Comparative Social Comparative Social PolicyPolicy

Fly-In Session # 2:Fly-In Session # 2:

Part 2Part 2

SummarySummary Briefly consider some examples of welfare states Briefly consider some examples of welfare states

around the world around the world

• a) to get some idea of similarities and differences AND a) to get some idea of similarities and differences AND b) to see the strengths and weaknesses of E-A’s model b) to see the strengths and weaknesses of E-A’s model for comparisonfor comparison

Three European welfare states – Sweden, Germany, UK

The USA and Australia

and finally Some Asian welfare states

Sweden: Political Sweden: Political economyeconomy

Post-war success story-full Post-war success story-full employment, high s. of living, employment, high s. of living, expensive and expansive WSexpensive and expansive WS

Domination of govt by SAPDomination of govt by SAP Compromise between private Compromise between private

capital and SD statecapital and SD state Recent economic crisis and Recent economic crisis and

change?change?

Sweden: Welfare Sweden: Welfare ExpenditureExpenditure

Highest levels of w expenditure of Highest levels of w expenditure of any modern WSany modern WS

Increase of expenditure when Increase of expenditure when other states retrenching in other states retrenching in 70s-70s-continuation of SAP policies by centre continuation of SAP policies by centre rightright

High levels of personal and corporate High levels of personal and corporate taxationtaxation

Most finance for SP from govt. - except Most finance for SP from govt. - except social insurancesocial insurance

Sweden: IdeologySweden: Ideology

Populist plus socialist strands: Populist plus socialist strands: ‘‘People’s home’People’s home’ ‘‘Solidarity’Solidarity’ Keynesian economic policyKeynesian economic policy

Shift to new realism in the 80s and Shift to new realism in the 80s and retrenchment further in 1990sretrenchment further in 1990s

Germany: Political Germany: Political EconomyEconomy

Written constitution of 1949 at Written constitution of 1949 at establishment of FR Germany - ‘Basic Law’ establishment of FR Germany - ‘Basic Law’

Dominance of CDU plus CSU for much of Dominance of CDU plus CSU for much of post-war period (except SPD/FDP coalition post-war period (except SPD/FDP coalition 1969-82)1969-82)

All parties support Social Market EconomyAll parties support Social Market Economy 1949-60s rapid economic growth1949-60s rapid economic growth 60s-70s industrial conflict and struggles 60s-70s industrial conflict and struggles

over WSover WS 70s -stagflation, abandonment of 70s -stagflation, abandonment of

Keynesianism for corporatist approach Keynesianism for corporatist approach since mid-80ssince mid-80s

Reunification and problems of 5 new Reunification and problems of 5 new landerlander

Germany: Welfare Germany: Welfare ExpenditureExpenditure

1981 FRG spending 29.2% GDP on 1981 FRG spending 29.2% GDP on social expenditure (5th in OECD)social expenditure (5th in OECD)

Unlike others, most growth in 50s Unlike others, most growth in 50s under conservative govt.under conservative govt.

1975-81 (fiscal crisis) nearly lowest 1975-81 (fiscal crisis) nearly lowest growth of w. expendituregrowth of w. expenditure

Severe reductions 75-81. Social Severe reductions 75-81. Social budget declined every year 81-90budget declined every year 81-90

Continuing expenditure problems Continuing expenditure problems after reunificationafter reunification

Germany: IdeologyGermany: Ideology Sozialpolitik & Sozialstaat as basis for Sozialpolitik & Sozialstaat as basis for

social policy-link between state and social policy-link between state and private sectorprivate sector

Expression in compulsory insurance Expression in compulsory insurance schemes based on occ. status - schemes based on occ. status - employers and tu’s set wagesemployers and tu’s set wages

SME-state subsidiary to market: social SME-state subsidiary to market: social and economic policy should not interfere and economic policy should not interfere with market including i.&w. distributionwith market including i.&w. distribution

Emphasis on family and individual Emphasis on family and individual responsibility for welfare-state only in responsibility for welfare-state only in last resort last resort (but see post-unification (but see post-unification pressures on this approach)pressures on this approach)

Britain: Political economy

Keynesian economic policy plus Keynesian economic policy plus Beveridgean social policy Beveridgean social policy

Two periods of development post WW2:Two periods of development post WW2: 1940s to mid-1970s: post-war 1940s to mid-1970s: post-war settlement and welfare consensus settlement and welfare consensus then growing financial and political then growing financial and political problemsproblems

mid-1970s to date: fiscal crisis, mid-1970s to date: fiscal crisis, economic problems, welfare economic problems, welfare retrenchment, welfare restructuring retrenchment, welfare restructuring (policies AND ideology)(policies AND ideology)

Britain: Welfare : Welfare expenditureexpenditure

Social expenditure/GDP slightly above OECD Social expenditure/GDP slightly above OECD

average in 1960, slightly below it nowaverage in 1960, slightly below it now In 1990 Br. 12th of 20 OECD states, just In 1990 Br. 12th of 20 OECD states, just

behid Germany and ahead of other Anglo-behid Germany and ahead of other Anglo-

Saxon WS’sSaxon WS’s Early 70s UK had second lowest poverty Early 70s UK had second lowest poverty

level in EClevel in EC In general, Britain ‘middling’ position In general, Britain ‘middling’ position

compared with other WS expenditure levelscompared with other WS expenditure levels

