Principals competidors

Esping-Andersen’s (1990) widely cited welfare regime typology, plus the addition of the southern regime type, is a useful tool to begin to consider the basic features and functions of the welfare state as these might relate to food. As noted above, his typology classifies welfare states based on three criteria: de-commodification; stratification; and the

arrangements between state, market, and family. In addition, the role of the voluntary sector is recognised as a key feature of different welfare regimes. De-familiaisation is added as a fourth classification criterion given our interest in the impact of the welfare state on gender relations. Table 4.2 aims to summarise the features of these four different welfare regime types. In the final row, the table draws connections with the overall

approach to food which is expected to exist within the welfare state for each type, based on the literature examined in this chapter. Andersen

Taking these four welfare state classification criteria in turn, it is possible to consider how they might relate to food. First, de-commodification might be understood as the extent to which individuals and households can access food, independent of the income they acquire through the labour market. Government intervention in this context might involve

subsidisation of household income or provision of food-specific in-kind benefits or food vouchers. De-commodification of food may also be done through food price controls. The level, and intended purpose, of such de-commodification of food is hypothesised to vary between different welfare regimes. Social democratic welfare regimes that have a significant universalistic component and emphasise statutory support as a matter of

citizens’ rights, tend to have a high-level of de-commodification, ensuring citizens’ welfare is less dependent on market forces. In such contexts de-commodification of food, as with other services, is likely to be high, aimed at reducing inequalities and maintaining

universal rights. By contrast, liberal welfare regimes characterised by more selective, targeted policies may de-commodify food through the provision of in-kind benefits, such as food vouchers rather than cash, as a means of restricting the spending of social security recipients. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – previously food stamps – is the primary form of social assistance provision in the USA.

The second of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) welfare state criteria is stratification. As Hoekstra (2003: 60) highlights, stratification can be both economic and social, and the ways in which the welfare state distributes services has consequences for the hierarchy in society.

In the context of housing, state intervention to affect this hierarchy is seen in the process of

housing allocation (Hoekstra, 2003). The food we eat, and where we shop for it are highly socially stratified, and yet the welfare state does not tend to intervene to affect this

stratification. Food buying and consumption are generally expected to directly reflect the economic stratification which already exists in a society.

Examples of where the welfare state might be seen to intervene to affect stratification in the context of food include the universal provision of free school meals. Such a policy might aim to reduce social hierarchy regarding food through ensuring universal access to a healthy meal regardless of the child’s family’s ability to pay. As an education policy this could also be viewed as effort to reduce the attainment gap between pupils from different economic backgrounds, and thus reduce stratification in society as a whole. By contrast, targeted, means-tested school meals policies have been argued to reproduce, rather than reduce, inequalities. In their discussion of the role of food and nutrition in state policies, Prattala et al. (2002: 106) highlight: “selectivist interventions have been criticised for not diminishing the differences between higher and lower socio-economic groups”. They refer to a study by McIntyre et al. (1999) of nine different selective children’s feeding

programmes in Canada which were found to contribute towards stigmatisation of poorer children and that, overall, the programmes reproduced rather than reduced inequalities.

Free school meals policies, as examples of state intervention in food as an issue of children’s welfare, in the two case study countries selected for this thesis study are explored in more detail in Chapter Six.

According to Esping-Andersen’s third criteria, it is the arrangement between the state, market, and the family in the provision of welfare services that is important in

distinguishing between different welfare regimes. Such arrangements are also clearly central to food and in determining what is eaten, by whom, and in what way. Broadly speaking, food has tended to be a matter of private (family and market) rather than public (state) interests. As discussed in Chapter Two, intra-household distribution – specifically from women to children and men in the family – is also important to understanding how food is allocated. Moreover, sociologists have explored the way in which women have been historically constructed as ‘gatekeepers’ of food consumption in the home (McIntosh and Zey, 1989). In this context, a gender-based analysis of welfare regime types is

valuable given that food planning, shopping and cooking tend to be the work of women within the household.

Table 4.2 Welfare state regimes and the expected role of food

Source: Author’s analysis, adapted from Esping-Andersen (1990)

Bambra (2007a) is particularly concerned with role of the welfare state in ordering gender relations and with the absence of this analysis from much established welfare regime theory. Here the concept of defamilisation is important. As discussed in Section 4.3, from this perspective preference is given to typologies which consider welfare services,

including childcare and social services, of vital importance in terms of defamilisation, as

well as cash transfers in its classification of welfare regimes (Van de Velte et al., 2014). In the context of food, it is arguable that a gender-based analysis should also consider the extent to which a welfare state’s approach to food might achieve or undermine

defamilisation.

As Daly (2012: 86) highlights, feminist scholarship on the welfare state has illustrated how:

“the boundaries between what is accepted as a public responsibility and that which is consigned to the private sphere vary across states but are closely shaped by welfare state policies within countries”.

In welfare state contexts where food is seen as a private matter, to be provided by family and market transactions, women’s ‘place in the kitchen’ is reinforced, and as such the ability of the woman to act independently of the family is limited. The duty to provide decent, healthy meals for one’s family therefore comes to be viewed largely as the responsibility of the woman within the home. By contrast, where food is recognised as a public good, defamilisation is promoted. In terms of policy examples it might be possible to consider state subsidised canteens in the workplace as a way in which the public, rather than the domestic, responsibility to ensure a well-fed workforce is recognised. Such

policies exist in Nordic countries, whose approach to service provision by the welfare state has been recognised as promoting equality (Lister, 2009).

Government intervention regarding food that is focused at the family itself, such as Healthy Start vouchers for expectant mothers and infants in the UK, while they may have an indirect effect on women’s independence, do not directly decrease the economic

importance of the family in women’s lives. Welfare policies which approach women on the basis of their family status reflect what some feminist analysis of the welfare state has identified as a highly gendered dual system in which men are socially constructed as paid workers and women as unpaid workers within the home (Sainsbury, 1993).

The role of the voluntary sector is particularly important when looking at food within the welfare state. While in the pre-welfare state context food charity was the first line of defense against destitution and starvation, it has since retained an important role regarding food. The focus and purpose of the food role of the voluntary sector varies depending on the relative strength and scope of private and state forces between regime types and within individual countries. For example in Catholic countries of southern welfare regimes such as Spain and Italy, churches and faith-based organisations providing food charity has been

a much longer established feature of the welfare state than in Nordic countries and in particular where the majority churches have been strong supporters of a comprehensive welfare state system (Pessi et al., 2009). In liberal welfare regimes, such as the UK, the voluntary sector has used food as an important vehicle for community development, emphasising the social meaning of food. It has also been used in the context of health promotion and education among deprived communities. Food growing and cooking activities, particularly in deprived urban contexts, have aimed to improve food knowledge and skills, reduce social isolation and improve community cohesion (Wreiden et al., 2007;

Caraher and Dowler, 2007). As described in Chapter Three, as the nature and extent of statutory support and provision has changed over recent decades, the role of the voluntary sector in relation to food has also had to change in order to meet changes and increases in demand for their services.