International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013 1
ISSN 2229-5518
The ideology behind the welfare state
PhD Agron Rustemi
But before we pass in the analysis of social policies, it is advisable that to analyze the notion of the welfare state. Bearing in mind that this is a very dynamic and very actual problem which is directly related to the life and welfare of the people, in this paper, we analyze the various models of the welfare state in the European soil, treated the birth, development and reforming these states, analyze the ideas of the most important writers and thinkers of that time did this issue, focus their effort to classify these states.
In the literature, we encounter different definitions of the concept of "state protector" and "welfare state". The concept of "social welfare" expresses the view of an institution to change, and in this context there are many definitions for it. One of these is the definition of the International Labor Organization (ILO), which says: "The social security system allows societies to advance the welfare and security of its citizens, protecting them from vulnerability and poverty, so that they can continue to live a better life!".
—————————— ——————————
he term "welfare state" or "social state" comes from the German word Wohlfahrsstaat, which dates back to the late 1920's. For the first time this term is used by the first
German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck who is also known as a pioneer in the creation of social policies, on the other hand the concept of Welfare State originates from the UK, used at the beginning of 1940.
Later, Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), gave a new political vision for the state, with an emphasis on well-being and social and economic rights of citizens should be provided within the state, which according to him will avoid catastrophic risks coming from the Marxist socialists. Expressing confidence in modern liberalism (liberal democracy), he wanted the state to be bound by the care for its citizens. According to Churchill, this is one of the main goals of liberal democracy. He had great confidence in liberal democracy as a rescue society from destructive Marxist socialism and communism, so they said: "... There are hundreds of thousands of people who Socialists will take violent revolution will trample the freedoms of the media and opens the way for bureaucratic dictatorship ". (Fil- lo, 2006: 12).
Evident efforts of world leaders this time not only in Germany and the United Kingdom and other countries before world powers for change and to introduce an element of social wel- fare as an integral part of the state. This new element in re- forming and developing countries, some authors interpret as fear of the expansion of Marxist socialism. In fact cite the statement of Franklin Roosevelt (1892 -1945), president of the United States in the 30-ies of the last century "... The govern- ment has predetermined task to use all of the power and its resources to deal with new social problems using new social controls to guarantee citizens the right to economic and politi- cal life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " After World War II the concept of welfare state spread in almost all Euro- pean countries. (Ibid).
In the fourth decade of the twentieth century, a well-known economist who is also a pioneer in the creation and reform of social policies in the United Kingdom William Beveridge (1879-1963) in his speech in the British Parliament shall deter- mine the functions of the welfare state.
According to him, the welfare state is that state which will fighting against the "five evils of mankind" to achieve common prosperity, where everyone will have sufficient financial in- come will be healthy, there will be good conditions for hous- ing, adequate education and regular vacation. (George & Wilding, 1994: 17 - 19).
The Beveridge definition can be interpreted widely, that is, by his definition clearly coming to an expression of the universal- ity of welfare state where all citizens should enjoy the same rights, regardless of class or their position in the social rela- tions.
Under the doctrine of the famous three U Beveridge actually suggested a unification of all social security regimes under a single command, extending insurance to all citizens in respect of all risks introducing a unique contribution to all as a model for the funding and payment of identical payment for every- one in case the citizen to lose revenue and alimony.
Dimension unity the Beveridge doctrine identified in two forms: first of all the factors of uncertainty must be covered with a unified social security system that is supposed to unify the various branches of social welfare; and second, the man- agement of social security should be concentrated in a single body - as in organizational and geographical sense. This di- mension Beveridge in his doctrine anticipated the creation of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy. As a consequence, the management of the social sphere 'was left to the administra- tion.
Quintessence of this doctrine is considered the dimension of universality that Beveridge envisaged social insurance pro- tection to cover all kind of social risks. The main point of the dimension of universality is providing guarantee of financial
IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013 2
ISSN 2229-5518
resources that are more than necessary for the persons affected by social risks: unemployment, sickness or an accident at work, disability, death of the insured or the death of a person of child support, alimony child, and so on. Beveridge hereby established itself principle social plan to cover the entire popu- lation, regardless of the amount of wages, not only for the em- ployees who were paid less than the threshold (typical Bis- marck model). Beveridge population divided the six social categories, each category and recognized the specific needs and from there foretold appropriate contributions. Certain authors this kind "stratification" The Beveridge doctrine tempted to label as selective universality (ibid: 50).
