By applying a life- course approach to protecting citizens against new social risks, the core of this strategy is to combine public investments in individuals’ human capital with measures that aim to maximize the utilisation of such skills, primarily by easing the reconcilability of work and family life. Simultaneously, there has been a shift towards the increased macroeconomic and political importance of private property assets in defining the economic well being of individuals. Facilitated by the rapid growth of property values and the financialization of housing markets prior to the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/2008, households have been encouraged and expected to take on high levels of mortgage debt with the promise of holding high levels of housing wealth in the future. At first glance, it seems that we are dealing with two conflicting policy developments here; after all, social investment relies on a strong welfare state, while the accumulation of private property wealth as a welfare resource realigns with the notion of policy retrenchment. This contribution aims to illustrate that the fault lines between the two approaches are, however, not that clear-cut. More precisely, using comparative national-level statistics for all OECD member states, it will show empirically and discuss theoretically in which contexts and under which circumstances they may instead be understood as complementing welfare readjustment strategies towards a more radical form of productive welfare capitalism.
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.