Welfare State - Science topic

I’m sorry but I don’t know

Socio-economic systems defined as capitalism and the socialist welfare state in pure model form exist only in textbooks, in theory. In practice, countries have variants of several globally dominant models of socio-economic systems. An analysis of the history of the world's socio-economic development shows that attempts to build a socialist welfare state with a view to ensuring equitable distribution of wealth and employment opportunities for all able-bodied citizens and thus create prosperity have been made many times. Unfortunately, such economic experiments have always failed, because the socioeconomic systems created in this way were much less economically efficient relative to systems based primarily on market structures, the market economy model, private ownership of productive factors, etc. The model of a socialist or communist economy, in which there is equality in income distribution, state ownership of productive factors, central planning of key economic investments and business ventures carried out by state-owned companies and enterprises, full employment of citizens, etc., is a beautiful but not realistic ideal. On the other hand, also the ideal model of a market economy in its pure form, in which the state, according to Adam Smith, a leading precursor of the classical economics trend, plays the role of night watchman in the economy also unfortunately does not exist anywhere in reality. In fact, there are various variants of mixed economies, which in the situation of highly developed countries are sometimes referred to as social market economies, i.e. economies in which market structures dominate, private ownership of most of the factors of production, i.e. forms, enterprises and other types of economic entities, most of the goods produced are created in commercially functioning economic entities operating in various markets differentiated by, among other things, the level of competition and generating the bulk of the Gross Domestic Product, etc. On the other hand, economies operating under the model of social market economies also have public sectors whose activities are financed by the state's public finance system. The public sector provides public goods for citizens, provides financial security at a certain level within the framework of social policy and within the framework of the participatory pension system. Within the sphere of public goods, the state also provides citizens with a certain minimum of educational security, health services, internal law enforcement, disaster services, the military, etc. In mixed economies, some companies and enterprises and financial institutions operating in strategic sectors of the economy may have the state as a majority shareholder. Besides, in realistically functioning mixed economies, the governments of the countries conduct economic policies and, on a larger or smaller scale, apply anti-crisis and/or pro-development state interventionism in an attempt to influence the economic processes taking place in a certain way, for certain purposes, and thus try to influence the pace and specifics of the country's economic development. The basic instruments of influence on economic processes that are applied by the government operate within the framework of social policy, fiscal policy, budget policy, sectoral policy, such as housing policy, agricultural policy, energy policy, environmental policy, innovation policy, etc., and monetary policy. However, the applied instruments of state interventionism do not always work as planned in advance. When a deep economic crisis develops, unemployment rises strongly, consumption, investment, production levels fall, economic growth slows down, tax revenues to the state budget fall, then the debt level of the state's public finance system usually rises. In many countries after the global financial crisis of 2008 and the pandemic economic crisis of 2020, the level of budget deficit and public debt in many countries has increased significantly. As a result, the government in order to balance the situation in the public finance system of countries is forced to reduce spending and/or raise taxes. During the pandemic economic crisis of 2020 in some highly developed countries, a large amount of a kind of anti-crisis printed money was intervened into the economy without being covered by emerging products. At the expense of limiting the scale of the rise in unemployment in this way, high inflation was generated, which began to rise as early as 2021. Subsequently, central banks also intervened anti-inflationarily by raising interest rates, which increased the cost of money borrowed from commercial banks in the form of bank loans and financial paracredit instruments used by companies to make investments in their business activities. More expensive and harder-to-access credit caused a decline in investment levels, a drop in the rate of economic growth and another wave of downturn in the context of multi-year business cycles. In view of the above, it has often been the case that the specific tools of socio-economic, fiscal, sectoral, etc., and monetary policies applied under state interventionism can produce undesirable secondary effects, which, if they get out of control in their development, lead to the occurrence of another economic crisis. Thus, it is not only the specific model of the socio-economic system that provides citizens with economic well-being, good living situation, financial, property, housing, etc. An important role in this matter is played by the quality of the socio-economic policy pursued, which is more or less tailored to a certain economic situation, developed to a certain extent particular sectors and industries z in the economy, is tailored to a certain sector-industry structure found in a certain national economy, a certain model of a commercially functioning financial system, a certain share of commercially operating sectors and public sectors, and so on. Countries where economic experiments of trying to create a welfare economy under the model of a centrally planned socialist or communist economy are still in operation are relatively few in number, as they are much less economically efficient compared to social market economies. On the other hand, there is no realistically existing ideal model of a social market economy, which should always ensure the welfare of citizens. In recent years, the importance of sustainability, the realization of sustainable development goals, conducting business in accordance with business ethics and corporate social responsibility, realizing the green transformation of the economy, increasing the importance of pro-climate, pro-environmental and pro-environmental policies has been growing. Accordingly, currently developing economies operating mainly under the model of social market economies are becoming more and more sustainable social market economies, in which the importance of sustainability, zero-emission, greenness, climate protection, environmental protection and biodiversity of natural ecosystems is growing, because the livelihood of citizens also depends on this, and in the future, due to the continuing process of global warming, the livelihood of people in general will perhaps depend on this. I am researching this issue. I have posted the results of my research in some articles and monograph chapters, which are available on my profile of this Research Gate portal.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The question is what does the notion “poor” mean. To me conditions matter.