Dimension uniformity in the Beveridge doctrine emphasiz- es "the desire to recognize the protected persons of the same category, equality obligations and the law of various compo- nents covered by social insurance." This dimension is most evident through the equalization of contributions that differ only by extending protection guarantees (cannot be seen in this place best called selective universality), and not by the amount of earnings of the privileged and the uniformity con- tributions with identical value .
In terms of this dimension Beveridge in his report insists that social insurance guaranteed low rate allocation does not de- pend on previous earnings versus poor contribution that is imposed on all insured. The beveridge social security plan connects horizontal redistribution - following the logic that the healthy pay for the sick, the young pay for the old - and verti- cal redistribution - following the logic that the rich pay for the poor through taxes, and especially through the financing of social assistance (ibid : 51).
There is another theory among the scientific circles that the term "welfare state" was first used by William Temple, a priest from New York in his book "Citizen and Churchman" from
1941. Temple in his book suggests that "welfare states" that will be set up after the Second World War to serve the com- mon interests of all citizens, as opposed to the former situation where he states served only tyrants. The notion of the welfare state would gain great popularity especially in the UK, where it will become the center of debate despite the so-called social program "all people without distinction." Also a large number of scholars who claim that the July 5, 1948 actually represents the birthday of the welfare state because this date is associated with the establishment of the national social security system and free health care in the UK. (Barr and Whynes, 1993: 5-9). Various social theories have a different interpretation of what is and what features it has the welfare state. In one approach, the welfare state is not absolute, federal, capitalist or totalitari- an state, as opposed to a special political form which repre- sents a particular organization of the political authorities. Wel- fare state is a whole agencies or organizations that deal with the planning and implementation of policies. These organiza- tions may be institutions of the social sphere as part of the broader concept of public administration, local government, civil society, etc..
The central idea of the concept of "welfare state" is that she
knows the responsibility of society in the planning and sup- plements the main needs of the population, using all possible means and human resources. Human life is directly or indi- rectly dependent on social support by the state. State aid poli- cy created realize economic progress in the service of social order, softening the negative effects on the labor market, re- ducing unemployment, sickness, disability, etc.. Through so- cial programs, citizens are encouraged or forced to make the possible risks in life in order not only to maintain a certain standard of living, but also can avoid the burden that society has of them in the case of social risk . Basically the function of the welfare state is to guarantee its citizens a solid standard of living, regardless of their working value in the free labor mar- ket. Insurance with a solid standard of living mean minimal living conditions, especially for those people who for various reasons have remained out of the labor market that are not in employment, also for the suppression of the big difference between people with different income through the tax system. (Kolberg, 1996: 30-33). So social welfare states or countries are those whose governments create programs that provide shel- ter, social services, funds, food, clothing and other services to help individuals or families who are in need or do not have the capacity themselves to care and support.
• There is a broad consensus in the ranking of social goals arising from the social state. These objectives can be presented as: protecting people from risks arising from the labor market and changes in the family;
• Stamping poverty where possible or facilitate it;
• Reallocation of resources from the rich to the poor strata of
society;
• Reallocation of funds throughout the life cycle;
• Encourage individual independence;
• Promote social cohesion;
There is also a broad consensus on the moral values that have
traditionally served the welfare state such as:
1. Promoting economic efficiency;
2. Poverty reduction;
3. Promote social equality;
4. Promoting social integration and eradication of social exclu-
sion;
5. Promoting social stability;
6. Promoting autonomy.
Welfare state is that state in which power is used for at least
three elements which are directly related to the welfare of the
citizens:
1. by providing a minimum income for individuals and families, regardless of their market value.
2. by reducing the uncertainty by enabling individuals and families to cope with social problems, such as ill- ness, old age and unemployment.
3. by providing appropriate standards in terms of a number of social services for all citizens. (Heidenhei- mer & Flora, 1998).
Social protection programs or assistance for the poor, as a key objective, which is followed by the transfer of pensions, un- employment compensation, disability care, family allowances, etc.. Redistribution is not only a matter of transfer of resources
IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013 3
ISSN 2229-5518
from the rich to the poor, but it represents a much more com- plex process. Serve the welfare state and to achieve greater equity between generations, to improve perception of differ- ences such as race and gender, or differences in health status. Historically, the main task of the welfare state was not only to integrate the "classes" as was the Marshall concept, but also to integrate different areas with different ethnic populations. Bismarck was aware of the great diversity of the German Em- pire, which stretched from the Alsace-Lorraine to East Prussia and Rihenland until Silesia. Various forms of social security have served not only to reduce class differences in Bismarck Reich, but also as tools to build loyalty in a society with differ- ent ethnic groups with that empire would provide legitimacy. (Crepaz, 2008: 138). Generally these programs intend to help people through the conversion of earnings over the life cycle, thus to insure against events or periods that cause loss of rev- enue and in such a case to ensure the citizens' sense of securi- ty. (Barnes, 1999: 5).
