Discussion Papers Body Rights, Social Rights and the Liberal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Discussion Papers Body Rights, Social Rights and the Liberal Welfare State by Sheila Shaver THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES PO BOX 1 . KENSINGTON. NEW SOUTH WALES. AUSTRALIA. 2033 The Social Policy Research Centre (formerly the Social Welfare Research Centre) was established in January 1980 under an Agreement between the University of New South Wales and the Commonwealth Government. In accordance with the Agreement the Centre is operated by the University as an independent unit within the University. The Director of the Centre is responsible to the Vice-Chancellor and receives advice in formulating the Centre's research agenda from a Management Board. SOCIAL POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE DISCUSSION PAPERS are intended as a forum for the publication of selected research papers on research within the Centre, or commissioned by the Centre, for discussion and comment in the research community and/or welfare sector prior to more formal publication. Limited copies of each DISCUSSION PAPER will be available on a first-come, first-served basis from the Publications and Information Officer, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, P 0 Box 1, Kensington, NSW 2033 [tel: (02) 697 3857]. A full list of DISCUSSION PAPERS can be found at the back of this DISCUSSION PAPER. As with all of the Centre's publications, the views expressed in this DISCUSSION PAPER do not reflect any official position on the part of the Centre. Anthony King Editor Body Rights, Social Rights and the Liberal Welfare State by Sheila Shaver ISSN 0 7334 0327 1 ISBN 10372741 An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Workshop in Comparative Welfare State Development, held at the University of Bremen Centre for Social Policy Research on behalf of Research Committee 19, Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy, of the International Sociological Association, September 2-5 1992. Marilyn McHugh provided research assistance for the paper. Abstract The postwar expansion of many welfare states has seen 'reproduction going public', the development of social policies making reproduction a public and political concern. Though the phrase 'going public' has been applied most commonly to care work, it also describes the politicisation of needs associated with biological reproduction. The present paper is concerned with one such service, abortion, and what it can tell us about the development of the welfare state. The paper focuses on a particular, 'liberal' type of the welfare state found in countries sharing the combined heritages of the British common law tradition and welfare residual ism maintaining the privacy of market and family. This paper explores the interplay of abortion rights, politics and services in the liberal welfare states of Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States. It considers the relationship between liberalism and gender and the distinction between 'body rights' and 'social rights'. The availability of abortion is examined in the light of decommodification and social stratification. Civil and social rights to abortion in each of the countries surveyed have been generated within distinctive political environments, each giving direct representation to gender, religion and professional interest. The form these rights have taken, however, also appears to have been shaped by the ideologies and institutional forms of the broader social policy content. 1 Introduction Hernes (1987: 51-71) has characterised the postwar expansion of the Scandinavian welfare state as 'reproduction going public', the development of social policies making reproduction a public and political concern. Similar trends, though less pronounced, have been noted in Britain and elsewhere (Finch and Groves, 1983; Ungerson, 1990; Robbins, 1990). Hernes was referring most directly to care work, but her phrase also describes the politicisation of needs associated with biological reproduction. Since the 1960s the welfare state has faced new demands ranging from the support of contraceptive services to the use of advanced technology such as in-vitro fertilisation and surrogate parenthood. The present paper is concerned with one such service, abortion, and what it· can tell us about the development of the welfare state. The paper will explore the interplay of rights, politics and services surrounding abortion in four countries having similarly 'liberal' welfare states. These four are Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States. These countries have limited welfare states with selective state welfare policies which while assuring a minimum standard of well-being preserve scope for market arrangements above that minimum. Perhaps most importantly for the consideration of abortion, they share the legal heritage of British common law. They also share a common language and similar cultures, though each country also has significant racial and cultural minorities. The political forces active in abortion politics, including medical professions and women's and anti-abortion movements, are aware of and in touch with one another. Given these similarities, one might expect similar development of abortion rights and services in these countries. There are, however, also some notable differences between them. Important among these is religious culture, Canada having large Catholic constituencies and the United States active traditions of religious fundamentalism. There are also important legal differences, in that the two North American countries have written constitutions affirming the rights of citizenship and traditions of judicial activism in the interpretation of such rights. Finally, the British welfare state is often distinguished from the others by its commitment to social democratic universalism in key sectors 2 (Taylor-Gooby, 1991). Among these is health care provision, of particular relevance to abortion. In fact the health systems of three of these countries, Australia, Britain and Canada, contain important elements of universalism, while the American system does not. Some of these differences have been important in the way these countries have responded to the abortion issue. All four countries have seen significant change to abortion law since the late 1960s. Legal changes have gone furthest in North America, where abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy has come to have the status of a right. In all countries, too, the reform, repeal and decriminalisation of abortion has aroused intense engagement of groups both supporting and opposing women's access to abortion. In some countries this politicisation of the abortion question has been turned against the social rights of the welfare state, and the four countries vary substantially in the support available to a woman seeking legal abortion. The examination of these developments provides an opportunity to examine comparatively the interplay between civil, political and social rights in the context of a liberal welfare state. Two promising streams of work on the welfare state are beginning to converge. One of these is the comparative study of welfare states, in which analysis is moving toward the investigation of qualitatively different forms of 'social policy regime'. The other is the study of gender as a structure underlying welfare politics and provision, in which issues concerning reproduction and the boundaries between public and private life have attracted increasing attention. The discussion uf welfare state types is not new. One may point, for example, to TitIT'lIss' (1974: 23-32) 'models of social policy'. Nor is there consensus about the number of types to be identified or how they are to be derived. There is nonetheless a good deal of practical agreement in the recognition of certain groupings. The 'Scandinavian Model' (Erikson et al., 1987) is widely accepted as distinctive.! Almost as widely recognised is a group of 'laissez-faire' or 'liberal' states. State corporatist and state socialist types have also been proposed (Esping-Andersen, 1987), but with less ready agreement. It should be nOTed, nevertheless, that Ringen (1991) now rejects the notion that the Scandinavian welfare states represent a common type. 3 This discussion of welfare state types has been given new impetus by Esping-Andersen's Three Worlds ofWelfare Capitalism (1990), in which he identifies three types of welfare state. Each is formed through a distinctive pattern of political alliances and produces a distinctive pattern of rights and benefits. The 'liberal' type, found mainly in countries of English political heritage, is designed to relieve poverty while preserving and protecting the labour market and the traditional norms of the work ethic. Its limits stem from its origins in the political initiatives of a weak and isolated working class. Benefits are modest, are directed primarily to low income groups and are often means tested. In sharp contrast, the 'corporatist' welfare state, found mainly in Europe, provides high levels of protection to the whole population, relying relatively little on private markets even to 'top up' protection for higher income groups. This type is a product of alliances between conservative forces seeking social and political stability, and serves. to maintain differentials of status and income. The third, 'social democratic' type, is typically Scandinavian and is distinguished by commitment to benefit universalism and full-employment policy. These welfare states owe their development to social democratic alliances of the working and middle classes, and combine a high standard of benefits defined by