著者

居城 舜子

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.3, pp.19-31, 2007-10-20

---

As a means by which the countries in Europe and North America will cancel the gender pay gap after the 1980s, the principle of equal pay for equal work or for work of equal value, in other words, the pay equity strategy (PE) has been adopted. However, several researchers have redefined this strategy in recent years. This paper aims at considering the process and background of deployment of PE strategy and the meaning of this redefinition and including the implication to Japan. All the EU Member States already prohibit direct/indirect discrimination based on sex by legislation, They consider of wage differentials which are not justified by the objective base as wage discrimination, and equal work or the same value labor equal pay is applied. The state law which specified PE has been introduced in many states of the United States and Canada is introduced. However, the question and the objection are taken out to the effect of PE strategy based on the job evaluation system (JES) which is a means to measure the equal value in Europe and North America by expansion of deregulation of the labor market in the 90s, and the trial which pursues the new possibility of PE strategy has appeared. The one is a measure of Canada or ILO which strengthens the law about the existing PE and raises the effectiveness of PE strategy. Not only the measure against wage discrimination but the opinion of Hartmann who emphasizes various strategies based on the gender discriminating analysis incorporating housekeeping, child-rearing and a life cycle has appeared. In recent years, Jill Rubery has proposed that attention should be paid to workplace environment, a wage structure and many factors that affect indirect discrimination Gender Mainstreamed Analysis of Pay Gaps. Rubery perceives the difference in the wage structure between each country, and analyzes their differences and GPG. Consequently, it became clear that the difference in GPG and a female wage level are influenced by the difference among many elements which determines the structure of wages, such as labor agreement, the minimum wage system, and a salary system. Therefore, it is inadequate just to carry out legislation, regulation, and surveillance, and a measure to the element which determines the wage structure of each country is needed. In Japan, the enactment of PE is still a subject. Since many researchers point out that gender discrimination remains strongly entrenched in the workplace, gender-specific measures are still important. Furthermore, we should also observe the structure of wages as a reduction measure of gender pay gap from now on so that Rubery may suggest. A minimum wage level (the percentage to an average-wages level is 36.5%) in Japan is quite low as compared with Western countries. The level of a minimum wage has not gone up but the inequality of wages is expanded. As the part-time worker of less than 115% of wages of a minimum wage frame has reached 28% of the whole part, improving of a minimum wage is also a concern of female laborers' subject. Since the scope is wide and the regulation of the minimum wage is strong, its effectiveness is high as a reduction measure of gender pay gap. More attention should be paid to the measures which pull up the minimum wage from a new viewpoint.

著者

森田 成也

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.2, pp.108-110, 2011-07-20

著者

守 健二

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.3, pp.21-33, 2009-10-20

被引用文献数

1

---

Georg von Charasoff, a Russian mathematician, was one of the first researchers to recognise that the price of production is an eigenvector of the input matrix, and to determine the rate of profit using its eigenvalue. He anticipated, at this analytical level, most of the arguments that were to be proposed later in the course of the 'transformation problem', i.e. Fundamental Marxian Theorem (FMT), convergence theorem for Marxian transformation procedure and the theorem of rising rate of profit. Moreover, he developed, prior to W. Leontief, P. Sraffa and J. v. Neumann, such ideas as the power series of the Leontief inverse, the basic and non-basic products and the duality of the growth and profit rate in the balanced growth. Although Charasoff's name and his work had been forgotten in the research of economics, his ideas were rediscovered and further developed particularly by Kei Shibata, N. Okishio and M. Morishima without any reference to Charasoff's original contribution. Maurice Potron was a French mathematician whose largely unknown contributions to economic analysis should be acknowledged as pioneering achievements. First, Potron proved de facto Fundamental Marxian Theorem 48 years earlier than Morishima, Seton and Okishio by adapting the Perron-Frobenius theorem and he proved de facto FMT by considering heterogeneous labours 65 years earlier and even more generally than Bowles and Gintis. Second, in doing so, Potron was the first to apply the Perron-Frobenius theorem to economics; third, he laid the foundations of input-output table long before Leontief by calculating input coefficients for some products. And finally, Potron articulated and proved the socalled Hawkins-Simon condition. Furthermore, a comparison between Charasoff's and Potron's treatment of FMT provides us with some insights into the role of mathematics in economic thoughts. Both mathematicians devoted themselves to economic research, and at last they could reach comparable results concerning price determination and especially FMT by using the concepts of eigenvectors and eigenvalues. They had, however, quite different ideological backgrounds, and correspondingly they took quite different positions on normative issues in the face of the so-called social problems around the turn of the 19^<th> to the 20^<th> century where the impoverishment of the working class was increasingly serious. Starting from the FMT, the existence of profit and, equivalently, the execution of surplus labour was condemned by Charasoff from the Marxian or 'human' viewpoint of economizing of living labour. Based on the same FMT, Potron affirmed surplus labour and therefore profit as the condition that enabled and stabilised the compatibility of just price and just wage, i.e. those two principles of justice which were thought to incorporate the Roman Catholic position of reconciling class interests. Both mathematicians and their economic research exemplified a limit to mathematical reasoning in economics in that FMT just as mathematical propositions in general cannot justify any specific normative assertion.