Britain: Ideology

‘‘Liberal Collectivism’:Liberal Collectivism’: Liberal ideas of Keynes and Liberal ideas of Keynes and Beveridge, followed by both Beveridge, followed by both Tories and Labour: Tories and Labour: ButskellismButskellism

Collectivism Collectivism qua qua direct state direct state role, universal access, and role, universal access, and common national standardscommon national standards

BUTBUT welfare universalism welfare universalism essentially a myth: no universal essentially a myth: no universal access for some, especially women, access for some, especially women, ethnic minorities etc.ethnic minorities etc.

Britain: ’Thatcherism’ Characteristics of British income

maintenance before 1970s-unique features Four elements of ‘Thatcherism’ which

affected British welfare state: Monetarism Supply-side policies Anti public provider/pro consumer

discourse Restructuring of welfare state towards

private/ commercial/ voluntary provision

Social policy in the Social policy in the USA & AustraliaUSA & Australia

Liberal welfare states?Liberal welfare states?

Is there really a welfare state in Is there really a welfare state in the USA?the USA?

Absence of centrally state-organised, Absence of centrally state-organised, delivered and funded welfare delivered and funded welfare programmes. programmes.

Not just low spending, limited range if Not just low spending, limited range if provision, major role of the market in provision, major role of the market in welfare provision etc., welfare provision etc.,

Also major variations across the US in Also major variations across the US in terms of how welfare is organized and terms of how welfare is organized and delivered, entitlement rules and delivered, entitlement rules and interpretation etc. interpretation etc.

Why this form of welfare Why this form of welfare provision?provision?

Significance of absence of mass, Significance of absence of mass, working class parties and working class parties and socialist/social democratic political socialist/social democratic political culture (cf Europe). culture (cf Europe).

Significance of corporate capital in Significance of corporate capital in determining from and functions of determining from and functions of social welfare provision in the USA.social welfare provision in the USA.

Nature of de-centralised federal Nature of de-centralised federal political structurepolitical structure

Political economy of welfare in Political economy of welfare in the USAthe USA

3 major periods in the modern political 3 major periods in the modern political economy of welfare in the US:economy of welfare in the US:

• 1930s : the New Deal1930s : the New Deal

• 1960s : the Great Society 1960s : the Great Society

• 1980s and 1990s: the welfare backlash1980s and 1990s: the welfare backlash

Welfare ideology in the USAWelfare ideology in the USA

Ginsburg identifies two elements:Ginsburg identifies two elements: Voluntarism and Voluntarism and Liberalism Liberalism US welfare Voluntarism’s two principles: US welfare Voluntarism’s two principles: a) individuals and (patriarchal) family should be a) individuals and (patriarchal) family should be

responsible for their own welfare responsible for their own welfare b) public welfare intervention should restore b) public welfare intervention should restore not not

replacereplace individual and family self-sufficiency individual and family self-sufficiencyV’m often combined with (American) Liberalism: V’m often combined with (American) Liberalism:

acceptance of social policy interventions to acceptance of social policy interventions to meet social needs (as identified by various meet social needs (as identified by various pressure and client groups) pressure and client groups)

Dualistic welfare systemDualistic welfare system

Ideas of Voluntarism and Liberalism Ideas of Voluntarism and Liberalism reflected in long standing dualistic reflected in long standing dualistic character of US welfare character of US welfare

Between targeted benefits and Between targeted benefits and insurance based social security, insurance based social security, between ‘deserving’ and between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ – between Social ‘undeserving’ – between Social Insurance and Public Assistance.Insurance and Public Assistance.

Australia: a liberal or a ‘wage-Australia: a liberal or a ‘wage-earner’s welfare state’earner’s welfare state’

Low expenditure on social welfare in Low expenditure on social welfare in comparison with other OECD statescomparison with other OECD states

Significant means-testing, low Significant means-testing, low replacement ratesreplacement rates

Castles challenge to E-A: a distinctive Castles challenge to E-A: a distinctive antipodean form of welfare state in antipodean form of welfare state in Australia and New Zealand Australia and New Zealand

Castles modelCastles model

Progressive taxation systemProgressive taxation system Regulation of employment conditions Regulation of employment conditions

especially re a minimum living family especially re a minimum living family wagewage

Government support for home ownershipGovernment support for home ownership Protection of business through tariffs to Protection of business through tariffs to

defend workers’ and employers’ interestsdefend workers’ and employers’ interests Basic income security + other welfare Basic income security + other welfare

measuresmeasures

Australia as a white, male wage-Australia as a white, male wage-earners’ welfare state ?earners’ welfare state ?

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders largely excluded from welfare largely excluded from welfare benefits benefits

These groups largely dispossessed These groups largely dispossessed and suffer welfare deficits in and suffer welfare deficits in comparsion with rest of Australianscomparsion with rest of Australians

see OHP from Bryson in Alcock & see OHP from Bryson in Alcock & Craig (2001)Craig (2001)

Welfare state or states?Welfare state or states?