Best regards,

Kamil.

ان الدارس والمتتبع لتاريخ الفكر الاقتصادي يجد ان تدخل الدولة في الحياة الاقتصادية من زاوية ايجاد الحلول لبعض الازمات الاقتصادية وتوفير الرعاية الاجتماعية لم يكن اطلاقا افكارا كينزية فهناك العديد من المفكرين قد سبقوه في ذلك لكن كونه يحمل لقب اللورد مكنه من اثبات ذلك لنفسه....

after pandemic All the government in the world will focus on the ( poverty, Unemployed , luck of food and nutrition ).

I do agree with Butler.

With regards

Special Tourism Zones (STZs).

This article also introduces the STZs as new tourism strategy aimed to transform tourism.

Dear Claudia,

I think there are two key activities. They are REDISTRIBUTION of income and wealth (through progressive taxation) and REALLOCATION/REDIRECTION of investments in capital (in the widest sense of the word).

Budgeting resources isn't just a problem for humans preparing a holiday dinner, or squirrels storing up nuts for the winter. Here is a new model:

https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/video-game-health-points-energy-budgets-explain-evolutionary-body-size

Am in line with Arvydas Guogis

Welfare - Our corporate social resposibility ( CSR ) -

Democracy - It is our social & political rights .

Check the extensive bibliographies of John McMurtry's books since 1998. They are a gold mine.

Human Development Index (HDI) is the best.

Liberal Democracy died out some decades ago when the voters learned that their high taxes were going mainly to support middle class government employees. The Regan Revolution and Thatcher Revolution replaced Liberal Democracy.

Social Democracy was popular when I lived in Europe. It has fallen out of favor with productive working people, but remains a favorite among the unproductive faction. while it still continues in abbreviated form just as Liberal Democracy has it's supporters and pretenders.

For the question there is no clear way to convert from one to the other, and no obvious reason to do so. These ideas and supporters had their chances 40 years ago and failed to deliver a society acceptable to a majority of voters. Opinions of moderate voters are the governing forces, although many self appointed radical leaders try to impose some other direction.

Limited government interventions are in certain times needed, but the continued fusion of state and economy must be avoided, which always starts with subsidies.

Given the current economical factors and labour insecurity, the welfare state is as vital as ever. However, there does have to be changes. The current system of minimising claim numbers does nothing to tackle the wealth inequality or poverty levels as described in the recent UN report. Rather than looking at previous models of state intervention and benefits, we should be considering Esping-Anderson's theories on the future of welfare and the possibilities arising from a universal basic income.

It is in fact an overall measurement of inequality , but not an exact measurement. Moreover , it is quite possible that the inequality prevails and inequality index depicted is high, but as it is the medium level distances from equality, which matters it may not result in right determination of index of inequality of states . The two states with different levels of inequality may that way provide same or unconvincing levels of inequality.

Sen has used intensity of inequality and poverty as a measure of development rather than using absolute levels of inequality. He also uses the term functionality as against mere existence of certain facility/infrastructure.

You are onto a good thing here? Interrogation of given meanings and assumptions / practices on welfare.

In Italy O,8% of the income tax can be donated to some religious institutions, and o,5% to a long list of charities and research bodies

RockHealth puts out reports, but not formal studies, that may have what you are looking for. 

Arvydas, I think we should start first with a definition of welfare. (what is welfare, does it include social pensions, etc?).Different EU countries may have different definitions/understandings, even if roughly all EU countries follow either a Bismarkian model or a more universal, 'Beveridge' model...

I am unsure there is an 'Asian' model for 'welfare', if you want to read about some differences between the US & European systems a piece (better than the usual crap related to 'markets',etc provided by the economists-even if these guys could not resist in the conclusion to the 'normative' crappy impulses common to economists( is here:https://www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2006-2-page-51.htm....

In relation to EE, I agree in part with Albert (there is a convergence in raising the pension age, to cut 'entitlements', and to cut the 'undeserving poor'- here we have an ideological convergence) and disagree in part. We are speaking about economic convergence of Eastern Europe with 'Western Europe' for a quarter century and not much happened. Besides, in EE, the inequalities (some are getting much better entitlements than the majority) are built in the constitutional (many exceptions, based on the category to which an employee belong; e.g. police or army officers have generous 'welfare' entitlements, uncommon for the rest of the population) arrangements and very difficult to alter. There won't be any 'convergence' anytime soon, for these provisions.

With respect to EU 'convergence'(for example, the possibility for pensioneers to exercise freedom of movement, etc), the recent record is rather dismayal (because of the economic divergences). And I do not see any EU wide appetite for 'convergence' here (other than that related to the ideological component-cut the undeserving poor).

