The State and Urban Families, The State and Rural Families.
December 19, 2024
[Editor’s note: This is the third of four blog posts from a mini-symposium on Shelly Kreiczer-Levy’s and Baoshi Wang’s article “The Family of the City, the Family of the Country“, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 71, Issue 2, Summer 2023, Pages 328–353.]
In their fascinating article “The Family of the City; The Family of the Country” Shelly Kreiczer-Levy and Baoshi Wang explore the connection between family, geographical space and the state. They argue that the family (particularly caring responsibilities and practices) is shaped differently in urban and rural areas, and that the state plays an important role in creating, maintaining, reacting to or even causing these dissimilarities between city and country families.
The article examines three case studies: Chinese urbanization process, family farms in Israel, and abortions regulations in the United States. Each of these examples addresses different geographical areas and distinct aspects of family formation; however, grouped together they provide an overview of various spatial aspects of family formation, and different state strategies shaping the intersection of geographical location and familial roles.
The Article beautifully demonstrates two categories of state involvement in the family. The first category is disparate treatment of urban and rural families; the second category is spatially blind policies. In the first category, the state distinguishes between families based on their geographical location, thereby influencing caring responsibilities and practices. In the second category, the state applies a uniform rule to all families, but this rule has a disparate impact on city and rural families. At first glance, these categories seem to be opposites (similar v. dissimilar treatment) or at least two distinct strategies yielding different outcomes (considering or ignoring the difference between families in rural areas and city). Yet, in both categories the state plays a role in differently shaping the family. Therefore, one important contribution of this article is its demonstration that the state is not neutral. Whether using either category, the state intervenes and shapes families.
The notion that the family is not entirely a private institution and that the state plays a role in its formation is not new. The state heavily regulates many aspects of family life, such as through marriage and divorce laws, and laws governing parent-child relations. Furthermore, the employment market (which is regulated by labor law) also shapes families, particularly familial roles. However, the article enriches family law scholarship by highlighting the spatial aspect of family formation through state actions. As the article shows, even when caregiving is conducted by family members within the privacy of the family home (rather than in state institutions), it is not free from state influence. Whether directly or indirectly, through equal or disparate treatment, the state influences familial relations in both cities and rural areas. Does the state amplify or perpetuate exiting differences between families in urban and country areas? Or does the state constitute these differences? How do different families respond to state regulations? The article brilliantly sets the stage for this discussion, and these questions require further research that contextually analyzes different families in cities and rural settings. The article makes another important contribution by laying the groundwork for policy considerations regarding state regulations. The discussion of COVID-19 regulations demonstrates that the state must consider how regulations will impact different families in various spatial areas. The question, therefore, is not whether the state should treat city families and rural families the same or differently, but rather how state regulations impact different families. In other words, the question is what policy will best serve the needs and interests of different families. For example, what is the best policy during the COVID-19 pandemic that would both enable care for vulnerable family members and at the same time safeguard their health? How would such regulations influence family formation? Would they support or hinder caregiving for family members? There is no single answer that applies to all families, and context – including geographic context – must be considered. Therefore, the article emphasizes the importance of a bottom-up approach to studying the impact of state regulations on family formation in different spatial contexts. State responsibility requires that the state fosters the best family care, whether in urban or country areas (and provide state care when family care is unavailable). Any future scholarship, state policy or regulation should build upon the impressive groundwork laid by the article.