Modern social welfare programs dating from 1930 to 1940, when for the first time in the U.S., UK and other Western Eu- ropean countries have implemented comprehensive policies for social inclusion and anti-poverty policies. According to some theories, such programs have the following features: providing "last hope" for people who do not have sources of support, every citizen has a legal right to compensation which shall be determined by special legislation, the monthly salary should guarantee a normal life and should be sufficient cost of living. (Odekon, 2006: 1163)
The issue of the welfare state is of particular importance in recent decades both in political circles and in scientific de- bates. Need initially and methodological determination of the most important terms of category apparatus of science of so- cial work and social policy does not mean avoiding the ru- mors that exist among contemporary authors about the defini- tion of them. Such dissent, except that natural element scien- tist freedom in expression and authenticity when creating, in some cases leading to such terms, we begin to lose the sense of hearing of them. Welfare state or welfare state is only one of the forms of social policy, in addition to other crucial agent represents the state, mostly in the form of state intervention- ism. (Stated in Rustemi, 2008:7).
It is evident that there is no definitive definition of the welfare state. Therefore we will try to clarify this concept with the help of interpretations and definitions of eminent scientists who at that time did this issue. General definition of a hundred repre- sents welfare state gives Anton Ravnikj according whom the welfare state is that state in which regulates the composition of the social security and which controls social processes. In a word, control through planning, joint decision making, cen- tralization, decentralization and even communication. So, fac- ing the crisis and stabilize the economic and social conditions. (Ravnić, 1996: 239-40). On the other hand, another Croatian author, Professor Milichikj citizens believes that the welfare state should provide, establish and accomplish the quantity and quality of their collective needs, which would include, inter alia, social security.
According to him, the modern welfare state should have the authority indisputable authority, which will have a different
view of social conditions, social change, social tensions and the special social needs; its essence should be located in the provision of social wealth, opportunities a community of power in the state, then in the will for social justice, equitable redistribution of material values and help the weakest and most vulnerable (Miličić, 1998: 2). There are differences in the interpretation of the notion of the welfare state between the so-called Continental-European authors and Anglo- Scandinavian authors. This better clarifies Bonoli diversifica- tion. According to him, in much of the literature of the Anglo- Saxon tradition attention when classifying social policies di- rected to the quantity "measures of well-being, ie the dimen- sion that answers the question, How?", While continental Eu- ropean authors ( primarily French) focuses attention on the different models of welfare measures, the dimension that an- swers the question, What? ", and at the same time neglect the quantity measures allow different systems (Bonoli, 1997: 352). According to Bonoli, any serious classification systems of the welfare state - the state of being, should contain both dimen- sions previously criticized as inappropriate in mutually- exclusive use. The dimension of quantity and quality can con- tribute towards crystallization durable classification systems of the welfare state, because it allows historical analysis and understanding of the current change. After all, contemporary social policy or welfare state - welfare state is characterized by two development directions: on the one hand, the expansion (or reduction) of the welfare state and on the other hand the convergences (or divergence) to the central model of social protection. Therefore it is more than clear that the combination of the two approaches, the Anglo-Saxon model of classifica- tion that is based on quantity and continental-European or French component model that emphasizes quality in the wel- fare state, would produce the desired fertility classification. (Stated in Rustemi, 2008:11).
The welfare state and the economy cannot be divided and ana- lyzed as such. In capitalist history, has always been necessary to adapt national policies to the economy in order to avoid possible social crises caused by the economy and to set equali- ty that will not jeopardize social cohesion. Individual elements that society adapt to the priorities and needs of the economy, the elements with which the welfare state deal with phenome- na such as poverty and social inequality are unstable invariant but more historically determined. (Odekon, 2006: 1168).
The definition of social policies covers policies and programs operating in the public sector, carried out by the government at central and local level. But there are also other social organ- izations that are not government, non-profit organizations, associations, etc.., which provide services in the area of welfare. The line between public and private social programs has always been somewhat unclear or was not a well-defined boundary to where the competencies of private programs and initiatives. This is mainly due to the funds of which are fund- ed social services that are served by private or non-profit or- ganizations and profit-making organizations. (Blau, 2003: 20). As an example can be taken and a decision by President Bush in 2001 for repayment of the costs of drugs for the elderly. Bush's plan to give the option of elders to join clubs that are administered by profitable organizations where you will gain
IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013 4
ISSN 2229-5518
membership cards that will allow a discount of 15 to 25%. (Denhardt & Grubbs, 2007: 92).
