Self-Responsibility of the “Active Social Citizen”: Different Types of the Policy Concept of “Active Social Citizenship” in Different Types of Welfare States
Self-Responsibility of the “Active Social Citizen”: Different Types of the Policy Concept of “Active Social Citizenship” in Different Types of Welfare States
复制标题
“积极社会公民”的自我责任：不同类型福利国家“积极社会公民”政策理念的不同类型
DOI：
10.1177/0002764218816803
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Pfau-Effinger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eggers;Grages;Pfau-Effinger
本文旨在回答以下研究问题：（一）欧洲福利国家在使用积极社会公民的政策概念方面有多大的不同？（B）在多大程度上可以解释福利制度类型和福利文化的差异？本文区分了两种不同类型的积极社会公民在自我责任方面的政策概念。它认为，积极的社会公民的自我责任可以由福利国家的主要作用，促进公民的自决，或由国家的次要作用，迫使公民自力更生的资金和组织自己的社会保障和服务。本文基于对三个福利国家（丹麦、英国和德国）的两个政策领域（失业和老年人长期护理政策）的跨国比较研究，分析了法律的框架、来自MISSOC（社会保障相互信息系统）的数据和二手文献。比较分析表明，各国所采用的积极社会公民政策概念的类型不同。福利制度类型的差异和福利文化的差异有助于解释这些差异。本文的创新之处在于，它提供了一个系统的分析，在不同的制度类型的福利国家概念化的“积极的社会公民身份”的公民的自我责任的方式的差异。
The article aims to answer the following research questions: (a) How far do European welfare states differ in the use of the policy concept of the active social citizen? and (b) How far is it possible to explain the differences with welfare regime types and welfare culture? The article distinguishes between two different types of the policy concept of active social citizenship with regard to self-responsibility. It argues that the active social citizen’s self-responsibility could be underpinned either by a major role of the welfare state, which promotes the citizens’ self-determination, or by a minor role of the state, which forces citizens to be self-reliant for funding and for organizing their own social security and services. The article is based on a cross-national comparative study for two policy fields (unemployment and long-term care policies for older people) in three welfare states (Denmark, England, and Germany), and analyzes legal frameworks, data from MISSOC (Mutual Information System on Social Protection) and secondary literature. The comparative analysis shows that countries differ in the type of the policy concept of active social citizenship they use. Differences in the type of welfare regime and also differences in the welfare culture contribute to an explanation of these differences. The article is innovative in that it offers a systematic analysis of the differences in the ways in which welfare states of different regime types conceptualize “active social citizenship” with regard to the citizens’ self-responsibility.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2
作者：
W. Oorschot
通讯作者：
W. Oorschot
德国社会保险的变化
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
Syukan, Syakaihosyou 62(2473)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ken'ichiro;Nishimura
通讯作者：
Nishimura
家庭主义的变体:对欧洲大陆的儿童和政治政策的历史分析
影响因子：
3
作者：
C. Ranci;E. Pavolini
通讯作者：
E. Pavolini
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
T. Rostgaard
通讯作者：
T. Rostgaard
“积极的公民身份”对伊拉斯谟学生意味着什么？
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
I. Golubeva;M.ª Elena Gómez Parra;Roberto Espejo Mohedano
通讯作者：
Roberto Espejo Mohedano