Varieties of Familialism: Comparing Four Southern European and East Asian Welfare Regimes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Saraceno, Chiara Article — Published Version Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes Journal of european social policy Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Saraceno, Chiara (2016) : Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes, Journal of european social policy, ISSN 1461-7269, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 26, Iss. 4, pp. 314–326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0958928716657275 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/171966 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu ESP0010.1177/0958928716657275Journal of European Social PolicySaraceno 657275research-article2016 Journal Of European Article Social Policy Journal of European Social Policy 2016, Vol. 26(4) 314 –326 Varieties of familialism: Comparing © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav four southern European and East DOI: 10.1177/0958928716657275 Asian welfare regimes esp.sagepub.com Chiara Saraceno Collegio Carlo Alberto, Italy Abstract The aim of this article is to articulate the concepts of familialism and defamilialization as well as their indicators to assess whether and how welfare states, or regimes, differ not only in the degree to which they are defamilialized but also in the specific familialism form. In other words, it assesses whether family responsibility in a given area (and its gender dimension) is only assumed without public policy support or, on the contrary, whether it is actively enforced by laws or supported by income transfers and time allocation. The same diversification also exists for the opposite concept, defamilialization, which may happen through positive, direct or indirect policy interventions or because of the lack of such interventions, encouraging recourse to the market. The article shows that when considering these distinctions in the analyses, the profiles of countries that are usually generically described as ‘familialistic welfare states’, such as Italy and Spain in Europe or Japan and Korea in East Asia, and their similarities and differences partly differ from those that emerge when considering only a simplified familialism – defamilialization dichotomy, in so far both familialism and defamilialization may occur, and be combined, through distinct means, offering, therefore, also different options. Keywords Defamilialization, familialism, South East Asia, Southern Europe, welfare regimes Introduction The aim of this article is to articulate the concepts of public policy support or, on the contrary, whether it is familialism and defamilialization in relation to wel- actively enforced by laws or supported by income fare state arrangements to examine whether and how transfers, time allocation and so forth. Based on welfare states differ not only in the way (via state or market) and the degree to which they are defamilial- Corresponding author: ized but also in the specific familialism form(s). Chiara Saraceno, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Via Real Collegio 30, Specifically, the aim is to assess whether family 10024 Turin, Italy. responsibility in a given area is only assumed without Email: [email protected] Saraceno 315 selected indicators of different policy areas and needs, gender-specific dimensions of the foundations of I articulate these concepts to compare four countries European welfare states, Lewis (1992) and Lewis and – Italy and Spain in Europe, Korea and Japan in East Ostner (1994; see also Sainsbury 1999) argued that Asia – which are in the welfare state literature often welfare regime typologies should be based on the identified as examples of familialistic welfare states. strength or weakness of the male breadwinner model. In the first section, based on a critical overview of Orloff (1993; see also Lister 1994 and Saraceno, the debates that have led to the introduction of the 1997) suggested that in order to construct a welfare concepts of defamilialization and familialism in wel- regime typology, the commodification–decommodifi- fare state studies, I discuss different dimensions cation axis should be integrated with the familialism– involved in the familialism–defamilialization con- defamilialization axis. Although they focused tinuum and their likely indicators, suggesting a more primarily on the degrees and patterns of defamilializa- articulated conceptualization compared to those cur- tion rather than familialism, these developments rently available in the literature. Against this back- opened the way for the identification of familialism as ground, in the second section, I analyse the profiles a heavy reliance on a gendered and intergeneration- of Italy, Japan, Korea and Spain, looking at various ally structured family solidarity (not only the house- areas of policy intervention involving expectations hold but also close kin; see, for example, Naldini, about gender, intergenerational responsibilities and 2003) as a specific characteristic of southern European obligations within the household and the larger fam- welfare regimes. The term was later adopted also by ily. The emerging varieties of familialism as well as scholars of East Asian welfare regimes (e.g. Estevez- patterns of defamilialization in the four countries are Abe and Kim, 2014; Jones, 1993; Phillips and Jung discussed in the conclusion. 2013 and, from a specific gender perspective, Peng, The contribution offered by this article is, there- 2002). fore, twofold. First, it contributes to the theoretical The first scholars who adopted the gendered debate on familialism and defamilialization in welfare concept of defamilialization emphasized the ability state analysis through developing a richer conceptual- of women to support themselves without relying on ization that accounts for the different directions of a a male breadwinner either through participation in familialistic policy approach. Second, by implement- the labour market or through individual entitle- ing this conceptualization in the analysis of four coun- ments as mothers (Hobson, 1994; Orloff, 1993). tries commonly identified as familialistic, based on a Lister (1994) defined the concept as ‘the degree to complex set of indicators that go beyond those com- which individuals can uphold a socially acceptable monly used in comparative analyses, it documents the standard of living independently of family relation- benefit of using such conceptualization for compara- ships, either through paid work or social security tive analyses of countries and policies, contributing provision’. Although originally developed with a also to the overcoming of the limitations of the "wel- focus on women, the concept of defamilialization fare modelling business" (Powell and Kim (2014)). was later extended to all adults, particularly to the young, vulnerable and elderly members of both Polysemic concepts genders. Over the years, the familialism–defamilialization Feminist scholars who, taking Esping-Andersen’s dichotomy has been used particularly to analyse the (1990) regime approach seriously, criticized the gen- patterns of care provision. The focus on the ability to der blindness of his conceptualization, exposing form one’s own household has therefore remained the gender arrangements that underpin all three areas marginal. Although reductive, this focus has never- of the welfare regime, that is, the state, the market and theless served to enrich welfare regime analyses the family, as well as their relationships, developed (and typologies), which were until then largely based the twin concepts of familialism and defamilialization on a few, mostly labour-linked, income transfers and as dimensions of welfare state arrangements. Building tended to ignore the service sector (Alber, 1995). In on theory and research that had started to unveil the particular, when analysing patterns of care provision 316 Journal of European Social Policy 26(4) – whether relative to children or other dependent services as well as health or old age insurances that persons – it is apparent that they always involve a are not provided by public policies. combination of different providers among whom the Prescribed familialism occurs when civil law pre- family and its gender arrangement play an important scribes financial or care obligations within the gen- role. The concept of social care