著者

大屋 定晴

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, no.2, pp.43-55, 2013-07-20

---

In 2011, global mass protests emerged, such as Occupy Wall Street movement. This paper considers how we can locate American anti-capitalist movements within the global justice movement. Since the protest against the 1999 WTO Ministerial Conference, the movements against neoliberal globalization have extended with a great variety, involving anarchists/autonomists. The latter's characteristics are symbolized by "Direct Action" or "horizontalism". Contemporary anarchist discourses (David Graeber, Marina Sitrin, and Massimo de Angelis) and Postmodern Marxism (Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri) have diffused, and we can see their influence on the Occupy movements in the United States. But the global justice movement subsumes the other oppositional wings; NGOs, some Marxist trends, popular education movements in Latin America, etc. Above all, according to Graber, "Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy" and "[a] narchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice". How then can we understand the relation between the anarchist's "ethics" and the contemporary Marxist's "theory"? How can we relate anarchist-autonomist views with logics of Marxists who have participated in the global justice movement, such as David Harvey and Samir Amin? Starting from this problem, we can derive five points to consider. 1. How to understand the "outside" of capital - Anarchists and Postmodern Marxists emphasize the creation of "outside" of capital. They suggest somewhat spontaneous emergence of the "common", the "outside", as a result of historical transition from industrial to biopolitical economy (Hardt and Negri), or as a process of "value struggles" (De Angelis). But Marxists propose the analysis of conditions of that emergence. Besides theorizing about capital accumulation/circulation process, theories of "co-evolutionary process" (Harvey) and "under-determination" (Amin) are attempts to study the non-economic conditions of "outside" creation. 2. Imperialism - Hardt and Negri regard the concept of "imperialism" as outdated, and De Angelis underestimates it. On the contrary, Harvey and Amin defend its contemporary importance. This opposition is based on the different interpretation of capitalist time-space. Marxists in question focus on the geographical agglomerations of capitalist activities, while Postmodern Marxists and anarchists emphasize the flattening "space" of capital. 3. State - Direct Action's discourses include the equation of state with capital. Hardt and Negri also identify the "Empire" with capitalistic domination, although considering the "nation-state" as obsolesced. Amin and Harvey oppose these opinions, because they consider the state as an institutional place/space where the capital accumulation process relates to, and collides against, the "co-evolutionary process" or "under-determination". So the "territorial logic of power" in states can hinder the demands of capitalist power. 4. Structural dilemma in social movement's organization - Occupy Wall Street tried to become a hallmark of participatory and democratic decision-making. This "horizontalism" could get Marxists consent. However, Harvey is cautious about a "fetishism of organizational form". Because we need "general rules" to resolve problems at wider scale, progressive anti-capitalist movements must accept hierarchical structures. 5. Position of intellectuals - Contemporary social movements include self-education processes. This poses the question about the position of intellectuals. Anarchists and autonomists condemn the leadership of intellectuals as a justification of hierarchical organization. But Marxists emphasize the importance of theoretical activities to contribute the revolutionary project. The construction of horizontal-dialogical relationship and the intervention of critical educator constitute what I call the "structural dilemma of popular education", because of which Paulo Freire proposed the "theory of dialogical action". Direct Action's discourses emphasize one characteristic of contemporary social movements: participatory direct democracy. We need more inclusive understanding of global activities of capital and the counter-movements. Discourses from Marxism, popular education and anarchism, must converge to envisage the perspective of global justice movement.

