A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens, based upon the principles of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for citizens unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.[1]
There is substantial variability in the form and trajectory of the welfare state across countries and regions.[2] All welfare states entail some degree of private–public partnerships wherein the administration and delivery of at least some welfare programs occur through private entities.[3] Welfare state services are also provided at varying territorial levels of government.[3]
Early features of the welfare state, such as public pensions and social insurance, developed from the 1880s onwards in industrializing Western countries.[4][2][5] World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II have been characterized as important events that ushered in the expansion of the welfare state.[4][6] The fullest forms of the welfare state were developed after World War II.[2]
Etymology
The term welfare is much older than the term welfare state. In enlightened absolutism, the ruler had an unlimited position of power, which he was to only utilize to the extent necessary for the "welfare" of his subjects. The content of the "welfare" or "good police", which limited the ruler's legitimate exercise of power, was defined by the authorities at their own discretion. This is also referred to as "welfare absolutism". The term welfare state is used in connection with princely absolutism, this is usually in conjunction with attributes such as absolutist, mercantilist or pre-modern.
The German term sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Otto von Bismarck's conservative reforms.[7]
Today the term is used almost entirely for the "modern" welfare state, which emerged in the 19th century in the course of the socio-economic upheavals caused by industrialisation, the formation of nation states and democratization. While the corresponding English term welfare state is descriptively neutral, the term “Wohlfahrtsstaat” is often used in German as a fighting term with a pejorative connotation.[citation needed]
The literal English equivalent "social state" did not catch on in Anglophone countries.[8] However, during the Second World War, Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state".[9] Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (in other words, the rich and the poor), where he writes "power has only one duty – to secure the social welfare of the PEOPLE".[10] At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli (later a prime minister) belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who disagreed with how the Whigs dealt with the conditions of the industrial poor. Members of Young England attempted to garner support among the privileged classes to assist the less fortunate and to recognize the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.[11]
Emperor Ashoka of India put forward his idea of a welfare state in the 3rd century BCE. He envisioned his dharma (religion or path) as not just a collection of high-sounding phrases. He consciously tried to adopt it as a matter of state policy; he declared that "all men are my children"[12] and "whatever exertion I make, I strive only to discharge debt that I owe to all living creatures." It was a completely new ideal of kingship.[13] Ashoka renounced war and conquest by violence and forbade the killing of many animals.[14] Since he wanted to conquer the world through love and faith, he sent many missions to propagate Dharma. Such missions were sent to places like Egypt, Greece, and Sri Lanka. The propagation of Dharma included many measures of people's welfare. Centers of the treatment of men and beasts founded inside and outside of the empire. Shady groves, wells, orchards and rest houses were laid out.[15] Ashoka also prohibited useless sacrifices and certain forms of gatherings which led to waste, indiscipline and superstition.[14] To implement these policies he recruited a new cadre of officers called Dharmamahamattas. Part of this group's duties was to see that people of various sects were treated fairly. They were especially asked to look after the welfare of prisoners.[16][17]
However, the historical record of Ashoka's character is conflicted. Ashoka's own inscriptions state that he converted to Buddhism after waging a destructive war. However, the Sri Lankan tradition claims that he had already converted to Buddhism in the 4th year of his reign, although it does not mention the conquest of Kalinga.[18] During this war, according to Ashoka's Major Rock Edict 13, with nearly 100,000 killed in the war and another 150,000 deported. Some sources (particularly Buddhist oral legends) suggest that his conversion was dramatic and that he dedicated the rest of his life to the pursuit of peace and the common good.[19] However, these sources frequently contradict each other,[20] and a few sources (like Ashokavadana, earliest versions ranging from 200 AD to 500 AD) describe Ashoka engaging in sectarian mass murder throughout his reign, and make no mention of the philanthropic efforts claimed by earlier legends. The interpretation of Ashoka's dharma after conversion is controversial, but in particular, the texts which describe him personally ordering the massacre of Buddhist heretics and Jains have been disputed by many scholars, since these are directly contradictory to his own edicts, and are legendary in nature.[21][22][23][24]
China
The Emperor Wen (203 – 157 BCE) of Han Dynasty instituted a variety of measures with resemblances to modern welfare policies. These included pensions, in the form of food and wine, to all over 80 years of age, as well as monetary support, in the form of loans or tax breaks, to widows, orphans, and elderly without children to support them. Emperor Wen was also known for a concern over wasteful spending of tax-payer money. Unlike other Han emperors, he wore simple silk garments. In order to make the state serve the common people better, cruel criminal punishments were lessened and the state bureaucracy was made more meritocratic. This led to officials being selected by examinations for the first time in Chinese history.[25][unreliable source?][26][unreliable source?]
