Familistic welfare capitalism is a model of national political economy prevalent in many regions in the world (Southern Europe, Latin America, and Asia), where the family plays a double role as the key provider of welfare and a key agent in the model's socio-economic and political reproduction. The article offers a new approach to the study this model by adopting an expanded concept of social reproduction to capture its historical evolution, using Greece as a case study. Our empirical analysis of austerity measures on employment and pensions demonstrates, how, in the Greek case, a crisis of social reproduction of the traditional form of familistic welfare capitalism was already underway prior to the well-known sovereign-debt crisis. And further we show how the adoption of austerity measures and pro-market reforms is deepening this crisis by severely undermining the key pillars of familial welfare security while rapidly transforming the model into a political economy of generalised insecurity.

In this article, we revisit Karl Polanyi's concept of 'oikos' in order to reconceptualize the role of the family as both a welfare provider and an economic actor in the social reproduction of East and South East Asian welfare capitalisms. Our article is structured in four parts. First, we critically review existing approaches on the characteristics of welfare capitalism in East and South East Asia. We argue that existing approaches tend to isolate family as a welfare provider and neglect how the role of the family is institutionalized as a collective actor. The second part focuses on the role of the family in the social reproduction of welfare capitalism, and explores how, in East and South East Asia, the specific conditions for family's role as an economic actor were institutionalized historically. The third part revisits Polanyi's concept of 'oikos' and how 'householding' constitutes one of the most important forms of economic action allowing us to examine the family as a socio-economic actor. In the fourth section, we provide an analysis of families' available strategies and discuss evidence related to private education expenditure, household debt and labour market income share. We conclude by highlighting the need to re-articulate the importance of family as a collective socio-economic actor that, despite recent reforms and path departures, remains at the epicentre of East and South East Asian welfare capitalisms.

No abstract

No abstract

Conditional Cash Transfer programmes (CCTs) have been at the core of the remarkable expansion of social protection in Latin America in the early twenty-first century. Our article reviews the origins of CCTs in the Social Investment (SI) approach to social policy design, explores their characteristics and traces their expansion in Latin America. It further questions whether CCTs designed under the influence of SI can generate long-term substantial improvements in social outcomes. Our analysis suggests that while CCTs have evidently produced a number of positive outputs they are not, on their own, enough to achieve the aim of reducing poverty. CCTs appear to be more effective in poverty alleviation when they are accompanied by – or form part of – a wider package of measures that enhance social and employment rights, integrating workers into the formal economy under better conditions. We conclude that unless the structural deficiencies that shape many of the Latin American welfare regimes are addressed, the potential of social investment policies, like CCTs, to combat poverty will remain limited.