Bordering social reproduction: The welfare/immigration regimes of Quebec and Ontario in Canada

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2024-01-04 DOI:10.1177/02610183231219187
Karine Côté-Boucher, Susan Braedley
{"title":"Bordering social reproduction: The welfare/immigration regimes of Quebec and Ontario in Canada","authors":"Karine Côté-Boucher, Susan Braedley","doi":"10.1177/02610183231219187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article makes three crucial, related arguments. First, most European analyses of immigration and social welfare fail to consider how these policies intersect to shape the social reproduction of populations, instead sticking to notions of welfare chauvinism, social citizenship, and deservingness. Second, welfare/immigration analyses are usually set at the national level, but subnational comparisons can challenge tidy welfare state regime categorizations, revealing both nuance and policy opportunities. Third, a focus on social reproduction regimes that includes welfare and immigration policies reveals how jurisdictions border the extraction of social reproductive labour, with impacts on who gets in and under which conditions, and on the distribution of paid and unpaid social reproductive work within immigrant and established families in Canada. Developing our feminist border analysis, we illustrate our approach through a comparative analysis of Quebec and Ontario to show how social reproductive borders extract care labour and from whom, under diverging policy regimes.","PeriodicalId":47685,"journal":{"name":"Critical Social Policy","volume":"36 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231219187","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article makes three crucial, related arguments. First, most European analyses of immigration and social welfare fail to consider how these policies intersect to shape the social reproduction of populations, instead sticking to notions of welfare chauvinism, social citizenship, and deservingness. Second, welfare/immigration analyses are usually set at the national level, but subnational comparisons can challenge tidy welfare state regime categorizations, revealing both nuance and policy opportunities. Third, a focus on social reproduction regimes that includes welfare and immigration policies reveals how jurisdictions border the extraction of social reproductive labour, with impacts on who gets in and under which conditions, and on the distribution of paid and unpaid social reproductive work within immigrant and established families in Canada. Developing our feminist border analysis, we illustrate our approach through a comparative analysis of Quebec and Ontario to show how social reproductive borders extract care labour and from whom, under diverging policy regimes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会再生产的边界:加拿大魁北克省和安大略省的福利/移民制度
本文提出了三个重要的相关论点。首先,大多数欧洲关于移民和社会福利的分析都没有考虑到这些政策如何相互交织以形成人口的社会再生产,而是坚持福利沙文主义、社会公民权和应得性的概念。其次,福利/移民分析通常以国家层面为背景,但国家以下层面的比较可以挑战整齐划一的福利国家制度分类,揭示细微差别和政策机遇。第三,对包括福利和移民政策在内的社会再生产制度的关注,揭示了各辖区如何在边界上提取社会再生产劳动力,从而影响到谁能进入以及在何种条件下进入,并影响到有偿和无偿社会再生产工作在加拿大移民家庭和固定家庭中的分配。通过对魁北克省和安大略省的比较分析,我们发展了我们的女权主义边界分析方法,以说明在不同的政策制度下,社会生育边界是如何提取护理劳动力以及从谁那里提取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;
期刊最新文献
Distanciation as a technology of control in the UK hostile environment. Pregnant racialised migrants and the ubiquitous border: The hostile environment as a technology of stratified reproduction. Bordering social reproduction: The welfare/immigration regimes of Quebec and Ontario in Canada Diminishing returns of growth? Economic performance, needs satisfaction and ecological impacts of OECD welfare states A cure-all for energy poverty? Thinking critically about energy advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1