A reason for this being that housing is highly viewed as a fundamental social right in the Western culture as everyone in directly affected by housing. In addition, without access to decent housing, the rest of their ‘egalitarian programme’ would possibly crumble. Furthermore, as it is evident that not all members of society have the financial capability or position to buy their own homes, social democrats view the state as potential providers of decent and reasonably priced housing for rent; which primarily responds to the essential needs of the working …show more content…
With their major programmes primarily associated using means-tested assistance, they will typically incorporate modest universal transfers or elements of modest social-insurance plans where, according to Esping-Andersen ‘benefits cater mainly to a clientele of low income’ who are typically working class state dependants. However, there also limitations of welfare as widespread poverty is common due to a minimal de-commodifying effect. On the other hand are corporatist or conservative welfare states, known to feature forms of social insurance. This is through mandated government sponsored programmes aimed at providing economic assistance to those in need. Despite this, have less emphasis on free market efficiency and commodification. Instead, there is a strong connection between the church and the state leaving welfare programmes with minimal redistribution as they are strongly committed towards preservation of traditional family structures. Lastly, are the social-democratic welfare systems which conform to a universal programme and have an effect that decommodifies as their policies are designed to specifically achieve high levels of social equality. However, looking at these theoretical perspectives reiterates the question: how do we go beyond the means of putting a roof over people’s head through housing