Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

Abstract

The aim of this article is to articulate the concepts of familialism and defamilialization as well as their indicators to assess whether and how welfare states, or regimes, differ not only in the degree to which they are defamilialized but also in the specific familialism form. In other words, it assesses whether family responsibility in a given area (and its gender dimension) is only assumed without public policy support or, on the contrary, whether it is actively enforced by laws or supported by income transfers and time allocation. The same diversification also exists for the opposite concept, defamilialization, which may happen through positive, direct or indirect policy interventions or because of the lack of such interventions, encouraging recourse to the market. The article shows that when considering these distinctions in the analyses, the profiles of countries that are usually generically described as ‘familialistic welfare states’, such as Italy and Spain in Europe or Japan and Korea in East Asia, and their similarities and differences partly differ from those that emerge when considering only a simplified familialism – defamilialization dichotomy, in so far both familialism and defamilialization may occur, and be combined, through distinct means, offering, therefore, also different options.

Social policies and intergenerational support in Italy and South Korea

“…Regarding welfare policies, both countries can be considered familialistic, a term indicating the assumption, on the part of the state, that families are mainly responsible for the provision of support to their dependent members (Saraceno, 2016). This assumption may be implicit, as indicated by the absence of family care services, or explicit, as stated in measures reinforcing the family caring function, such as cash transfers to carers (Leitner, 2003).…”

“…The Italian familialistic welfare model is based on state support for family care for dependent members through cash transfers and tax exemptions, with very limited provision of formal services (Saraceno, 2016). With regard to long-term care, the 'accompanying allowance' is a cash transfer providing financial support to people with disabilities.…”

“…At the country level, childcare allowances are provided to low-income families, but the level of benefits is low and, as mentioned above, the eligibility criteria exclude self-employed and informal workers. Existing tax deductions for families with children are non-refundable, thus excluding low-income households (Saraceno, 2016). Due to the low level of support provided to families, those with young children are more likely to be in poverty, especially large families sustained by a single earner working in an informal or fixed-term job (Barbieri, Cutuli, & Tosi, 2012).…”

“…Despite recent labour market reforms, Italy and Korea continue to have unemployment benefits for poorer households that are among the lowest in the OECD (2017a). Moreover, income support measures such as tax credits and cash allowances for low-income households are tied to the receipt of earnings from employment, excluding self-employed and informal sector workers from coverage (Hwang & Lee, 2012;Saraceno, 2016).…”

“…Italy and Korea are familialistic societies, where responsibility for financial and care support is predominantly assigned to families rather than to the state or the market (Saraceno, 2016). In both countries, family members rely strongly upon one another for financial support and informal care.…”