Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-15T02:06:05.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family as a Redistributive Principle of the Welfare State. The Case of Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2021

PATRICIA FRERICKS Open the ORCID record for PATRICIA FRERICKS [Opens in a new window] ,
MARTIN GURÍN Open the ORCID record for MARTIN GURÍN [Opens in a new window]  and
JULIA HÖPPNER Open the ORCID record for JULIA HÖPPNER [Opens in a new window]
PATRICIA FRERICKS
Affiliation:
Professor for Economy and Sociology of the Welfare State, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Kassel, Arnold-Bode Straße 10, 34127 Kassel, Germany email: patricia.frericks@uni-kassel.de
MARTIN GURÍN
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Economy of the Welfare State, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Kassel, Arnold-Bode Straße 10, 34127 Kassel, Germany email: martin.gurin@uni-kassel.de
JULIA HÖPPNER
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Economy of the Welfare State, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Kassel, Arnold-Bode Straße 10, 34127 Kassel, Germany email: julia.hoeppner@uni-kassel.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Family is one of the major principles of welfare state redistribution. It has, however, rarely been at the centre of welfare state research. This contribution intends to help remedy the research gap in family-related redistribution. By examining the German welfare state which is known to be both redistributive and family-oriented, we want to answer the question of how and how far the German welfare state institutionalises family as a redistributive principle. Our case-study of German welfare state regulations in terms of family is based on the tax-benefit microsimulation model EUROMOD and its Hypothetical Household Tool (HHoT). We differentiate 54 family forms to adequately reflect our three theoretical assumptions, which are: (1) redistributive logics differ across family forms, and in part markedly; (2) these differences are not the result of one coherent set of regulations, but of an interplay of partially contradictory regulations; (3) family as a redistributive principle manifests itself not only in terms of additional benefits to families, but also in terms of particular obligations of families to financially support family members before they are entitled to public support. These aspects have hardly been analysed before and combining them allows a clear evaluation of family-related redistribution.

Keywords

redistributive logicswelfare state analysisfamilyEUROMOD
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 449 - 469
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bambra, C. (2004), The Worlds of Welfare: Illusory and Gender Blind? Social Policy and Society, 3(3), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckmann, F. (2020), Die soziale Sicherung geringfügig Beschäftigter: Zur Bedeutung individueller Erwerbspräferenzen in Zeiten flexibilisierter Arbeit. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 66(2), 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Scheiwe, K. (2010), Individualisation and Personal Obligations – Social Policy, Family Policy, and Law Reform in Germany and the UK. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 24(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Destatis (2020), Verdienste und Verdienstunterschiede. Entwicklung der Bruttoverdienste. Durchschnittliche Bruttomonatsverdienste. Verfügbar unter: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Verdienste/Verdienste-Verdienstunterschiede/Tabellen/liste-bruttomonatsverdienste.html (Access 13.02.2021)Google Scholar
Dingeldey, I. (2001), European Tax Systems and Their Impact on Family Employment Patterns. Journal of Social Policy, 30, 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. and Myles, J. (2009), Economic Inequality and the Welfare State, in Nolan, B., Salverda, W. and Smeeding, T. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 639–664.Google Scholar
Frericks, P. (2012), Gender-equalising and gender-neutral policies and their pitfalls: A typology of the gender dimensions of social policies. European Journal of Social Security, 14(1), 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P. (2013), Strengthening Market Principles in Welfare Institutions: How Hybrid Pension Systems Impact on Social-risk Spreading. Journal of Social Policy, 42, 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P. (2021, forthcoming), Welfare State Policies towards Financial Solidarity between Generations, in Daly, M., Gilbert, N., Pfau-Effinger, B. and Besharov, D. (eds.), International Handbook of Family Policy: A Life-Course Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frericks, P. and Höppner, J. (2019), Does the marketization of pensions lead to individualization? An examination of family-related pension entitlements. Policy & Politics, 47(4), 579–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P., Höppner, J. and Och, R. (2016), Institutional individualisation? The family in European social security institutions. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P. and Maier, R. (2012), European Capitalist Welfare Societies: The Challenge of Sustainability, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hufkens, T., Leventi, C., Rastrigina, O., Manios, K., Van Mechelen, N., Verbist, G., Sutherland, H. and Goedemé, T. (2016), HHoT: a new flexible Hypothetical Household Tool for tax-benefit simulations in EUROMOD (Deliverable 22.2). Leuven, FP7 InGRID project.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (2000), Faces of Inequality: Gender, Class, and Patterns of Inequalities in Different Types of Welfare States. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7(2), 127–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998), The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, No. 174.Google Scholar
Kuitto, K. (2018), Measuring Welfare Entitlement Generosity in Transitional Welfare States: The Case of Post-Communist Countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Indicators Research, 136, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S. (2003), Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S. (2019), Familienpolitik, in Obinger, H. and Schmidt, M. G. (eds.), Handbuch Sozialpolitik, Wiesbaden: Springer, 739–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepperhoff, J. and Scheele, A. (2017), Ein- und Ausschlüsse durch Arbeits- und Sozialpolitik: das Normalarbeitsverhältnis als vergeschlechtlichtes Macht und Herrschaftsverhältnis. Femina Politica - Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft, 26(1), 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (2001), The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lewis, J., Campbell, M. and Huerta, C. (2008), Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005), The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (1994), “She Has Other Duties”: Women, Citizenship and Social Security, in Baldwin, S. and Falkingham, J. (eds.), Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges to the Beveridge Model, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 31–44.Google Scholar
Lohmann, H. and Zagel, H. (2016), Family policy in comparative perspective: the concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Glendinning, C. (1994), Paying for Care in Europe: Is There A Feminist Approach?, in Hantrais, L. and Mangen, S. (eds.), Family Policy and the Welfare of Women, vol. 3, Loughborough, 52–69.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (2004), Squaring the circle? Means Testing and Individualisation in the UK and Australia. Social Policy and Society, 3, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, J. (2002), A New Social Contract for the Elderly?, in Esping-Andersen, G., Hemerijck, A., Myles, J. and Gallie, D. (eds.), Why we need a New Welfare State, Oxford: University Press, 130–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obinger, H. and Starke, P. (2015), Welfare State Transformation: Convergence and the Rise of the Supply-Side Mode, in Leibfried, S., Huber, E., Lange, M., Levy, J. D. and Stephens, J. D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 465–481.Google Scholar
Ostner, I. (2003), “Individualisation” – The Origins of the Concept and its Impact on German Social Policies. Social Policy and Society, 3(1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Socio-historical paths of the male breadwinner model – an explanation of cross-national differences. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011), Welfare state change, the strengthening of economic principles and new tensions in relation to care. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 2, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2004), De-Familialization or Re-Familialization? Trends in Income-Tested Family benefits, in Knijn, T. and Komter, A. E. (eds.), Solidarity between the sexes and the generations. Transformations in Europe. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 68–86.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, W. and Van Mechelen, N. (2015), Universalism under siege? Exploring the association between targeting, child benefits and child poverty across 26 countries. Social Science Research, 50(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed