Corporatism and Housing Regimes

Abstract

According to Torgersen (1978), education, health care, social security and housing are the four pillars of the welfare state. However, he describes housing as the “wobbly pillar under the welfare state” because to a far greater degree than education, health care and social security, housing is a market product. When examining welfare, the equivocal position of housing between state and market leads welfare researchers to focus on one or more of the other pillars (Torgersen, 1987, p 117; Wilensky, 1975, pp. 7–9). Because housing straddles both state and market, it is probable that vested market interests are more prominent in housing than in other welfare sectors. For this reason the housing market is likely to reflect the power balance between different interest groups particularly clearly, especially in comparison with other important welfare sectors where the market still plays a much more limited role. The market dependency of housing therefore makes it especially interesting for the study of power in welfare research. In this article I discuss the place of housing in the welfare system, emphasizing the dimension of power. I begin with a survey of the difference between integrated rental markets and dualist rental systems. This is followed by an examination of Esping‐Andersen's thesis presented in Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism(1990), focusing on his concept of regime and his application of corporatist theory to his welfare regime typology. My examination points to a clear connection between countries with an integrated rental housing market and countries viewed by leading corporatist theorists as classic examples of society with a corporatist power structure.