Citizenship is being defined as the relationship between the state and

individuals. Historically citizenship is being inevitably linked with the state

formation. Originally citizenship was denoting residence of people within
protected walls of a city. Thus, whoever belonged to a community residing inside
the boundaries was considered a citizen. Later this term has acquired a different
meaning and the standards and definitions of citizenship have changed. There
were many reasons that have caused such changes: history proceeded with its
migrations, wars and annexation and along on its way brought new meanings to
citizenship. Such change in definition, for example, can be found in suffrage
granted to women and the nonpropertied classes. Paupers, convicts and soldiers
are another example of how political and civil rights were once a privilege of
certain classes only (Dahrendorf, 1974, p. 11).
With the introduction of mass democracy and social protection as well as
introduction of welfare state a need in the new conception that would look on the
relationship on an individual and the state appeared consequently. The norms of
citizenship, therefore, have improved with the development of state and
citizenship became a multination concept, which implies different things to
different nations (Dahrendorf, 1974, p. 12).
According to Michael Ignatieff (1995), the introduction of the welfare state can be
explained as an attempt to make citizenship a real as opposed to a purely
formal experience (Ignatieff, 1995, p. 67). The experience of World War Two has
demonstrated that that the concept has to be changed and since then the
security became of the main value for the new conception of citizenship. Civic
solidarity had to be built on the principles of presumption that the more a
citizen received from the state the more easily he would connect his private
interest to the public (Ignatieff, 1995, p. 68).
Today citizenship is more than just a detector of national identity; it also involves
an increasing range of obligations and rights. Social citizenship and the welfare
state are not concerned with borders or accounting rules, instead they define the
standard of citizenship. In fact, the importance of belonging to community has
been intensified by the welfare state. Meanwhile, social citizenship has
emphasized the relationships between citizens and the state and increased the
level of obligation owned by the state towards its citizens. This was accomplished
through the governments commitment to develop and maintain a minimum
standard of living socially accepted for all members within community. (Kolberg,
1992, p. 23) According to Marshalls definition: Citizenship requires a bond of a
different kind, a direct sense of community membership based upon loyalty to a
civilization which is common possession; it is the loyalty of free men endowed
with rights and protected by a common law(Marshall, 1950, p. 22).
Citizenship is about legitimate membership of all individual with the state,
provided that each of them accepts the duties to the state and in return expects
protection of his/her rights by the state. With the help of legal framework
citizenship allows also the development of associations created within a civil

society. Thus, citizenship doesnt only grant a legal status, but also implies
economic consequences.
There are different views and perspectives on citizenship. The communitarian
view, for example, distinguishes the loyalty and sense of community as
words associated with obligations and rights in the democratic state. (Galston,
1993, p. 43) From this perspective, community acquires the meaning of not only
solidarity, belonging, and rights, but also of loyalty and reciprocity.
The purpose of this paper is to review and describe the contemporary theories of
citizenship and to analyze their advantages and disadvantages in the light of the
emerging global changes in society.
Liberal Theory of Citizenship
Marshall T. H. is generally considered an author of social citizenship concept. The
concept originates from an essay that was given as a speech back in 1949 in
honor of Alfred Marshall. The civil element in Marshals theory answered for the
rights necessary for individual freedom liberty of the person, freedom of
speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid
contract, and the right to justice (Marshall, 1950, p. 19) and generally reflected
the concepts of passive citizenship.
As a political element in his theory Marshall has also included the right to
participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body invested
with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body and a
social element: rights which range from economic welfare to the right to share
to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according
to the standards prevailing in the society (Marshall, 1950, p. 47)
From Marshalls point of view the fullest realization of citizenship was primarily
dependent on a liberal-democratic welfare state that guaranteed essential civil
(freedom of speech, freedom to worship, free to own property and equality of
justice for all), political (right to vote), and social (housing, education, social
protection from poverty) rights to all members of the state (Marshall, 1950, pp.
32-66).
However, the conflict of interests is found when we apply the concept of equality
implied by citizenship to the capitalist society, where the prevalent is the
principle of inequality. In other words, the equality of citizens becomes
unacceptable in circumstances, where real inequalities are being generated by
capitalism between different social groups and social classes.
Such concern was raised by Marx in his recognition of the fact that the states
abstract equality contradicts the societys concrete inequality. According to Marx,
the class divisions within a civil society are being reflected by the state, which
serves as an instrument for the ruling class. Although the expansion of suffrage
was welcomed by Marx, he nevertheless believed that the only way to bring real
equality was a revolutionary change. He argued that democracy and equality

perhaps were subjects to political sphere, but they were far from being extended
to the office and factory life (Etzioni, 1990, p. 61).
Marshall nevertheless believed in the dramatic changes for a civil society, which
would eliminate inequalities by modifying the social rights. His assumptions
turned out to be right, when the post-WWII changes in the welfare state brought
to many people social benefits, such as public health, security and public
education (Koppelman, 1996, p. 73).
However, the new wave of 1970s neo-liberalism promised the backwards move
of the welfare state social frontiers. Neo-liberalism advocates argued that
capitalism was inhibited by the extensive social rights and that the last were
damaging the entrepreneurial spirit in society. Moreover, according to neoliberals, social rights promoted dependency culture, which was destroying work
ethic and individual self-reliance (Kymlicka, 1994, p. 58).
There are some other controversial points in Marshalls theory, which require
additional questioning. The primary concern in his theory is how the concept of
citizenship must be understood in the context of the relationships between the
state and civil society, and what are those factors affecting such relationships.
In the first place Marshalls theory lacks some valid explanation on why
citizenship contracts and expands over time; that is, Marshall does not provide
adequate description of the way rights decrease or increase in certain societies.
Marshalls critics contend that rights are subject to contingency in relationships
between state and civil society, which influence the nature of rights, and social
changes in general. Among such factors would be gender, class, age, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, disability, social movements, etc. Thus, contrary to
evolutionary theory proposed by Marshall, these critics state that citizenship is
not a subject to universal way of development, but instead it is contingent and
historical (Mouffe, 1992a, p. 11).
Another feature about Marshalls theory of liberal citizenship is that it doesnt
recognize those tensions that naturally exist between different types of rights.
Thus, instead of being complementary, rights appear to be conflictual, they have
different logics:
political rights imply the level of control over the state;
social rights are claimed from the state;
civil rights are aimed against the state (Nisbet, 1974, p. 67).
In a triangle of democracy-welfare-capitalism correlation it is hard to imagine the
effective management of these conflictual rights. Moreover, with the tensions
existing between the state and the civil society it becomes a matter of resolving
the potential conflicts rather than establishing effective social citizenship
(Oldfield, 1998, p. 78).

The third disadvantage of Marshalls theory and particularly its adaptations is

that they lack to provide valid explanations on how citizenship is being shaped
by economic factors. In times of economic crisis, for example, the cut of taxes
and axe of public spending consequently reduce the social rights. The needy and
the poor become especially vulnerable, since with the obligatory contracting of
social security they have no means to protect themselves from ruling class
onslaught (Kolberg, 1992, p. 43).
Finally, the theory of liberal citizenship lacks arguments to explain the
transformation of citizenship in the context of crises.
For example:
during an ecological crisis some social and civil rights become the subject to
withdrawal, while obligations are extended in order to ensure the ecological
stability and survival;
during a military crisis, when curfew is being imposed by the state, some civil
rights become a subject to restriction.
during an economic crisis the state is forced to roll back some social rights, since
certain circumstances force it to limit the full range of social protection and
encourage self-responsibility and volunteering.