WELFARE STATES AND ITS CONCEPT

At the first time, this concept is sparked off by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) with his  idea to reform law, constitution role, and social research for developing social policy  which make him called as “welfare state father” (Suharto, 2006). Elements of a welfare system began to be constructed in parts of Western Europe from the late 19th century. The first country which uses this concept is United Kingdom (UK) at the second world war which is contrary with Nazi Germany state concept which use “warfare state.” Welfare state shows that UK commit to assure social protection for all citizens, not commit to conduct war (Suharto, 2006).

The welfare state function is an attempt to break away from the stigma of the Poor Law. It was not designed for the poor but it was supposed to offer social protection for everyone, to prevent people from becoming “poor” (Spicker, 2002). So, its concept shows government and countries’ role to the people which is based on equality concept of right and opportunity, smooth properties distribution, and public responsibility for inadequacy people in fulfilling their daily need not only material but also non material  like food, safety and happy condition, etc. Government intervention is needed especially their capacity to make decision, budget control and equip welfare aspects. To analyze the structure of a welfare system, intersections of class, race, and gender need to be taken into account. Thus, a profound analysis of a nation's welfare state calls for an extensive study of the social relations of that particular society- every person has different need to be welfare (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de).

To build European welfare competence and legitimacy, The European created EEC  in 1957 (signing the Treaty of Roma) to established the common market, social policy and also provided for economic cooperation, and reduction and eventual removal of customs barriers (Suharto, 2006). The terms also provided for the free movement of capital, goods, and labor between the member countries, together with common agricultural and trading. EEC also developed the cooperation and cohesive of Western European. In 1990s the social dimension had the agenda and that was gaining legitimacy due largely to the efforts of the European commission under the leadership of Jacques Delors. By the 1990s, social policy was gaining greater legitimacy but still with the aim of supporting economic integration during the process of EMU (Economic and Monetary Union). The social policy chapter was not written into the Maastricht Treaty due to the British government’s veto.

The institution of welfare systems aims at shielding individuals from the primary risks of industrial life. To a large extent, the economic forces of capitalism are beyond the control of individuals who nonetheless can be or have been thrown into poverty by the operating of the market economy.  While the welfare state is widely regarded as a means of containing the harms procured by the free market, it in turn transforms the face of advanced capitalism. Proponents of a neo-liberal regime blame the welfare state for inducing the same damages it is trying to correct, thus distorting the natural unfolding of capitalist processes. Karl Polany, on the other hand, asserts that the viability of capitalism itself depends on the protective rules and regulations which characterize a modern welfare state. As a matter of fact, people who advocate different market theories differ in their perceptions regarding the necessity and the competency of a welfare system (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de).

According to socialist economic theory, the welfare states endorses the de-commodification of workers (http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de). In capitalism, workers transmute themselves into commodities by selling their labor power to property owners. The commodification of labor in turn produces class division and alienation.  Under an ideal welfare system, citizen can opt out of working when they feel the need to do so. In guaranteeing the provision of basic social and economic rights, the welfare state de-commodifies its citizen.  While the pursuit of de-commodification through the welfare state represents an unmistakably socialist idea, the welfare state in itself is not a purely socialist construction. Not only leftist, but also Catholic and liberal parties have promoted welfare programs throughout the development of modern democracies. Also authoritarian regimes on both the left and the right have pursued the advancement of various welfare policies. Many socioeconomic studies illustrate that welfare systems are an integral part of all political regimes once they reach a certain level of economic development, thus indicating the correlation between welfare-state development and economic and demographic growth independent of a state's political system. In western countries welfare state is often viewed as poison neutralizer of capitalism, that is negative effect of free trade economy system. Because of that, welfare state usually welfare state is called as compassionate capitalism. Even though this concept is normative ideology and theory of left, like Marxism, Socialism, and Democratic Social, but uniquely  this concept develop rapidly in democratic and capitalist countries not in socialist countries, for example in US, west Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavian countries (Suharto, 2006). (Suharto, 2006).

Different states employ a variety of welfare programs, but the essence of the welfare state is similar across countries and political regimes. Like the other developmental approaches, welfare state system is not homogeneous and static but medley and dynamic which follow era progression. Welfare is already difficult to conceptualize within national context. It is more difficult still to define and delimit in the international arena. So to simplify, Soeharto (2006) classify welfare state into four  models:

1. Universal Model

Social care is given equally to the citizens. This model is often called as the Scandinavian Welfare States or ideal model which is represented by Swedish, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Welfare state of Swedish is often viewed as more progress and advance model than UK, US, and Australia’s model. . In UK welfare state is also understood as the Poor Law so often appear stigma as aid for poor people whereas it is different because welfare state is focused on  social protection system of every people as realization of citizens right and state obligation (Suharto, 2006; Spicker, 2002). Target of welfare state is not only poor people but also all old, ladies, gentlemen, children, and rich people.

