‘Active Families’: Familization, Housing and Welfare across Generations in East Asia

Abstract

Debates around welfare change have tended to concentrate on the balance between market and state provision. Although there is increasing reference to a mixed economy of welfare, this generally signifies a greater emphasis on a third sector of voluntary/community level provision. However, the family sphere has been, and still remains, an important and dynamic source of welfare provision across changing regimes and between generations. With this as background, the article addresses three particular questions. First, how has the role of families in the welfare mix changed over time? Second, how do family 'strategies' adapt to structural changes in order to maximize collective/ individual benefits in certain areas and how do these strategies evolve over generations? Third, is such family engagement in welfare influenced by policy shifts appropriately conceptualized as 're-familization' or 'de-familization'? These issues are explored in the comparative socio-economic and cultural contexts of China and Japan and draw on qualitative research with three generations of families in Shanghai and Tokyo.

(De)familialization and (De)genderization – Competing or Complementary Perspectives in Comparative Policy Analysis?

“…In this article, I have supported Saxonberg's criticism of (de)familialization when understood (and applied) as a comparative and evaluative perspective focused on gendered aspects of welfare states. However, departing from the original definitions of (de)familialization established by the progenitors of the concept (Lister, Esping-Andersen), as well as more recent arguments put forward by researchers in the field (Leitner 2003;Izuhara and Forrest 2013;Saraceno and Keck 2011), I have argued for the need to refine (de) familialization to encompass the welfare state's role in relaxing diverse family relationships of responsibility and dependence, which are not reducible to gender issues. As such, this perspective proves particularly valuable to studying the role of the state in securing children's rights and providing for children's welfare within and outside the familyissues that would not be grasped by (de)genderization.…”

“…There is a paucity of research that would provide a wider viewpoint, though some examples do exist. The first is an analysis of the family's role in welfare done by Izuhara and Forrest (), who focus on the housing sphere in Shanghai and Tokyo and underline the need to refocus the de‐familialization perspective from ‘gender relations’ to ‘intergenerational relations’. Another significant exception is Saraceno and Keck's concept of intergenerational policy regimes (Saraceno and Keck , ).…”

Family as a Socio‐economic Actor in the Political Economies of East and South East Asian Welfare Capitalisms

“…In doing so, we focus on the role and strategies that family as a collective actor pursues in order to consolidate and mobilize the necessary (financial, emotional, symbolic) resources to protect its members. These strategies are not isolated from global and regional socio‐economic processes (see Douglass ; Yeates ) and they do not remain static (Izuhara and Forrest ; Zhong and Li ). Instead, they are dynamic and subject to power relations pertaining not only to the family itself (i.e.…”

The impacts of housing factors on deprivation in a world city: The case of Hong Kong

“…In East Asia, the widespread commodification of housing and the long-term inflation in house prices have turned housing into a platform for wealth accumulation. Housing can also influence the social participation and access of households to products and services (Izuhara & Forrest, 2013). Some empirical studies have explored the relationship between housing situation and deprivation.…”