Rome
The Roman Republic intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain to its population, through the program known as Cura Annonae. The city of Rome grew rapidly during the Roman Republic and Empire, reaching a population approaching one million in the second century AD. The population of the city grew beyond the capacity of the nearby rural areas to meet the food needs of the city.[27]
Regular grain distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by Gaius Gracchus and approved by the Roman Plebeian Council (popular assembly). The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to a high of an estimated 320,000 people at one point.[28][29] In the 3rd century AD, the dole of grain was replaced by bread, probably during the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211 AD). Severus also began providing olive oil to residents of Rome, and later the emperor Aurelian (270–275) ordered the distribution of wine and pork.[30] The doles of bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.[31] The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.[32]
In addition to food, the Roman Republic also supplied free entertainment, through ludi (public games). Public money was allocated for the staging of ludi, but the presiding official increasingly came to augment the splendor of his games from personal funds as a form of public relations. The sponsor was able to cultivate the favor of the people of Rome.[33]
Islamic caliphates
The concept of states taxing for the welfare budget was introduced to the Arabs in the early 7th century by caliph Omar, most likely adapted from the newly Roman territories.[34]Zakat is also one of the five pillars of Islam and is a mandatory form of 2.5% Wealth tax to be paid by all individuals holding above a basic threshold (nisab) to provide for the needy once a year after Ramadan. Umar (584–644), leader of the Rashidun Caliphate (empire), established a welfare state through the Bayt al-mal (treasury), which for instance was used to stockpile food in every region of the Islamic Empire reserved for Arabs in the Peninsula.[35]
Modern
Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany.[36][37] Bismarck extended the privileges of the Junker social class to ordinary Germans.[36] His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the Reichstag used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program.[38] German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace.[39]
In Switzerland, the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 limited working hours for everyone, and gave maternity benefits.[39] The Swiss welfare state also arose in the late 19th century; its existence and depth varied individually by canton. Some of the programs first adopted were emergency relief, elementary schools, and homes for the elderly and children.[40]
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a version was set up by Count Eduard von Taaffe a few years after Bismarck in Germany. Legislation to help the working class in Austria emerged from Catholicconservatives. Von Taffe used Swiss and German models of social reform, including the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 German laws that insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace to create the 1885 Trade Code Amendment.[39]
Changed attitudes in reaction to the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, which brought unemployment and misery to millions, were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries. During the Great Depression, the welfare state was seen as a "middle way" between the extremes of communism on the left and unregulated laissez-fairecapitalism on the right.[41] In the period following World War II, some countries in Western Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" coverage of the population. Other Western European states did not, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and France.[42] Political scientist Eileen McDonagh has argued that a major determinant of where welfare states arose is whether or not a country had a historical monarchy with familial foundations (a trait that Max Weber called patrimonialism); in places where the monarchic state was viewed as a parental steward of the populace, it was easier to shift into a mindset where the industrial state could also serve as a parental steward of the populace.[43]
The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash welfare benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind welfare services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions, welfare states can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among their citizens, as well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they spend their time.[44][45]
Analysis
Historian of the 20th-century fascist movement, Robert Paxton, observes that the provisions of the welfare state were enacted in the 19th century by religious conservatives to counteract appeals from trade unions and socialism.[46] Later, Paxton writes "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states… They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."[46] In Germany, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party maintained the welfare state established by previous German governments, but restructured it so as to help only Aryan individuals considered worthy of assistance, excluding "alcoholics, tramps, homosexuals, prostitutes, the 'work-shy' or the 'asocial', habitual criminals, the hereditarily ill (a widely defined category) and members of races other than the Aryan."[47] Nevertheless, even with these limitations, over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare by 1939.[47]
When social democratic parties abandoned Marxism after World War II, they increasingly accepted the welfare state as a political goal, either as a temporary goal within capitalism or an ultimate goal in itself.[46]
