Advertisement

The German Child Poverty Discourse and its Rhetoric of Crisis

  • Maksim HuebenthalEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 20)

Abstract

Maksim Hübenthal focuses on the child poverty discourse in Germany and how it is framed by crisis rhetoric. Hübenthal concludes that child poverty can be described as a discourse that consists of four different social constructions: virtue, educational, monetary and rights poverty. Whereas the virtue poverty construction refers to crisis as economic crisis, the educational poverty construction focuses on a structural crisis. In the monetary poverty construction, crisis is seen as a capitalism crisis, and the rights poverty construction, through its critics, is linked to the refugee crisis. The diversity of the child poverty discourse in the political field is seen as an indicator for its ‘double political character’. On the one hand, different social constructions compete with each other in the struggle to define what child poverty is and how it can be solved. On the other hand, the child poverty discourse functions also as an arena, where other discourses try to gain influence in order to expand their power. Hence, there is a need to strengthen childhood and child poverty-related questions within welfare state research and to expand the analysis of political processes within child poverty research.

Keywords

Children Crises Poverty Discourse Capitalism Germany 

References

  1. Becker, I., & Hauser, R. (2009). Soziale Gerechtigkeit – ein magisches Viereck. Berlin: Edition Sigma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, D. (1973/1999). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Borchert, J., & Lessenich, S. (Eds.). (2016). Claus Offe and the critical theory of the capitalist state. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social field, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29–46). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, J., & Mayhew, E. (2010). Understanding extreme poverty in the European Union. European Journal of Homelessness, 4, 171–186.Google Scholar
  6. Butterwegge, C. (2017). Rechtfertigung, Maßnahmen und Folgen einer neoliberalen (Sozial-)Politik. In C. Butterwegge, B. Lösch, & R. Ptak (Eds.), Kritik des Neoliberalismus (3rd ed., pp. 123–200). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dierckx, D. (2010). Like a child’s game: A policy configuration approach to child poverty. In W. Vandenhole, J. Vranken, & K. de Boyser (Eds.), Why care? Children’s rights and child poverty (pp. 183–194). Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  10. do Mar Castro Varela, M., & Mecheril, P. (2016). Die Dämonisierung der Anderen. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dörre, K. (2009). Die neue Landnahme. Dynamiken und Grenzen des Finanzmarktkapitalismus. In K. Dörre, S. Lessenich, & H. Rosa (Eds.), Soziologie – Kapitalismus – Kritik (pp. 21–86). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Dullien, S. (2012). Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der Finanzmarktreform. Kurzstudie im Auftrag der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. https://bit.ly/2KDYDTc. Accessed 27 July 2018.
  13. Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). A child-centred social investment strategy. In G. Esping-Andersen, D. Gallie, A. Hemerijck, & J. Myles (Eds.), Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 26–67). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels. 03.03.2010. https://bit.ly/2lyytaf. Accessed 3 June 2018.
  15. European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions. Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. https://bit.ly/2a8XQZW. Accessed 12 May 2018.
  16. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, D. (2005). The ‘new’ imperialism: Accumulation by dispossession. Socialist Register, 40, 63–87.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Honneth, A. (2017). The idea of socialism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huebenthal, M. (2018). Soziale Konstruktionen von Kinderarmut. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  22. Huebenthal, M., & Ifland, A. (2011). Risks for children? Recent developments in early childcare policy in Germany. Childhood, 18(1), 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. https://bit.ly/2qfo0Wk. Accessed 17 June 2018.
  25. Leisering, L. (2007). Gerechtigkeitsdiskurse im Umbau des deutschen Sozialstaats. In S. Empter & R. Vehrkamp (Eds.), Soziale Gerechtigkeit – eine Bestandsaufnahme (pp. 77–108). Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  26. Lister, R. (2003). Investing in the citizen-workers of the future. Social Policy and Administration, 37(5), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mierendorff, J. (2010). Kinderarmut in Deutschland. In F. Heinzel (Ed.), Kinder in Gesellschaft (pp. 79–88). Frankfurt: Grundschulverband e. V.Google Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, M. (2016). Not for profit. Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD. (2016b). Society at a glance 2016. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Olk, T. (2009). Children, generational relations and intergenerational relations. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 188–201). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  34. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ruck, M., Peterson-Badali, M., & Freeman, M. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of children’s rights. Global and multidisciplinary perspectives. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Sandermann, P. (2014). The German welfare state system and the continuity of change. In P. Sandermann (Ed.), The end of welfare as we know it? (pp. 107–125). Opladen: Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmel, G. (1908/1965). The poor. Social Problems, 13(2), 118–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swadener, B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.). (1995). Children and families ‘at promise’. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  39. UNICEF. (2012). Measuring child poverty. New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries (Innocenti Report Card No. 10). https://bit.ly/1SFtRJ1. Accessed 17 June 2018.
  40. UNICEF. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries. A comparative overview (Innocenti Report Card No. 11). https://bit.ly/1dLBRlI. Accessed 08 June 2018.
  41. UNICEF. (2014). Children of the recession. The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card No. 12). https://bit.ly/2wAJwYW. Accessed 12 June 2018.
  42. Veerman, P. (2014). The ageing of the UN convention on the rights of the child. In M. Freeman (Ed.), The future of children’s rights (pp. 16–49). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level. Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  44. Wolff, R. (2016). Capitalism’s crisis deepens. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and Psychology, Social Work Division (Social Pedagogy)Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations