Sarah Hagberg
INTS 4763
Paper #1
A brief analysis of Esping-Anderson's "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" as a measurement for the commodification of labor in contemporary welfare states.
The focus of this paper is to apply the theoretical aspects of Esping Anderson's study of welfare regimes to the contemporary condition of social policy in order to measure labor commodification. In his book "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism," Esping-Anderson identifies the process of decommodification of the wage earner in relation to three theoretical typologies for welfare regimes and social policy in advanced capitalist nations. To simplify the jargon of such terminology this boils down to the following:
1) To what extent do the liberal, conservative, and social democratic regime-types allow, or desire decommodified labor?
2) How does this translate for the wage earner living within any one or combination of these regime-types?
I will commence my analysis by addressing the concept of commodification. I will then proceed to suggest that whilst it has proved to be a useful tool of analysis (such as the one presented here) it ultimately lacks human sentiment which accompanies accounts of people who rely on welfare. Furthermore, I will summarize the three theories presented and apply them to the concept of commodification. This will lead to the synthesis of themes presented and will, if my intentions are realized, provoke response to the idea of commodifying (or decommodifying) human labor.
Commodification.
Whilst reading about 'commodified labor' images of workers with
price tags and discount tickets floated through my subconscious
in much the same way one might imagine a car lot. Rows of
eager workers aiming to receive the
best price for their resources and skills while at the same time
guaranteeing they don't get passed over in favor of the more
appealing offer in the next row. Perhaps
comparing human capabilities with a car lot appears crude and
grossly dysfunctional, but the method(ology) behind such madness
will become apparent. I shall, therefore, draw upon
this analogy in order to develop an analysis of Esping-Anderson's
welfare regimes.
A commodified worker is, in simple terms, a worker with a price. On a purely micro level, the individual determines what he or she must earn in order to survive within the constraints of the cash nexus, a decision influenced by macro level factors such as the demand and price typically awarded for a particular skill or qualification. Esping-Anderson notes that "Within the market the liberal dogma of freedom appears justified: the worker can freely choose between alternative utilities, jobs, employers, and leisure trade-offs" (Esping-Anderson, 1990:36-37). Thus, in a model free market, the worker is able to make decisions freely and without negative ramifications. Conversely, it is the decommodification of the worker that Esping-Anderson aspires to as this definition of commodification implies that the market is indeed dogmatic. Furthermore, in reality the market is far from stable and is unrelenting to those unable to participate hence the observation that "labor is unable to withhold itself for long without recourse to alternative means of subsistence" (Esping-Anderson, 1990: 37).
Referring to the analogy of car lots (Esping-Anderson refers here to washing machines) commodification requires several conditions including the stability previously mentioned. This would enable the worker to obtain a fair wage from an employer in much the same way a dealer would assess a fair price to a worthy vehicle. The absence of stability in the marketplace leads to the inability of workers to exercise freedom of choice. Faced with the dilemma of an injury (think a head-gasket or deflated tires) the worker must withdraw from the marketplace to recover. But unlike a car with easily replaceable parts return to the marker may not be as simple or prompt and the worker will require an alternative means of income. The inability to work decreases choice based on the sole premise that ones skills are no longer active and thus, no longer in demand as a commodity. The employer will seek out alternative labor just as a dealer purchasing new vehicles for the lot would move right along to the cars in the next row; after all who wants a car lot of faulty or less than optimal vehicles? The worker must find a means of survival. It is within this framework the humanistic element of welfare emerges. When a worker can no longer subsist independently, what resources exist to prevent degradation? It is this dilemma which introduces the humanistic element to the analogy. A car is easily replaced without much consequence to the defunct vehicle itself. A worker, while potentially easily replaced, most certainly does experience the negative consequences negative of commodification. For example, transition to a new job may require specific, time consuming, potentially costly retraining.
Critique of the three theories of welfare.
Without verging upon the perimeter of repetition the following
summaries of the three major theories presented by
Esping-Anderson serve as the foundation for the ultimate link
with commodification. This will illustrate the extent to which
regime types with characteristics of any of the three
regime-types embrace, or berate the decommodification of
labor.
