276
Author(s):  
Doğa Başar Sariipek ◽  
Gökçe Cerev ◽  
Bora Yenihan

The focus of this paper is the interaction between social innovation and restructuring welfare state. Modern welfare states have been reconfiguring their welfare mixes through social innovation. This includes a productive integration of formal and informal actors with support and leading role of the state. This collaboration becomes significantly important since it means the integration of not only the actors, but also their capabilities and resources in today’s world where new social risks and new social challenges have emerged and no actor can overcome these by its own. Therefore, social innovation is a useful tool in the new role sharing within the welfare mix in order to reach higher levels of satisfaction and success in welfare provision. The main point here is that this is not a zero-sum competition; gaining more power of the actors other than the state – the market, civil society organisations and the family – does not necessarily mean that the state lost its leading role and power. This is rather a new type of cooperation among actors and their capabilities as well as their resources in welfare provision. In this sense, social innovation may contribute well to the debates over the financial crisis of the welfare state since it may lead to the more wisely use of existing resources of welfare actors. Thanks to social innovative programs, not only the NGOs, but also market forces as well as citizens are more active to access welfare provisions and social protection in the broadest sense. Thus, social innovative strategies are definitely a solid step taken towards “enabling” or “active” welfare state.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
William A. Edmundson

The state’s very existence seems morally problematic: there may be a justification, but there had better be. A vivid way of putting this is to say that gunmen, and the state as “gunman writ large,” threaten first force, while individuals who make conspicuous their readiness to defend what is theirs threaten not first but second force. But the “No First Force” maxim–originally Kant’s–must be relaxed if any institution of private property is to get off the ground. Property begins not in nature but in acts of appropriation, which in turn involve the use and threatened use of force against persons who might carry off the thing that has become property. Is it possible to relax the stricture against first force in a way that allows appropriation and transfer while maintaining a moral presumption against compulsory redistributive measures like those characteristic of modern welfare states? I argue that it is not.


2021 ◽  
pp. 472-491
Author(s):  
Karin Gottschall ◽  
Markus Tepe

This chapter introduces the concept of public employment regimes to understand why reform trajectories aligning public to private employment take on different pathways and reflect differences in welfare regimes and political economy types referring to OECD countries. After mapping the state of the art on the relevance and development of public employment in Western welfare states, the chapter presents a comparative evaluation of the distinct features of public employment regimes. Specifically, we compare the costs and size of government employment (capturing the fiscal side of public employment regimes), the extent to which females and migrants are represented in the public workforce (referring to the societal integration function of the state as an employer), and public–private-sector wage differentials (referring to the role of the state as employer for the private sector). The chapter concludes by outlining future trends and the need for further research from a global perspective.


Author(s):  
Nicole Hennum ◽  
Hilde Aamodt

Child protection services represent a fruitful point of departure for researchers wishing to explore the complex relation between the state and parenting. One main reason for this stems from the mandate granted to these services by industrialised societies to intervene in the lives of families. In this article, we wish to show how one keyword – that of the child – functions in decisions made by Norwegian child protection services. We will be arguing that the notion of the child writ large occupies a crucial position in the imaginary of the Norwegian welfare state. Its centrality, we wish to show, justifies the strong legitimacy found in Norwegian society at large about state intervention in the lives of families. In so doing, we wish to provide a clearer picture of how the state shapes, in a rather authoritarian way, parenting in Norwegian society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document