The Change of Social Policy and the Future of Citizenship

シャカイ セイサク ノ ヘンヨウ ト シティズンシップ ノ ユクエ

カメヤマ, トシロウ

Kameyama, Toshiro

オオサカ ダイガク ダイガクイン ニンゲン カガク ケンキュウカ シャカイガク ニンゲンガク ジンルイガク ケンキュウシツ

Sociology, Anthropology and Philosophy, Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University

英語

新自由主義

「第三の道」

シティズンシップ

ベーシック・インカム

welfare state

neo-liberalism

the third way'

citizenship

basic income

This paper examines equality in social policies by introducing T.H. Marshall's concept of social citizenship. I divide social policies into three types. The first is welfare state policy. This gives priority to the social services which are provided by state. The second is neo-liberal policy. This gives priority to market. Services should be purchased in market. The third is `the third way' policy. This gives priority to civil society. The associations of civil society are expected to provide social services. In welfare state policy, social citizenship is established by expansion of social services which state provides. Neo-liberal policy criticizes social citizenship because it obstructs the function of market and equal opportunity. In `the third way' policy, social citizenship may get unstable, because various organizations (state, companies, non-profit organizations, etc.) provide social services, and the services people get will differ. Therefore, the equality in `the third way' policy may be less than welfare state policy. To keep the level of equality, `the third way' policy should adopt basic income policy. Even if the providers of welfare become plural, people could get the standard level of welfare by basic income, and social citizenship of nation-state will be kept. State will have not only the role of service provider, but also the unique role of re-distribution still in the future.

英語