著者

櫛田 豊

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.1, pp.78-80, 2015-04-20

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.47, no.2, pp.89-100, 2010-07-20

---

Nobuo OKISHIO (1927-2003) is famous as one of pioneers in the introduction of mathematical model analysis into Marxian economics. However, there is no common understanding about what is the essence of Okishio's economics. The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical and methodological features of Okishio's economics through investigation of his works concerning the principles of capitalism. Naturally this task involves a critical review of some aspects in its accomplishments. Okishio's theory of the general principles of capitalism consists of four parts: reproduction structure, wage-price relation, short-term equilibrium, and capital accumulation. These four parts are further divided into two groups. The first two parts analyze the objective structure of capitalist production by Leontief type input-output models. The latter two parts deal with the mechanism which keeps the fluctuation of real wage rate within a certain range through business cycle. Here Okishio adopts the framework of Keynes-Harrod type macro model which presupposes the independence of the demand for investment. These four parts are mutually connected and each presupposes others. As a whole, they constitute a theoretical system explaining the reproduction of capitalist economy. His description of the reproduction of capitalist relations is completed through the whole of these four parts. Starting from the relation between physical quantities and labor hour, he critically and rigorously reconstructed Marx's theory of value and exploitation. By clarifying the concept of surplus labor, he succeeded to show internal linkage between categories in the world of commodity exchange and objective structure of reproduction. At the same time it is also possible to regard Okishio as one of the most penetrating internal critics of Marx's value theory. On the problem of wage-price relation, he elucidated the law of the uniform profit rate caused by the change of technology and real wage. This analysis is based on the assumption that the choice of technique by capitalists follows the cost-minimizing principle. Beyond the analysis of objective structure of capitalist economy, Okishio tried to build a coherent theory of business cycle as the process of cumulative disequilibrium by clarifying the peculiarity of the decision-making of capitalists concerning production, employment and investment. Considering that many Marxian economists had been indifferent to the problem of how individual capitalist behaved, Okishio's attempt was certainly a great challenge. However, his theory on this matter is unsatisfactory on several counts. His characterization of capitalist's supply behavior does not correspond to his formal model. His analysis of business cycle lacks explanation of the mechanism preventing the perpetuation of cumulative disequilibrium. In spite of Okishio's exceptional talent and passion, his endeavors to incorporate the theory of individual choice and behavior into the explanation of reproduction of capitalism did not reach the goal. Thus Okishio's economics has left us a difficult problem to combine structural and behavioral analysis into single coherent theoretical framework.

著者

吉村 信之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.4, pp.78-89, 2005-01-20

---

The aim of this paper reconsiders Marx's concept of Money-Dealing Capital (Geldhandlungskapital) in his work Das Kapital. Money-Dealing capital is analyzed only a few small Chapter XIX. But the importance in genesis of credit system has great weight. This paper clarifies; (1)money-Dearing Trade plays a important rule in formation of credit system, (2)pits theoretical range is broad, which implies analysis of contemporary capitalism. In Marxian Economics, the Credit System has been discussed with two factors. In his "Capital" vol.III, Marx analyzes Credit System. Marx says in Chapter XIV, "Credit and Fictitious Capital", in one place, "Just as these mutual advances of producers and merchants make up the real foundation of credit, so does the instrument of their circulation, the bill of exchange, form the basis of credit-money paper, of bank-notes, etc." (Capital, Vol.III, 1958, Progress Publishers, pp.401-403). But he also says like this, "The other side of credit system is connected with the development of money-dealing, which, of course, keep step under capitalist production the development of dealing in commodity…. The Other side of Credit System-the Management of Interest-bearing Capital, or Money Capital, develops alongside this Money-Dealing as a special Function of Money-Dealers" (op.cit., p.402). Most of studies-including Theory of Kozo Uno, who is a Japanese Marxian economist-place important point the former factor-the bill of exchange is the basis of bank credit. But we point out the importance of the latter factor, especially Money-Dealing trade-not autonomous money-Dealing Capital which Marx thought-in the Credit System. To revise the concept of money-Dealing Capital, and to focus vital standpoint money-Dealing trade and money-Dearing cost in banking occupation or merchant trade, Marxcian Credit Theory will have a more effective analysis to the Capitalistic Crisis and, further more, contemporary currency system.

著者

田中 英明

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, no.4, pp.45-57, 2006

---

The main function of the capitalist credit system is to create additional purchasing power in advance of future reflux of money, that is, credit creation. Commercial credit is the most fundamental form of credit creation, but it has the restrictions by individual situations, such as the sum of money due, the terms of payment and the acceptability of a bill. Banking credit is the capitalist social mechanism that overcomes the limitations of commercial credit, and realizes constant and overall credit creation. An individual bank, however, will be exposed to liquidity risk as well as credit risk, by responding to various requests based on many individual situations. This paper shows that the liquidity risk of banking credit is not actualized under the following conditions. 1) The banking system which has the mechanism of bill clearing and settlement, and of inter-bank lending or rediscount, is systematized. 2) The banking system is carrying out inclusion of the whole social reproductive process. 3) The social reproductive process is smooth and favorable. Under the conditions, bank liabilities, banknotes and deposits, which banks create in the course of bill discounting, circulate as means of purchase and payment, achieving the function as reserve that idle money has accomplished.

