Housing as a Social Right: Implications for Welfare State Theory

The article contributes to two central and interrelated discourses in welfare state theory and housing policy. One concerns the meaning of a 'right to housing' , and the other concerns the meaning of the dichotomy 'universal'–'selective' in housing policy . The right to housing is best seen as a political 'marker of concern' pointing out housing as an area for welfare state policy. The more precise meaning of the idea is always defined socially, in a specific national context of relations between state, citizen, and markets in housing provision. Two alternative interpretations of a right to housing are suggested, each related to a certain logic of housing provision. In a selective housing policy, the state provides a 'protected' complement to the general housing market, and the right to housing implies some legalistic minimum rights for households of lesser means. In a universal housing policy, the state provides correctives to the general housing market in order to make housing available to all types of households, and the right to housing is best seen as a social right in Marshall's meaning of an obligation of the state towards society as a whole. The concepts of 'universal' and 'selective' may be applied to either the political discourse or the social outcome of policies. Furthermore, they may refer to different political levels (e.g. welfare state level, sector level, and policy instrument level). If the dichotomy is not specified in those two respects, the distinction between a universal and a selective policy will always be seriously blurred.     

Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice

The paper contrasts the liberal conception of democracy as the aggregation of individual preferences with the deliberative conception of democracy as a process of open discussion leading to an agreed judgement on policy. Social choice theory has identified problems - the arbitrariness of decision rules, vulnerability to strategic voting - which are often held to undermine democratic ideals. Contrary to common opinion, I argue that deliberative democracy is less vulnerable to these difficulties than liberal democracy. The process of discussion tends to produce sets of policy preferences that are 'single peaked'; and within a deliberative setting it may be possible to vary the decision rule according to the nature of the issue to be decided.     

The Politics of Social Welfare Reform in Urban China: Social Welfare Preferences and Reform Policies

China’s social welfare reform since the mid-1980s has been characterized as incremental and fragmented in three dimensions—social insurance, privatization, and targeting. This paper attempts to explore the micro-foundation of China’s urban social welfare reform by examining the diverse social welfare preferences and the cleavages among societal groups. It argues that the diversity of the societal groups’ preferences for social welfare has given rise to two lines of cleavage in urban China with respect to social welfare—between state sector and non-state sector employees and between labor market insiders and outsiders. The Chinese authoritarian regime’s political priority—economic growth with social stability—has induced the government to accommodate public social welfare preferences in social welfare policies. Therefore, the three dimensions of Chinese social welfare reform policies since the mid-1980s reflect and respond to the social cleavages derived from societal groups’ different preferences for social welfare.     

和谐世界理念与人类文明发展道路的理性抉择

作为一种现代文化理念,和谐世界理念根植于中国五千年的优秀文化,具有鲜明的中国特色,但它又超越了民族的界限和本土意识,是对当前人类文明发展现状的深刻反思和各种现实问题的自觉回应,具有鲜明的国际视野和全球意识。它也因此成为符合当今时代发展要求的新型国际文化理念,成为维护全球持久和平与共同发展的基点。相对于西方霸权思维下的各种文化理论和文明观,和谐世界理念将是人类文明未来发展道路的理性抉择。     

Democracy,the Market,and the Logic of Social Choice

This article compares the types of knowledge democracy and the market require to rationally allocate resources. I argue that high levels of public ignorance and voters’ inability to compare the effects of different parties’ policies make it difficult for parties and elections to rationally allocate resources. Markets mitigate these problems because the simultaneous existence of multiple firms’ products facilitates comparisons that mimic the conditions of scientific experimentation. The economy of knowledge involved in such comparisons indicates there are epistemic advantages to using firms and markets, instead of political parties and elections, to allocate scarce resources. However, in contrast to arguments that markets merely provide better information than political decisions, I argue markets’ epistemic advantages are derived from the way they facilitate comparisons that minimize decision makers’ need for knowledge or understanding.     

Corbynism: Social Democracy in a New Left Garb

This article traces some of the rhetoric flowing from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party to the New Left, a political and intellectual movement in the UK which rose up to challenge the Stalinisation of socialism. These New Left lineages appear most clearly in the value denoted by both movements toward extra‐parliamentary politics. Indeed, the work of the New Left intellectual Ralph Miliband considers this factor to be a criterion by which we can assess the extent to which Corbyn’s party has surpassed the traditional ‘Labourist’ mould. By going beyond the movement’s early rhetoric, I show that it hasn’t. Instead, I present evidence that Corbyn’s Labour is a deeply social democratic one. The article offers an explanation for this assessment based on comparison of the contexts from which both the New Left and Corbynism emerged, and outlines an analytical path for future scholarship that emphasises continuity as well as change, and wards against ideological bias.     

Democracy as a Tragic Regime: Democracy and its Cancellation

Abstract

To see "democracy as a tragic regime", as Cornelius Castoriadis did, is to recognize the ever-present risk of democracy's cancellation, but it also means to emphasize the anti-democratic nature of such cancellation, thus its incompatibility with democracy. In the context of this understanding of democracy, the article takes the political to consist of those relations among people and among institutions within the polis, which aim at deciding the polis' fate. It takes the social to be those relations among people and among institutions within the polis, to whom such decisions about the polis' fate apply and whom they create. If democracy is understood as tension between the two, then the relation between those who decide and those who are the subject of the decision is never entirely pacified - hence, always contested and in need of specification. Using the examples of the state of exception and totalitarianism (temporary and permanent self-cancellation), the article argues that these situations are outside a linear continuation with the democratic phenomenon and are due to a displacement, which is akin to the hubristic displacement.