000			02979naa a2200193uu 4500
001			6122115552921
003			OSt
005			20190211161921.0
008			061221s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aVEEN, Robert Van Der _929405
245	1	0	_aPost-Productivism and Welfare States : _bA Comparative Analysis
260			_aNew York, NY : _bCambridge University Press, _cOctober 2006
520	3		_aThis article provides operational measures for comparing welfare states in terms of the concept of post-productivism, as pioneered by Goodin in this Journal, and discusses the normative relevance of such comparisons. Post-productivism holds that it is desirable to grant people a high level of personal autonomy, through the welfare state's labour-market institutions and transfer system, and maintains that on average, people would choose to make use of their autonomy by working less, hence earning less and having more free time. By contrast, existing welfare states, for example as classified in Esping-Andersen's three-way split of liberal, social-democratic and corporatist regimes, are largely ‘productivist’, as their policies try to design social rights so as ensure economic self-reliance through full-time work. The question is whether they actually succeed in doing so. With a limited dataset of thirteen OECD countries for 1993, three conditions of personal autonomy – income adequacy, temporal adequacy and absence of welfare-work conditionality – are discussed in terms of policy outputs, which can be read off from easily accessible OECD statistics. Two closely related concepts are explored: comprehensive post-productivism, measuring the extent to which welfare states approximate the ideal of personal autonomy, and restricted post-productivism, which follows from two common goals shared by all welfare states (avoidance of poverty and reduction of involuntary underemployment), and expressly focuses on the policy outputs on which the productivist and post-productivist perspectives specifically disagree: welfare-work unconditionality, voluntary underemployment and average annual hours of work per employee. After showing that ranking the thirteen cases puts the Netherlands at the top and the United States at the bottom, in conformity with Goodin's earlier work, it is shown that restricted post-productivism is not positively associated with the poverty rate, and negatively with the rate of involuntary underemployment. This finding sets the stage for our discussion of normative issues underlying a preference for either productivist or post-productivist arrangements of work and welfare. Suggestions for further research are given in the final section.
700	1		_aGROOT, Loek _929406
773	0	8	_tBritish Journal of Political Science _g36, 4, p. 593-618 _dNew York, NY : Cambridge University Press, October 2006 _xISSN 0007-1234 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20061221 _b1555^b _cNatália
998			_a20081031 _b1104^b _cZailton
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c20995 _d20995
041			_aeng