By so far the analyze has resulted in the expected: it is diffi- cult to define just a single definition problems of the welfare state from the fact that there is no unified model of these coun- tries and that it is different in all countries, and we can say that each state has its own unique system of social protection policy and that little or a lot different than other states and that each state represents a "sui generis" welfare state, which as such is a product of the historical, political, cultural and economic factors that acted intersect in the creation and shap- ing welfare states.
The paper also derived the fact that different social theories have a different interpretation of what is and what features it has the welfare state. According to some authors, the central idea of the concept of "welfare state" is that it knows the re- sponsibility of society in the planning and supplement the main needs of the population, using all possible means and human resources..
[1] Alber, J. 1987. “Germany”. Growth to Limits: The Western European Welfare States since World War II. Vol. 4. Appendix P. Flora. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 247-353. Наведено во Schludi, M. 2005.
[2] Alcock, P. 1987. Poverty and State Support, London and New York:
Longman. наведено во McKay, A. 2005.
[3] Annesley, C. 2002. ``Reconfiguring women’s social citizenship in Germany: The Right to Social life, the responsibility to work``, Ger- man Politics, II, I: 81–96.
[4] Blake D. 1997. The Pensions Risk: The Long-Term Risks facing Pen-
sion Schemes and Pension Funds in Europe. London: The Adam
Smith Institute.
[5] Blau, J. and Abramovitz, M. 2003. The dynamic of social welfare
policy, Oxford university press,.
[6] Bönker, F. and Wollmann, H. 2001. ``Stumbling Towards Reform.
The German Welfare State in the 1990s``. Welfare States under Pres- sure. P. Taylor-Gooby (ed.). London: Sage, 75-99.
[7] Bonoli, G. 1997. Classifying Welfare States: a Two-dimension Ap-
proach, Journal of Social Policy 26, 3 p. 351 - 372 Camridge Universi- ty Press, Cambridge
[8] Bonoli, G. and Palier, B. 2000. ``How do welfare states change? Insti- tutions and their impact on the politics of welfare state reform``, Eu- ropean Review, 8, 2: 333–52.
[9] Deacon, A. 1995. ‘Spending More to Achieve Less? Social Security
Since 1945’, in Gladstone, D.(ed.) British Social Welfare: Past, Present
and Future, London: UCL Press Limited.
[10] Deacon, B. 1998. Globalism and Social Policy: The Research and
Policy Agenda, paper presented at the first GASPP, Sem- inar on Global Social Policy, Kellokoski, Finland цитирано во Геровска (2001).
[11] Dean, H. 1991. Social Security and Social Control, London:
Routledge.
[12] Еsping-Andersen, G. 2006. Socijalna država za XXI stoljeće? 29 - 60
во Zrinščak S. ur.(2006)
[13] Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
[14] Esping-Andersen, G. 1996. Welfare States in Transition: National
Adaptations in Global Economies . London: Sage.
[15] Ferrera, M. 1993. Modelli di solidarietà, Il Mulino, Bologna. наведено во Bonoli G (1997)
[16] Fillo, Ll. 2006. Historia për shtetin e mirëqenies sociale, Tiranë.
[17] Miličić V. 1998. Socijalna država, država blagostanja, во Revija za socijalnu politiku, Svezak 5, Br. 4 Pravni fakultet, Sveučilište u Za- grebu
[18] Pajaziti, A. 2009. Fjalor i sociologjisë. Shkup: Logos-A
[19] Pierson, Ch. and Castles, F. 2006. The welfare state reader,
[20] Pierson, P. 1994. Dismantling the welfare state?,Reagan, Thatcher, and the politics of retrenchment, Cambridge,
[21] Scharpf, F. W. and Schmidt, V. A. (eds) 2000, From Vulnerability to Competitiveness: Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, 2 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Ружин, Н. 2006. Современи системи за социјална заштита,
Скопје: Филозофски Факултет.
[23] Рустеми, А. 2008. Влијанието на Бизмарковиот и Бевериџовиот пристап во креирањето и реформирањето на социјалните држави во Европа, необјавен магистерски труд, Скопје: Филозофски Факултет
IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org