1 / 25

Social Inequalities and Education PART 1: Welfare regime differentiations & education

Social Inequalities and Education PART 1: Welfare regime differentiations & education. Louis Chauvel Site : www.louischauvel.org/socineqedu Email : louis.chauvel@uni.lu. Welfare Regimes Differentiation Theories of Welfare Regimes (WR) The GEA 1990 typology The debate after GEA

raquelf
Download Presentation

Social Inequalities and Education PART 1: Welfare regime differentiations & education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Inequalities and Education • PART 1: Welfare regime differentiations & education • Louis ChauvelSite : www.louischauvel.org/socineqeduEmail : louis.chauvel@uni.lu

  2. Welfare Regimes Differentiation • Theories of Welfare Regimes (WR) • The GEA 1990 typology • The debate after GEA • Generalization of the typology • Education and the typology

  3. Decommodification models and welfare regimes 1. Theories of Welfare Regimes “De-commodification occurs when a service is rendered as a matter of right, and when a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, pp. 21-22) Gosta Esping-Andersen (Danish, born 1947) Professor @ Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona).

  4. Reading list issues Reference books not so easy to find… 20th century intellectual life Esping-Andersen G. 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism => paper copies at various locations (HB846 .E78 1990) Esping-Andersen G. 2003, Social foundations of postindustrial economies =>Full text online: Oxford Scholarship Online Political Science Ferrera M. 2005, The Boundaries of Welfare =>Full text online: Oxford Scholarship Online Political Science Academic journal papers => easy to find on internet

  5. Schröder, Martin, 2013: Integrating Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare State Research: A Unified Typology of Capitalisms. New York: Palgrave. Central recent reference

  6. Pierson Ch. and Castles F.G. (eds) 2006, The Welfare State Reader, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Polity Press. The problem Pierson C., Obinger H., Lewis J., Leibfried S., Castles F.G. (Eds), 2010,The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford ; Ox Univ Pr.

  7. Recall : Protection against social risks and market failures (decommodification) Karl Polanyi, 1944, The Great Transformation, New York & Toronto, Farrar & Rinehart, inc. Needs for distribution of scarce resources & servicesPensions / Health / Accident-Sickness benefits / Disability / Unemployment / Social Assistance / Labor Market Activation / Family benefits / Housing / Education / Culture / etc. Three institutions of distribution : Market / State / “Civil society” => “Welfare State” or more? => “Welfare System” versus “Welfare Regime” http://eh.net/book_reviews/great-transformation-political-and-economic-origins-our-time

  8. OECD 2009 : From gross public to total net social spending, Social expenditure, in percentage of NNI at factor cost, 2005 % of GDP Total including voluntary private exp. Plus mandatory private exp. Public mandat. soc. exp. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 France Belgium Germany Sweden Luxembourg Diff FR-UK = 6,2% United Kingdom Italy Austria Portugal Netherlands Diff FR-US = 7,9% United States Denmark Finland Japan Canada Australia Czech Republic Iceland Spain Ireland New Zealand Norway Poland Slovak Republic www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/7/41771656.xls Korea Mexico

  9. Gösta Esping-Andersen GEA first typology: How to make a “good” typology ? => Forget axes, spectrums & dyads (like residual/institutionalized & Bismark/Beveridge) => Making sense of diversity => Finding the “good” complementary criteria GEA criteria : => Degree of inequality and shape of stratification => Degree and model of decommodification

  10. The diversity of Welfare regimes Distribution of Welfare (Welfare state / Welfare system / Welfare regime) -protection against risks and market failures-institution of redistribution and DECOMMODIFICATION of collective resources (cf Karl Polanyi, 1944, The Great Transformation, New York & Toronto, Farrar & Rinehart, inc.)

  11. Response to market failures : Development of “decomodified” goods and welfare state emergence • Complicate bargaining between institutions : • Diversity of systems • => Degree and organization of decommodification • Organization of stratification Market State Civil Society

  12. 2- The GEA 1990 typology … • Two historical axes of differentiation : • Institutionalized versus Residual (Titmuss, 1945) [Institutionalized = highly developed welfare regime, with specific rules, largely independent from the State, where social partners (trade unions, employers associations, State) develop large scale strategies … versus Residual) • Bismarckian – Beveridgian (Perrin, 1960) Bism. = Protection of specific groups (based on mandatory insurance) versus Bever. = Universality of rights (based on taxes) • Empirical diversity of systems : Two central criteria: level of expenditures and system of distribution * level of expenditures => degree of decommodification * system of distribution => shape of stratification Esping-Andersen’ typology (1990)

