Dualization, stratification, liberalization, or what? An attempt to clarify the conceptual underpinnings of the dualization debate

Bibliographic Data

ID6341803
AuthorsMarius R Busemeyer (0000-0003-4085-1689, University of Konstanz), Marius Busemeyer, Achim Kemmerling (0000-0002-1001-4102, University of Erfurt, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume8
Issue2
Pages375-379
Publication date2020-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Science Research and Methods (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2049-8470 • E-ISSN: 2049-8489
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/psrm.2019.47
OpenAlexW2989339504
LanguageEN
Citations received17
References cited22

Despite its many contributions, a central problem in the dualization debate is conceptual overstretching, as we will argue in this short comment. The term “dualization” has been used to describe different processes, which are often subsumed under this heading: the rise of atypical employment, increasing labor market stratification in general, or the partial deregulation of welfare state policies and institutions. This multitude of usages weakens the utility of dualization as a theoretical concept. In the next section, we briefly look at the evolution of the dualization debate on the micro level before we proceed to the macro level. In the concluding section, we speculate about the future of dualization as a concept for describing welfare state transformations

Deregulation · Economics · Liberalization · Macro · Macroeconomics · Market economy · Multitude · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Principal (computer security · Welfare · Welfare state · Computer Science · Employment and Welfare Studies · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Social Policy and Reform Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access