2. Work Merit Welfare States Model

Like first model but distribution of social care scheme is from three parties, Government, business environment, and labor. This model is used by Germany and Australia. Social care which is carried out by state is given to them who work and give contribution by social assurance scheme. This model is also called by Bismarck model because this first idea is found by Otto von Bismarck from  Germany.

3. Residual Model

This model is used by Anglo Saxon countries like US, UK, and New Zealand. Social care especially basic need is given to disadvantaged groups like old, deformity and poor people. There are three elements which mark this model in UK: minimum standard assurance, included minimum income; social protection in the emergency time, care giving as well as possible. This model is like universal model which give social care based on citizens right  and has broad range. But like implemented in UK, number of burden and social service is relatively smaller and short term than universal model. Social protection and service only give efficiently, tightly, and contemporarily.

4. Minimal Model

This model is generally used in South America like Spain, Italy, Chile, and Asia. This model is marked by government dismissal for very little social development. Welfare program and social assurance is given to state worker, army, and private worker who can pay premium.

There are some cases which relate with welfare state concept, like in European Union countries which is popular as successful welfare state (Suharto, 2006).   But, Hantrais (2007) find ambivalence between economy policy and welfare. It can not be separated with European integration process which shift states’ national sovereignty in that continent. Last time social welfare problem became affairs of every state, but presence of EEC at 1957 and then European Union, so legitimacy of system implementation became new problem itself. To solve this problem OMC offers a compromise solution in support of the interest of the Union and member states  by The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which reaffirms the principles of national sovereignty in the area of social-welfare policy. Limitation of welfare state implementation is European Union as implementer of welfare has not been received generally by its member states so it is hard to control. Moreover there are many perspectives of welfare concept and theory from every country like I said above. In UK, Australia and New Zealand focused on social assurance which involve social security, healthy care, education, housing, and personal social services; in US usually  social assurance is given to poor, unemployment, and deformity people like in UK so it more suitable called as social “illfare” than social welfare and show that this term has been reversed. In the contrary, welfare state concept also has success. We can see in most of Scandinavian countries which have real progress as developed countries and stability in social, economy, and politic aspect

Conclusions

Welfare State is not only about economy aspect but also whole life aspect of citizenship like social, security, health, and other which is given to all citizens without look their background-rich, man, woman, young, old, or poor. In my opinion, it is different with prosperity term which only focus on economy aspect or poor law which care of disadvantaged groups like old, deformity and poor people.  So relevance of welfare state concept depends on every country policy by considering type of government and people condition, it is just choice concept not absolute doctrine which can change if it is needed because of era indictment. Maybe in US, welfare state has died because of globalizations but in Australia and New Zealand has good process precisely (Goodin 1999).  We can not deny if global economic development has implication of welfare state. Limit and state-nation strength fade more and more, tend to locality, independent organizations, civil society, supranational institutions like NAFTA and European Union and multinational corporations. International institution like World Bank and IMF sell economy and social policy to developing and East European Countries to minimize government dismissal, give selective and limitation social care and give social assurance to private party. Consequence logic of global tendencies and  strengthen of neoliberal ideology is critical to welfare state system is not suitable anymore as developmental approaches and cause many cases not only in European States but also other places.

Some criticism of welfare states concern the idea that a welfare state makes citizens dependent and less inclined to work. Certain studies indicate there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries (Atkinson 1995) and that there is no evidence for the contention that welfare states impede progressive social development (Goodin 1999), compares the United States, which spends relatively little on social welfare (less than 17 per cent of GDP), with other countries which spend considerably more. This study claims that on some economic and social indicators the United States performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision. Even though many limitations and critics of this concept but it is still used by most of country in the world, especially in European countries so I can say this concept is success if there is failure in many states, it is caused by “mismodel or misimplementation”.

Referensi:

Atkinson, A. B.. 1995. Incomes and the Welfare State. Cambridge University Press

Hantrais, Linda. 2007. Welfare State.  

Paul Spicker.2002. Poverty and the Welfare State: Dispelling the Myths pp 6.

Pergher, Roberta. The Welfare State-A Commitment Against Violence. Accessed from http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de at 5 January 2009

Goodin, R. E. et al. 1999, in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge University Press

Suharto, Edi. 2006. Peta dan Dinamika Welfare State di Beberapa Negara: Pelajaran Apa yang Bisa Dipetik untuk Membangun Indonesia?. Yogyakarta