Australia a federation of national government, six Australia a federation of national government, six States, two Territories and Local governments States, two Territories and Local governments

Welfare provision highly variable between these Welfare provision highly variable between these various levelsvarious levels

Level variation can be affected by policies of Level variation can be affected by policies of central government, especially liberal central government, especially liberal governments of recent yearsgovernments of recent years

In addition to formal government(s), welfare In addition to formal government(s), welfare provision also significant role for employers, provision also significant role for employers, voluntary agencies, private providers, as well as voluntary agencies, private providers, as well as familiesfamilies

Asian welfare Asian welfare statesstates

Between Between tradition tradition

and and modernity?modernity?

(South) East Asian welfare (South) East Asian welfare states?states?

Focus on countries/systems such as Japan + Focus on countries/systems such as Japan +

Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan – ‘tiger’ Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan – ‘tiger’

economies?economies?

Mainland China generally ignored by Mainland China generally ignored by

comparative social policy analysts until comparative social policy analysts until

recently recently

‘‘Conservative’, ‘productivist’, ‘oikonomic’Conservative’, ‘productivist’, ‘oikonomic’

systems?- a type systems?- a type sui generissui generis? ?

Some general Some general characteristics of East characteristics of East Asian welfare statesAsian welfare states

Relatively recent development especially compared to Relatively recent development especially compared to

Western European welfare statesWestern European welfare states

Role of family central to welfare provision – neither Role of family central to welfare provision – neither

market not state major welfare providersmarket not state major welfare providers

Fragmented, discontinuous and complicated systemsFragmented, discontinuous and complicated systems

State as State as regulator regulator rather than rather than provider provider of welfareof welfare

- - Overall, residualist welfare systems – but is this changing Overall, residualist welfare systems – but is this changing

and changing rapidly?and changing rapidly?

- Overall, can (South) Asian welfare states be seen as a - Overall, can (South) Asian welfare states be seen as a

single group, or are they all different from each other? single group, or are they all different from each other?

Japanese welfare: a very brief Japanese welfare: a very brief summarysummary

Universal health insurance systemUniversal health insurance system - Health care through - Health care through

Employees Health Insurance, National Health Insurance or Health Employees Health Insurance, National Health Insurance or Health

Service for the AgedService for the Aged

Income maintenanceIncome maintenance - - National Pension for all J. citizens.

Employees’ Pension and Mutual Aid Pension supplement to NP

based on propn. of pay during employment. N Fund supplement

for self-employed. c.80% pension coverage.

Employment Insurance for unemployed, Workmen’s Compensation

for injured workers. Family Allowances for those with children

Social ServicesSocial Services - - Services for mental and physical disabilities,

for ‘fatherless’ families and some, v. limited public assistance for

the poor

Korean welfare: a very brief Korean welfare: a very brief summarysummary

National Health Insurance-National Health Insurance- whole popn. covered since whole popn. covered since 1989 alongside Health Assistance Prog. Only universal after govt. 1989 alongside Health Assistance Prog. Only universal after govt. agreed pay 50% for non-employed – farmers, self-employedagreed pay 50% for non-employed – farmers, self-employed

National Pension ProgNational Pension Prog.. – – Since 1988. 20 yrs contributions Since 1988. 20 yrs contributions needed for full pension. Large firms first then expnded. Only 16% needed for full pension. Large firms first then expnded. Only 16% coverage 1993coverage 1993

Public AssistancePublic Assistance – – cash allowances, educational, cash allowances, educational, medical support to ‘poor’ families, 4.5 % 1993medical support to ‘poor’ families, 4.5 % 1993

Industrial Accident InsuranceIndustrial Accident Insurance - since 1962: 50% of - since 1962: 50% of employed coveredemployed covered

BUTBUT no unemployment programme, very little social no unemployment programme, very little social services for disabled, elderly without families etc.services for disabled, elderly without families etc.

Some sources on (South) Some sources on (South) East Asian welfare systemsEast Asian welfare systems

On Japan, web paper On Japan, web paper by Maruo: by Maruo:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/ On the special character of East Asian welfare states: On the special character of East Asian welfare states:

Holliday (2000) Holliday (2000) ‘Productivist welfare capitalism: social policy ‘Productivist welfare capitalism: social policy

in East Asia’, in East Asia’, Political Studies, Vol 48 pp. 706-723Political Studies, Vol 48 pp. 706-723 On East Asia and Hong Kong: On East Asia and Hong Kong: Chow (2003) ‘New economy Chow (2003) ‘New economy

and new social policy in East and South Asian compact, mature and new social policy in East and South Asian compact, mature

economies: the case of Hong Kong’, Social Policy & economies: the case of Hong Kong’, Social Policy &

Administration, 37:4 pp.411-422Administration, 37:4 pp.411-422 On the development of EA welfare in comparison with On the development of EA welfare in comparison with

Europe: Hort & Kuhnle (2000) ‘Europe: Hort & Kuhnle (2000) ‘The coming of East & South The coming of East & South

East Asian welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy, East Asian welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy,

10:2 pp. 162-18410:2 pp. 162-184