• 사회경제평론
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.203-237
• /
• 2018

This paper critically studies Meidner's wage-earner funds project. On the basis of this, this paper intends to create new prospects for a universal welfare regime. From the perspective of the welfare system, the funds project is a correction or supplement of the Swedish welfare system of the Swedish model centered on 'redistribution'. However, the funds project shares the ideology of Swedish model and its fundamental premise, I.e. guild socialism and labor-centrism. This paper discusses the limitations of the funds project resulting from this, especially with regard to its three purposes: equalization of property distribution, economic democracy and the correction of excess profit. It then highlights that the alternative to overcome the limitations of the funds project and the Swedish universal welfare system should be based on a new ideology and fundamental premise that is cut off from guild socialism and labor centrism. As an alternative fulfilling this, this paper focuses on theories that suggest that the Common Wealth Fund should be created and basic income should be implemented in the form of dividends as its dividend. As a result, Commons Capital Stock and the basic income as its dividend are presented as alternative prospects for the funds project.

• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.133-144
• /
• 2013

It is commonplace to refer to the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland as a distinctive and homogenous welfare regime. As far as social housing is concerned, however, the institutional heritage of the respective countries significantly frames the ways in which social housing is understood, regulated and subsidized, and, in turn, how housing regimes respond to the general challenges to the national welfare states. The paper presents a historical institutionalist approach to understanding the diversity of regime responses in the modern era characterized by increasing marketization, welfare criticism and internationalization. The aim is to provide outside readers a theoretically guided empirical insight into Scandinavian social housing policy. The paper first lines up the core of the inbuilt argument of historical institutionalism in housing policy. Secondly, it briefly introduces the distinctive ideal typical features of the five housing regimes, which reveals the first internal distinction between the universal policies of Sweden and Denmark selective policies of Iceland and Finland. The Norwegian case constitutes a transitional model from general to selective during the past quarter of a decade. The third section then concentrates on the differences between Denmark, Sweden and Norway in which social housing is, our was originally, embedded in a universal welfare policy targeting the general level of housing quality for the entire population. Differences stand out, however, between finance, ownership, regulation and governance. The historical institutional argument is, that these differences frame the way in which actors operating on the respective policy arenas can and do respond to challenges. Here, in this section we lose Norway, which de facto has come to operate in a residual manner, due to contemporary effects of the long historical heritage of home ownership. The fourth section then discusses the recent challenges of welfare criticism, internationalization and marketization to the universal models in Denmark and Sweden. Here, it is argued that the institutional differences between the Swedish model of municipal ownership and the Danish model of independent cooperative social housing associations provides different sources of resistance to the prospective dismantlement of social housing as we know it. The fifth section presents the recent Danish reform of the governance model of social housing policy in which the housing associations are conceived of as 'dialogue partners' in the local housing policy, expected to create solutions to, rather than produce problems in social housing areas. The reform testifies to the strategic ability of the Danish social housing associations to employ their historically grounded institutional relative independence of the public system.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.227-249
• /
• 2010

The purposes of this article are to criticize social services, and to consider alternative caring policies and social economic regime to cope with caring blank, in the view point of A. Gorz. According to Gorz, in the value of growth of capitalism, people who are in charge of household affairs and caring work make inroads into the wage market. At this point, as caring blank is occured, social services are emerged. These new aspects are 'Commodification and Rationalization of Private Life'. This article suggests alternative ideas to these aspects. First, universal care giver·breadwinner model, second, the dominance of eco-reason and shorter working hours.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2018

This study aims to analyse the redistributive impact of the welfare state growth in Korea after 2000s and establish whether there are people excluded from the benefits of the growth. The growth of the Korean welfare state has been achieved by universalizing welfare benefits under the social insurance-centered institutions which are the legacies of the productivist/developmental welfare regime. When it comes to redistribution impacts, the welfare state growth improved inequality among old age populations to a certain degree due to the introduction of the Basic Pension. On the other hand, welfare benefits for the working poor population has hardly been improved in spite of the growing welfare state. It can be said, therefore, that low-income working-age populations have been excluded from the growth of Korean welfare state. These groups are mostly in middle-old age, unemployed or precariously employed and half of them were female householders. The exclusion of these groups from the Korean welfare state shows that the growth of the Korean welfare state was unbalanced. To include the excluded into the Korean welfare state, it is necessary to increase non-insurance social provisions, extend the range of application of the social insurances, integrate income protection, employment service, and vocational training for the working poor, and combine universal and targeted welfare benefits.