Arjun, I agree that in a democratic society people decide the mode of governance including the approach to economic  development. But welfare state largely focuses on the needs of those who can not fend for themselves. For example, the university education is now being privatized even in India. That means state is gradually withdrawing from this basic  obligation and focusing on other areas.

Welfare state is definitely in crisis all over. So, it is very relevant as to where the decline of welfare state will stop. If the beneficiaries of the welfare state are in minority then they would not be able to vote against its decline by the state agencies.  For example, the middle class has posed vehement opposition to affordable health care to the poor through state intervention in the USA. 

A repeat cross section survey of employers and employees in the UK called Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) in 1998 2004 and later has lists of questionnaire items on this topic - you can find the Questionnaires online by looking up the survey - at National Institute for Economic and Social Research (niesr) or the UK's large scale survey "Question Bank" paid for by ESRC.

Hello Marcus

There were many reports and recently published books (that possibly did not have such recent contents), but less recent research, and not particularly ongoing.

This Dec 2014 House of Commons site might be relevant for ongoing work:

See this report which discusses ongoing/future projects, including p.49, section X:

Approaches to tenancy management in the social housing sector: Exploring new models and changes in the tenant-landlord relationship, Mary-Kathryn Rallings, Published September 2014, © HACT 2014

However, the other references are recent but already written-up. This is a research report (both summary and full report) that may be of interest (a Joseph Rowntree site):

The impact of welfare reform on social landlords and tenants, Anne Power et al., 23 June 2014

This site (see table) lists further Joseph Rowntree research, and other research projects:

This is from the Institute of Public Policy Research (also funded by Joseph Rowntree):

 Build now or pay later: Funding new housing supply, Andy Hull, Graeme Cooke and Tony Dolphin, October 2011

This is from local government, Dec 2014: A report of research carried out by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Supporting households affected by the Benefit Cap: Impact on Local Authorities, local services and social landlords

Are these relevant to your question? This is not research but discussion:

Hodkinson, S., & Robbins, G. (2013). The return of class war conservatism? Housing under the UK Coalition Government. Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 57-77.

This references various research projects:

Chevin, D. (2013). Socially hearted, commercially minded-‐a report on tomorrow’s housing associations. The Smith Institute. Genesis, London.

I have not been able to access the full text of this paper; it is not a research project but discusses research:

Fitzpatrick, S., & Pawson, H. (2014). Ending security of tenure for social renters: Transitioning to ‘ambulance service’social housing?. Housing Studies, 29(5), 597-615.

Is this site of any interest? It is research based, but I am aware that it might be known to you already?

Without flexibility from government, further cuts to welfare funding will pressurise local authorities and risk rising levels of hardship, warns Grant Thornton research

If you click at the bottom:

not only can you access the full report, but also other information.

This is: 

Easing the burden: The impact of welfare reform on local government and the social housing sector, May 2015

Good luck with your project

Mary

The term welfare state is used to describe state-financed public systems of social security, health, welfare, pensions for individuals which is paid for from taxation and individual contributions. and is managed by the elected government of the day. These are collective arrangements. 

Welfare society is a neo-liberal ideological concept which means exactly the opposite. In a welfare society individuals are responsible for providing for their own welfare and purchase these services in the market place. This is a privatized arrangement.

Hello dear colleagues. This is a very interesting discussion. Concerning the future of the welfare states, I think there is much ideology behind the current public and political debates. If we consider the development of political parties in Europe, we see some important parallels to the welfare state developments. In the 1990s, after the fall of the iron curtain, the parties went more and more to the centre  and many European politicians from all political couleurs started to claim the social systems to be too expensive. It was a time when the ideological cleavages between social democrats, conservatives and liberals seemed to dissolve in terms of economy. The arguments for austerity went hand in hand with the rise of neoliberalism and globalisation (WTO, etc). And it also went hand in hand with a rise of the gap between the rich and the poor in Western Europe. Only in the last years, there is a kind of ideological comeback of political discourse which is reflected in the critiques of the neoliberal markets and in the rise of anti-system parties from the left and the right - both criticising this gap with similar arguments but with different solutions (internationalist solutions by most left parties like Syriza; nationalist solutions by the right like Front National etc.) The future of the welfare state, in my opinion, depends on the capacity of supranational institutions to reduce the gap and to suprantionalize the welfare state.

I live in Denmark, a Scandinavian type welfare state. Danes used to be proud of this welfare model which has worked very well, but as Markus Pausch says, it is under pressure from international economic competition. The strong economic pressure is evidenced by the fact that even socialist politicians are cutting down on welfare now, knowing that this will cost them their reelection because those who voted for them want welfare. Politicians of all colors here claim that they want to preserve the welfare system, while at the same time argueing for free trade, economic liberalism and deregulation. They pretend that there is no conflict between welfare state and neoliberalist politics even though the country is evidently taking part in the "race to the bottom".