透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.87.209.162
  • 期刊

Historical Origin of Welfare Debate in Post-Keynesian Era: The Question of the Underclass and Citizenship

後凱恩斯時代社會福利論戰的歷史起源:有關低劣階級和公民地位的問題

摘要


為何在當代有關福利提供與輸送的論戰中,公民地位(或身份)的問題具有如此的重要性?其主要意義又是什麼?大致上,其重要性是來自於低劣階級問題造成凱恩斯福利國家的歷史性挫敗。在這同時,在朝向後凱恩斯時代的過程中,公民地位的概念被重新界定為社會義務的問題,而不再是像過去視為個人權利。這一轉變過程的政策意涵,與其說是已經被充份理解,還不如說,多半只是被視之為當然或不相干。本文企圖對社會政策的現代發展從事一歷史性的考察,來闡述其可能的政策意涵。 本文的討論,分隔三部份。首先我們歷史地闡述當代向後凱恩斯時代過渡的趨勢,實際上是隱含在福利國家構成基礎中,經濟論述式社會政策產生危機的後果:在資本主義全球化的發展脈絡中,凱恩斯主義所深深倚賴的國家(對經濟需求的總體和社會需要/風險的社會)管理能力減弱。其次,重新詮釋凱恩斯對資本主義的道德/文化批判,不僅讓我們重新發現經濟活動與公民舉止倫理的重要關聯,且提供一分析架構,來解析1980年代興起的兩種社會政策論述:修正的經濟論述式和公民論述式的社會政策。在這架構中,公民地位的德性本質和構成問題,成為這些新論述,爭辯有關福利提供與輸送問題的主戰場。當代(特別是在美國)主要的社會福利政策主賬,包括激進市場版和中庸多元主義版的私有化政策、第三(或自願)部門理論、以及父權的國家主義策略,都可以由個別建構的公民地位理念和美好生活的界定,依序得到說明、比較和批判。

並列摘要


Why and in which sense the problem of citizenship is so much matter in current debate on welfare provisions and delivery? Its significance derives mostly from question of the underclass that contributes partly to the historical failure of Keynesian welfare state. At the same time, the notion of citizenship in transition toward post-Keynesian era is by now re-defined in terms of social obligations rather than individual rights, as it used to be. Policy implications resulting from this transformation are very often took granted or, to a great extent, as merely irrelevant, than fully understood. This paper makes a contribution to illuminate the significance from a historical investigation of modem development of social policy. Three parts are included here. Firstly, a transition to post- Keynesian social welfare will be demonstrated as the crisis effect of ”economic discourse of social policy” underlying the welfare state. That is, the decline of state capacity in both economic management of macro-demand as well as social administration of needs and risks, which is so essential to Keynesianism, resulting from globalization of capitalism. Next, reinterpreting Keynes' moral-cultural diagnosis of capitalism brings out not only essential relations between economy and ethic conduct of citizen, but also the analytic framework to dissect two discursive modes of social policy emergent in the 1980s: ”revised economic discourse” and ”civic discourse”. The nature and constituents of citizenship turns out to be at the center of debate on welfare provisions and delivery in these new discursive modes of. social policy. Finally, current welfare arguments, including ”privatization” in either market-radical or pluralist-moderate form, the ”third sector” and ”paternalist statism”, will be illustrated, compared and criticized in terms of their respective ideals of citizenship and the good life.

延伸閱讀