1. The Liberal approach to social policy and
welfare.
When applied to analyses of social policy the term 'liberal' is
somewhat paradoxical in context. For example the ideals of
liberalism incorporate the maximization of the free market with
little to no state (government) intervention save for purposes of
maintaining this free market. Furthermore, liberal theory assumes
all individuals are capable of market participation.
This leads to the stratification of society because the
underlying premise is for freedom of competition, and competition
produces winners and losers. The freedom to compete in the
market will contain elements of insecurity that may result in
poverty. From a liberal perspective this "is not the
fault of the system, but solely a consequence of an individual's
lack of foresight and thrift" (Esping-Anderson,
1990:42). Freedom, therefore, becomes the paradox
because the connotations of freedom seldom include images of
poverty. In terms of social policy, historically liberals
believed 'a minimum social wage would not eradicate poverty but,
indeed, actively contribute to its perpetuation"
(Esping-Anderson, 1990;35-6). Esping-Anderson argues that
is unlikely the worker was ever completely commodified but,
nevertheless, liberals advocated the cash nexus and opposed
intervention that might disturb the stratification produced by
the market (Esping-Anderson, 1990; 35-38; 62). Contemporary
liberals acknowledge the 'dilemmas of labor commodification' via
minimal social policies awarded through means testing and prior
contribution (Esping-Anderson, 1990;42). Liberal states such as
the United States, Canada and Australia view welfare in terms of
minimal assistance to allow the worker the opportunity to gain
entry back into the market should circumstances dictate a
temporary departure.
Herein lies the problem with welfare in these predominantly liberal states. For example, welfare to work programs such as the current Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program in the United States have not eliminated the numbers still claiming monetary assistance (namely Aid to Families with Dependent Children) or decreased the percentage of the population still living in poverty (as defined by the US House Committee on Ways and Means) which has remained within a approximate range of 12-18% since the 1960's (sources cited in Berrick, 1995: 5-21; Cammisa, 1998; 9). In general, liberal welfare policies have not facilitated equal entrance to compete in the market. The stigma of means testing demonstrates the perverse nature of the free market and workers in liberal societies remain heavily commodified and reliant upon the market.
2. The Conservative approach to social
policy and welfare.
Indicative of its historical beginnings the conservative approach
to social policy, welfare, and the decommodification of labor is
based upon stratification along class lines and the maintenance
of a hierarchical society. Esping-Anderson identifies three
ways conservative theory has addressed commodification.
Firstly, the patronage and clientelism of feudal societies has
transferred to the corporate world. Thus, an extension of
the notion of communal relief based traditionally around the
landowner transcends to the modern world albeit in the updated
guise of the state. Secondly, corporatist welfare
originates with the Catholic Church based upon the notion of
protection and relief as a reward for loyalty to the
church. Finally, etatist conservatism originated with the
notion of paternal-authoritarianism which sees the obligation of
the ruling class to provide for its subjects, but unlike other
theories opposes individualism and stresses protection of society
as a whole (see Esping-Anderson, 1990;38-41 for reference to the
historical aspect of conservatism). Overall, these
strands of conservatism whilst different in their main focus
advocate minimal decommodification of labor.
The state is viewed largely as a minimal interventionist with any welfare allocated firmly upholding the stratification of society or maintaining the hierarchical/patriarchal structure. For example, Germany falls closely within a conservative model of welfare based upon the system introduced by Bismarck in the 1890's and arriving today with policies formulated by the political parties with traditional Catholic and Lutheran bases. This extends to child care, an area overlooked by Esping-Anderson's study of welfare, with particular reference to the fact that the government runs a third of all day care centers and the rest being run by churches, suggestive of the maintenance of traditional patriarchal welfare (Gormley and Peters, 1992: 391). Within predoinantly conservative welfare states the government remains at the periphery of intervention but, unlike the individualistic liberal theories, does not fail to intervene to protect those who are unable to succeed in the market place through no fault of their own. The German example of childcare is included to reiterate that throughout Esping-Anderson's study, he fails to draw upon the example of children as a section of society obviously unable to compete in the market place. Whilst it may be his argument that this is a mute point (children do not really figure in a study of commodified labor), it does, however, illustrate the concept of hierarchical protection to those unable to function as commodified workers. Moreover, it is a useful comparison with liberal states such as the United States where childcare is predominantly a for-profit venture and commodified workers have to pay others to care for those not yet able to enter the market place.