著者

井村 喜代子

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, no.3, pp.94-96, 2006-10-20

著者

岡本 英男

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.45, no.3, pp.108-110, 2008-10-20

著者

吉田 暁

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.45, no.2, pp.15-25, 2008-07-20

---

I have advocated the endogeneity of money supply following the views of M. Nishikawa and J. Itakura as well as those of N. Kalldor and B. J. Moor. As Moor appropriately wrote, "Currently the standard paradigm, especially in the United States, treats the central bank as determining the money base and thence the money stock. / Modern monetary theory has inherited an approach to money that was more appropriate in a world where money was a commodity, usually gold or silver, without fully recognizing the fundamental differences between commodity and credit money." These views, however, have not been widely accepted, especially among Japanese Marxian economists. Some of them have criticized the endogenous money supply theory. This article is a counter-criticism of some most criticizing arguments, mainly those of professor H. Noda and professor T. Itoh Marxian economists quite often express their views based on what Marx said, especially in "The Capital". Marx introduced capitalistic money through the logical developments of the value form, and said that gold would become the main material of money due to its physical characteristics. Then, it is not strange that their views on credit money are based on gold. They have regarded that the gold convertibility is the essence of credit money. They do not attach greater importance to the causes of issuance or withdrawal of credit money, that is, the connection between the supply of credit and the supply of money. In the modern world gold as money does not exist. But they tacitly regard fiat money as a replacement of gold, in other word, exogenous money. Another point I stressed in this article is that those who are severely critical to the endogenous money supply theory misunderstand Marx's logical way of writing. In "The Capital" vol. 1 and 2, there are no credit systems, no credit money. There is only commodity money (gold) introduced at the money theory (vol. 1). At the reproduction charts (vol. 2), his premise is each capitalist has a certain amount of money which is needed for the purchase of materials and the payment of wages etc. Credit system and credit money are the problems of vol. 3, and unfortunately Marx could not complete the credit theory. But some of those who criticize the endogenous money supply theory quote from vol. 1 or 2 where, actually, only commodity money (gold) exists. I also stressed that Phillips-type credit creation theory (multiplier theory)is not valid, especially in the world of credit money. Revival of Macleod or Hahn=Schumpeter type theory is very important. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are not money supply control, but money market interest rates control that affects the public demand of funds. The starting points of the credit creation are loans of banks to firms and household by crediting to their deposit accounts. At this point banks do not need surplus money. Monies are created by the action of banks, that is Macleod-type credit creation. When the cash demand increases, central banks should accommodate. If a central bank worries about the level of the economic expansion and the increase of prices, it can affect demand of funds and then affect prices by interest rates control policy. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are money market interest rates control. Lastly, I stressed the importance of the independence of central banks. Some people might question that the central bank independence is against the democratic procedures of policy determination. But, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the monetary policy and other policies of the governments. While monetary policies are executed through financial transactions in the market, other governmental policies are executed as an exercise of administrative powers.

著者

野下 保利

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.45, no.2, pp.36-48, 2008-07-20