  13. Gösta Esping-Andersen GEA first typology:

  14. Decommodification & defamilialisation

  15. Liberal (residual) • Model of decommodification : Theory : minimal state, “laisser-faire”, no intervention on the market, minimal social benefits, assistance for the (extreme) poor (“good poor” and incentive to work for the others), means tested benefits • Articulation Market, family, State : Private sector dominant, weak social and public sector. Retirement : capitalization • History : centrality of capitalism / Philosophy : responsible individual • Pays : Australia, Canada, US, UK • Shape of the stratificational system: Strong inequality and polarization of individuals on the competitive market, + stigmatization of the poor (underclass). Occupational mobility strong. • Problems (real and ideological ones) :Management of inequalities, poverty, crime, protests (sometimes…), but in general business as usual …

  16. Social-democrat (universalistic) • Model of decommodification : Socialism. Maximization of social rights, given the level of development. Universality, based on taxes, social citizenship, high level of protection & institutionalization • Articulation Market, family, State : Social rights for all the population. Massive public sector and social services • History : convergence between proletariat and petty peasants / Lutheran Protestantism / Philosophy : promotion of human development and Kantian individualism • Pays : Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, (Netherlands ???= no) • Shape of the stratificational system: Equality of status and living conditions, collective bargaining for less inequality in companies. Strong social fluidity. • Problems (real and ideological ones) :Control of “free riders”, giving incentives, risks of xenophobia, (boredom?).

  17. Conservative (corporatist / Bismarckian ) • Model of decommodification : Decommodification organized for the sake of traditional equilibria. Benefits based on social contributions (=payroll taxes). Centrality of wage earner occupations. Protection and solidarity between corporations. Few redistributive elements. Protection for insiders. • Articulation Market, family, State : Solidarity based on status and corporation belonging (mandatory payroll taxes define occupational groups), patriarchal family • History : an authoritarian regime offers (renegotiable) social rights to maintain tradition and order / Philosophy : conserving equilibriums between institutionalized powers • Pays : Austria, Germany, (Belgium, France,?…), Japan • Shape of the stratificational system: Origins : class politics, stabilization of highly qualified workers. Control of inequality, but weak social and occupational mobility Problems : Problems of insiders/outsiders ; costs of pensions ; fertility

  18. Mediterranean (familialistic) • Model of decommodification : Plurality of logics, complicate model based on local linkages, social capital, trust, unequalitarian protection (powerful pressure groups). Strong protection of stable wage earners, but not of informal sectors. Importance of local cronyism. • Articulation Market, family, State : Strong role of families, local social capital, networks, religious groups/foundations • History : Late modernization / Philosophy : ? • Pays : Italy, Spain, Greece • Shape of the stratificational system: Traditional stratification based on wealth, diversity of wage earner statuses, large margins in unstable employment. Political and religious clientelist relations to include marginalized pop. Problems : Fertility… Lack of future ? « familialism without family »

  19. Interest of the typology : • Massive impact on life styles • Age group dynamics • Gender inequality • Fertility • Public/private health policies • Education policies • « Societal consistency » (fr: « cohérence sociétale »)

  20. 3- The debate after Esping-Andersen … • Deepening the typology • Social impact (“societal consistency”) => Social consequences of welfare regimes Esping-Andersen G. 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity PressEsping-Andersen, Gøsta, (ed), 2002, Why We Need a New Welfare State?, Oxford University Press Ferrera, Maurizio, 1996, “The Southern model of welfare in social Europe” in Journal of European Social Policy, volume 6, n°1, pp.17-37. Emanuele Ferragina, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser. 2011, “Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?” Policy and Politics, Policy Press, 2011, 39 (4), pp.583-611.

  21. Critiques of the typology • Somewhat a static device for changing realities => see later on sustainability and changes • A rough device: the typology could differ for health/pensions/education/…=> see paper by Bambra on various visions of the typology • Lack of vision of Family/Gender issues !!! Here is the main point => • Eurocentric/Westernocentric typology => Globalization and welfare regimes

  22. A static device for changing realities • Pierson and the durability of institutions (Paul Pierson) http://www.louischauvel.org/piersonpathdep2586011.pdf • Three institutionalisms (Peter A Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor) http://www.louischauvel.org/halltaylor_1996.pdf => see later on sustainability and changes

  23. A rough device: • Problem of core typical countries versus limit cases • Problem of “Welfare Mixes” In the 1990’s the welfare regimes were “pure”Nowadays=> hybridation of types • Problem of the “new regions” of welfare What about New developed countries (see globalization) => see paper by Bambra on various visions of the typology

  24. Lack of vision of Family/Gender issues !!! • The main point of the last 20 years => specificity of Nordic countries, problems in the Southern European Countries element of modernity in the post-communist Europe • Orloff on gender issues1993 : “Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States” http://www.louischauvel.org/Orloff-A_2009.pdf http://www.louischauvel.org/Orloff_1993.pdf • GEA’s rejoinder: G. Esping-Andersen, 2009, The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women's New Roles, Polity Press In Barnard, Butler & Lehman lib: JC479 .E85 2009g

  25. Emanuele Ferragina, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser. Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures?. Policy and Politics, Policy Press, 2011, 39 (4), pp.583-611.

More Related