老人扶養における家族と共同体

ラスレット仮説の批判的検討

抄録

　According to the knowledge of historical demography, Laslett has claimed that the more dispersed the nuclear family was and the more married people leaving the parental, the less kinship support an individual would receive. In that case the more important role collectivity support played and it would be an origin of welfare state. This is true not only of England but also of Scandinavia, he said.
　This paper will clarify that it is not true of Sweden.
　First, I amend Laslett's assertion that Sweden had no kinship support. Sweden had a retirement contract system until the 1910s. By this contract, the younger supported the elderly in return for an inheritance. Many contracts were also made between unrelated persons. They were supports between different families living in the same household. According to Laslett's definition of kinship as a blood relationship, it can be said that there was no kinship support. But it hinders us from evaluating the support in the same household. I revise his hypothesis by changing "kinship support" to "family-community support" grounded on "Hausgemeinschaft" of Mitterauer.
　Second, I examine Laslett's understanding that Sweden had a nuclear family system. I clear that Sweden had more complex family than England until the 19th century.
　Third, I clarify that Laslett cannot explain Sweden in relation with England. England had more nuclear family, more married people having left the parental and not supporting the elderly, and consequently less family-community support than Sweden. But it is not England but Sweden that has more developed welfare state. Laslett's hypothesis contradicts the case, precisely because his definition of collectivity is too vast and he never thinks about people's image about family-community. My hypothesis is that because Sweden had kept family-community support later than England, paradoxically Swedish government could claim "folkhemmet".