---

The globalization has two aspects, i. e., the globalization of the real sector and the globalization of the financial sector. It should be noteworthy that the globalization of the real sector has been led by the globalization of the financial sector, i. e., the financial globalization. In today's global economy, the volume of the world financial transactions led by investors such as hedge funds exceeds that of the world trade and world production considerably. The capital movements that seek to earn capital gains over the world financial markets require most of businesses to enhance capital efficiency and to reduce cost thoroughly. Further, this kind of capital movements urges many countries to reform their social and economic institutions, which aim to materialize the securitization of all the assets that create cash flows. Now, the capital movements self-proliferating in world financial markets seem to make the decisions what to invest and how to reform all over the world. After Wicksell, the political economists such as Hilferding and Keynes in the early twentieth century had disputed about the economic system led by new rising capital movements using financial assets to make money. While Hilferding conceptualized that new capital movement as Financial Capital, Keynes almost recognized that the economy of those days was led by Financial Capital and expounded the working of the economy by using the framework of Monetary Equilibrium. Under the economy led by Financial Capital, production and employment must be adjusted to Monetary Equilibrium, i. e., the equilibrium of all returns of capital assets with financial assets. As a result, the causal relationship between the real sector and the financial sector is reversed and is opposite to that of the classical schools. Both concepts of Financial Capital and Monetary Equilibrium are indispensable to analyze the relationship between the real sector and the financial sector in modern economy. The importance of both concepts, however, has not been recognized sufficiently in economic literatures, and the definitions of both concepts have not been clear. The modern economy cannot be analyzed systematically without both concepts. Because we do not know who makes the decisions to select and invest if Financial Capital is not defined clearly and we cannot explain how the economy with financial assets work if Monetary Equilibrium is not precisely understood. In this sense, both concepts of Financial Capital and Monetary Equilibrium should be defined more clearly. This paper examines Hilferding's concept of Financial Capital and Keynes' de facto recognition about Financial Capital to redefines the concept of Financial Capital. Then, after evaluating Keynes' concept of Monetary Equilibrium, this paper reinterpret the concept of Monetary Equilibrium with Financial Capital to get the new perspective to integrating the relationship between the real sector and the financial sector in modern economy. Based on this new perspective, Keynesian (neo-Wicksellian) and neo-Walrasian macroeconomics after WW II are examined critically. Both macroeconomics cannot specify economic agents or capital movements that lead modern economy mainly. Therefore, they have to make ad hock assumptions about the main variables such as asset valuations and investment decision and the others. Finally, investigating Post Keynesian and Marxian approach to the modern economy, this paper show that integrating Post Keynesian analysis of Monetary Equilibrium with Marxian analysis on financial systems would be one of the effective approaches to analyze the modern economy led by Financial Capital systematically. If Financial Capital will continue to proliferate all over the world from now on, we have to integrate Post Keynesian macroeconomics perspective with Marxian analysis on the capitalist financial structures to understand the process and the effect of the globalization.

著者

斉藤 美彦

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.3, pp.93-95, 2007-10-20

著者

紺井 博則 山田 喜志夫 吉田 真広 秋山 誠一

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.3, pp.101-103, 2009-10-20

著者

建部 正義

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.4, pp.113-115, 2012-01-20

著者

村岡 到

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.2, pp.32-42, 2012-07-20

---

I created a word 'income of the right to live' in 1999. I have an original idea before basic income in trend. There is a process to reconsider theoretically 'the restoration of Socialism' since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 and to get legal perspective to reach it. "The Socialist Calculation Debate" spread internationally in 1920s must be learned. Anti-Socialist Ludwig Mises said labor and distribution are separated in the Socialism. Apart from his recognition, that must be used. I think humans have a right to live from birth. Also it was cleared economy could not be operated by "the elimination of price law" Karl Marx said. Economic calculation, that need to value products, and 'the disclosure of information' were needed. An Austrian jurist Anton Menger said the right to live was the cores of Socialism, also the Weimar Constitution. Marxists were hostile to it because they opposed law. They should overcome that limit. The cores of 'the income of the right to live' are (1) to realize the right and (2) to link to eliminate relation between "wage labor and capital". Commoditized labor-power must be eliminated to overcome a capitalist economy. Those embodiments are to realize that. Benefit of it is set up a hundred thousand yen per month for each person (except child and old). 'The Employment tax' is proposed. Capitalists pay the tax which is the same amount of benefit to states from labor's wages. Labors get the rest by capitalists andbenefit by states. This tax covers over half of financial resources. The rest are covered by other tax which made by tax reform. Finally, possibilities of it are argued. There is an opinion "social-welfare measures could be cut, if basic income were established." That is wrong. 'The income of the right to live' and social-welfare measures could coexist.