3. The Social Democratic approach to social
policy and welfare.
A social democratic approach to welfare and social policy would
argue that welfare diminishes social divisions, and would oppose
means testing as criteria to receive assistance.
Furthermore, social democratic theory advocates full employment
and promotes equality including the provision of a safety net
that no one should be allowed to fall through. As with
liberalism, advocates of social democratic welfare espouse
individualism and strive to remove reliance upon family groups as
the first alternative to the market. The primary concern is
not to wait until the family is unable to provide further, but
"to preemptively socialize the costs of familyhood"
(Esping-Anderson, 1990:26). This is a direct contrast to the
conservative approach that assumes the family is a constant
variable. The decommodification of workers is a priority and is
achieved through universal and comprehensive welfare policies
with the underlying belief that 'All benefit; all are dependent;
and all will presumably feel obliged to pay"
(Esping-Anderson, 1990: 28). Of course, the reality of
fully socialized welfare programs is minimal due to the
overwhelming maintenance costs and the problems experienced by
governments that try to convince the population to pay higher
taxes in order to provide for those who do not compete in the
market place, unwillingly or not. There are, however, several
states which strive for high levels of decommodification the best
examples situated in the countries comprising Scandinavia
(Esping-Anderson, 1990). Although the data is somewhat
dated for purposes of contemporary analysis, Esping-Anderson
calculated levels of decommodification and market dependence in
eighteen industrial democracies in 1980. The results were
based upon levels of benefits received, contribution levels, and
numbers actually receiving benefits (see Esping-Anderson,
1990:48-54 for a more detailed account of the calculations
made). As expected, the figures for Norway and Sweden
illustrated high levels of decommodification parallel with the
social democratic 'regime' type and the United States and
Australia ranking amongst the lowest levels of decommodification
in line with the liberal regimes of those countries. A
liberal rebuttal might emphasize the high taxes imposed as a
consequence of such universal assistance with approximately
thirty three per cent average personal tax in Sweden versus
nineteen per cent in the United States for the years 1980-2
(Esping-Anderson, 1990: 177).
Final thoughts.
How does this translate for the average individual trying to
survive within the market place? Even in socialized welfare
states individuals still remain largely commodified particularly
if one hopes to live above and beyond mere survival.
Clearly, the policies in minimal interventionist states avoid
expensive tax burdens but do they provide the opportunity for
equal access to compete in the market? Conservative states
offer minimal assistance that alleviates the pressure placed upon
individuals when confronted with a reason to leave the market
place but make little attempt to promote 'equality' or eradicate
divisions centered around class. Social democratic states
whilst providing comprehensive welfare programs still desire
liberal or conservative forces in the market place to maintain
competition and encourage maximum output from labor. Complete
decommodification is non-existent and non-desirable in all
advanced industrial states. The question to ask, therefore,
is how far should individuals become commodified or decommodified
in order to function and live within the free market world?
The existence of diverse approaches to the study of welfare
including those presented in this analysis suggest that any
attempts to answer this question will be equally diverse.
References:
1) Berrick, J. D., _Faces of Poverty - Portraits of Women and
Children on Welfare_ (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995)
2) Cammisa, A. M., _From Rhetoric to Reform? Welfare Policy in American Politics_ (Westview Press, Boulder CO, 1998)
3) Esping-Anderson, G., _The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism_(Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1990)
4) Gormley, W. T., and Peters, B. G., "National styles of regulation:Child care in three countries," _Policy Sciences_ 25: 381-399, 1992