IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v31y2010i5p539-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisioning comparative welfare state studies: an ‘indigenous dimension’

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Humpage

Abstract

Although welfare states have been categorised according to a wide but never conclusive range of dimensions, little attention has been paid to the specific forms of recognitive justice that influence the development of the welfare state, particularly in countries where internally colonised indigenous peoples not only constitute a disproportionate number of welfare recipients, but also hold additional rights to those associated with citizenship. Socio-economic disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples are considerable in ‘liberal’ welfare states where significant recognition of indigenous rights has been made and where indigenous peoples now play a significant role in delivering social provision. Such disparities are narrower in the ‘social democratic’ welfare states, such as Norway, Sweden and Finland (where Sami people live), which have focused largely on the application of more universalistic social rights but have provided little space for indigenous-focused social provision. Uncertainty thus remains about the best mix of recognition and redistribution needed to produce good outcomes for indigenous peoples in terms of both welfare and greater indigenous autonomy and control. Drawing on the cases of New Zealand and Australia, this article proposes a framework for examining different welfare states that aims to shed some light on this critical issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Humpage, 2010. "Revisioning comparative welfare state studies: an ‘indigenous dimension’," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 539-557.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:31:y:2010:i:5:p:539-557
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2010.495902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2010.495902
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2010.495902?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:31:y:2010:i:5:p:539-557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.