著者

渡辺 雅男

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.2, pp.3-14, 2004-07-20

---

The welfare state, which was one of the major characteristics of the "Golden Age" of post-war prosperity, implied more than a mere hotchpotch of various social policy measures. It embodied the universal right of citizenship, the ideas of social justice and the moral post-war reconstruction as well. It also achieved a unique pattern of combination of welfare production and distribution, which altogether were the genuine hallmarks of the welfare capitalism. By trying to overcome deeply embedded class-division, market nexus and political extremism or barbarism, it made every effort to facilitate the social integration and to raise the living standard of the people. It was indeed what Marx called the great, though still quite limited, civilising influence of capital. In today's global integrated open economies, however, many of the assumptions that guided post-war welfare capitalism seem no longer to sustain. New drifting waves of socalled globalization challenge traditional social policy thinking. What, then, is the prospect for the welfare capitalism as we step into the highly competitive market-oriented stage where we eventually come full circle into the original image of market capitalism. We can identify, against this general backdrop, the clear symptoms of crisis in such four fields as class, employment, gender and generational relations. It has also become evident that three distinct welfare regimes are responding to this general and historic crisis in more or less regime-specific ways. Then, not only the general crisis but also each of the regime-specific dilemmas should be shed more light on. For example, the social democratic regime, though it is of relatively universalistic nature, still suffers the substantial degree of gender segregation, with women concentrated in public sector and low-skilled jobs. The liberal regime, in contrast, tries to confront its own dilemma, economic decline and domestic unemployment, by pursuing greater market and wage flexibility, and seeking to reduce the social costs and taxation. Deepening inequality and rising poverty rates are the necessary and associated result of the low wage strategy. The conservative regime, finally, epitomizes the gendered "insider-outsider problem" in which a small, predominantly male, "insider" workforce is enjoying rather privileged working conditions with other half or growing population of "outsiders" depending either breadwinner's pay or the relatively less favourable conditions. If we pick up another characteristic of this regime, highly gendered job segregation as well, we can also find the solid fact that this welfare regime tend strongly to stress the family as the core unit of social care and the woman as full-time housewife. Both tax policies and social services in this conservative regime firmly based on the particular ideological framework, which points the family, rather than individual, as the locus and the women, rather than men, as the main providers of the care. Evidently the percentage of the elderly living with their children is quite high in this regime. Interestingly this familism, which is quite strong among the Mediterranean countries, is also shared by Japanese welfare capitalism. In this whole context, we would like to conclude that our prime target for the policy change must be the familism as the ideology of the persistent cultural and social policy framework in Japan.

著者

渡辺 雅男

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.2, pp.3-14, 2004

---

The welfare state, which was one of the major characteristics of the "Golden Age" of post-war prosperity, implied more than a mere hotchpotch of various social policy measures. It embodied the universal right of citizenship, the ideas of social justice and the moral post-war reconstruction as well. It also achieved a unique pattern of combination of welfare production and distribution, which altogether were the genuine hallmarks of the welfare capitalism. By trying to overcome deeply embedded class-division, market nexus and political extremism or barbarism, it made every effort to facilitate the social integration and to raise the living standard of the people. It was indeed what Marx called the great, though still quite limited, civilising influence of capital. In today's global integrated open economies, however, many of the assumptions that guided post-war welfare capitalism seem no longer to sustain. New drifting waves of socalled globalization challenge traditional social policy thinking. What, then, is the prospect for the welfare capitalism as we step into the highly competitive market-oriented stage where we eventually come full circle into the original image of market capitalism. We can identify, against this general backdrop, the clear symptoms of crisis in such four fields as class, employment, gender and generational relations. It has also become evident that three distinct welfare regimes are responding to this general and historic crisis in more or less regime-specific ways. Then, not only the general crisis but also each of the regime-specific dilemmas should be shed more light on. For example, the social democratic regime, though it is of relatively universalistic nature, still suffers the substantial degree of gender segregation, with women concentrated in public sector and low-skilled jobs. The liberal regime, in contrast, tries to confront its own dilemma, economic decline and domestic unemployment, by pursuing greater market and wage flexibility, and seeking to reduce the social costs and taxation. Deepening inequality and rising poverty rates are the necessary and associated result of the low wage strategy. The conservative regime, finally, epitomizes the gendered "insider-outsider problem" in which a small, predominantly male, "insider" workforce is enjoying rather privileged working conditions with other half or growing population of "outsiders" depending either breadwinner's pay or the relatively less favourable conditions. If we pick up another characteristic of this regime, highly gendered job segregation as well, we can also find the solid fact that this welfare regime tend strongly to stress the family as the core unit of social care and the woman as full-time housewife. Both tax policies and social services in this conservative regime firmly based on the particular ideological framework, which points the family, rather than individual, as the locus and the women, rather than men, as the main providers of the care. Evidently the percentage of the elderly living with their children is quite high in this regime. Interestingly this familism, which is quite strong among the Mediterranean countries, is also shared by Japanese welfare capitalism. In this whole context, we would like to conclude that our prime target for the policy change must be the familism as the ideology of the persistent cultural and social policy framework in Japan.

著者

藤森 頼明

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.1, pp.101-104, 2009-04-20