A theoretical addition from 2005 is that of Kahl in their article 'The religious roots of modern policy: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Protestant traditions compared'. They argue that the welfare state policies of several European countries can be traced back to their religious origins. This process has its origin in the 'poor relief' systems, and social norms present in Christian nations. The example countries are categorized as follows: Catholic – Spain, Italy and France; Lutheran – Denmark, Sweden and Germany; Reformed Protestant – Netherlands, the UK and the USA. The Catholic countries had a late adoption of welfare benefits and social assistance, the latter being splintered and meagre, due to several religious and social factors. Giving alms was an important part of catholic society as the wealthy could resolve their sins through participation in the act. As such, begging was allowed and was subject to a greater degree of acceptance. Poverty was seen as being close to grace and there was no onus for change placed onto the poor. These factors, coupled with the power of the church meant that state provided benefits did not arise until late in the 20th century. Additionally, social assistance was not done at a comprehensive level, each group in need had their assistance added incrementally. This accounts for the fragmented nature of social assistance in these countries.[48]
Lutheran states were early to provide welfare and late to provide social assistance but this was done uniformly. Poverty was seen as more of an individual affliction of laziness and immorality. Work was viewed as a calling. As such these societies banned begging and created workhouses to force the able-bodied to work. These uniform state actions paved the way for comprehensive welfare benefits, as those who worked deserved assistance when in need. When social assistance was delivered for those who had never worked, it was in the context of the uniform welfare provision. The concept of Predestination is key for understanding welfare assistance in Reformed Protestant states. Poor people were seen as being punished, therefore begging and state assistance was non existent. As such churches and charities filled the void resulting in early social assistance and late welfare benefits. The USA still has minimal welfare benefits today, because of their religious roots, according to Kahl.[48]
Also from 2005, Jacob Hacker stated that there was "broad agreement" in research on welfare that there had not been welfare state retrenchment. Instead, "social policy frameworks remain secure."[49]
Broadly speaking, welfare states are either universal, with provisions that cover everybody; or selective, with provisions covering only those deemed most needy. In his 1990 book, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen further identified three subtypes of welfare state models; liberal, social-democratic, and conservative.[50]
Esping-Anderson development of the three subtypes of welfare regimes were categorized under three dimensions: 1) state and market relations or the relationship between the state and market, 2) stratification or social relations and relationships, 3) social citizenship rights or whether or not an individual is dependent on the labor market.[51]
Since the building of the decommodification index is limited[a] and the typology is debatable, these 18 countries could be ranked from most purely social-democratic (Sweden) to the most liberal (the United States).[52]:597 Ireland represents a near-hybrid model whereby two streams of unemployment benefit exist: contributory and means-tested. However, payments can begin immediately and are theoretically available to all Irish citizens even if they have never worked, provided they are habitually resident.[53]
Social stigma varies across the three conceptual welfare states. Particularly, it is highest in liberal states, and lowest in social democratic states.[54] Esping-Andersen proposes that the universalist nature of social democratic states eliminate the duality between beneficiaries and non-recipients, whereas in means-tested liberal states there is resentment towards redistribution efforts. That is to say, the lower the percent of GDP spent on welfare, the higher the stigma of the welfare state.[54] Esping-Andersen also argues that welfare states set the stage for post-industrial employment evolution in terms of employment growth, structure, and stratification. He uses Germany, Sweden, and the United States to provide examples of the differing results of each of the three welfare states.[54]
According to Evelyne Huber and John Stephens, different types of welfare states emerged as a result of prolonged government by different parties. They distinguish between social democratic welfare states, Christian democratic welfare states, and "wage earner" states.[55]
According to the Swedish political scientist Bo Rothstein, in non-universal welfare states, the state is primarily concerned with directing resources to "the people most in need". This requires tight bureaucratic control in order to determine who is eligible for assistance and who is not. Under universal models such as Sweden, on the other hand, the state distributes welfare to all people who fulfill easily established criteria (e.g. having children, receiving medical treatment, etc.) with as little bureaucratic interference as possible. This, however, requires higher taxation due to the scale of services provided. This model was constructed by the Scandinavian ministers Karl Kristian Steincke and Gustav Möller in the 1930s and is dominant in Scandinavia.[50]
Sociologist Lane Kenworthy argues that the Nordic experience demonstrates that the modern social democratic model can "promote economic security, expand opportunity, and ensure rising living standards for all ... while facilitating freedom, flexibility and market dynamism."[56]
American political scientist Benjamin Radcliff has also argued that the universality and generosity of the welfare state (i.e. the extent of decommodification) is the single most important societal-level structural factor affecting the quality of human life, based on the analysis of time serial data across both the industrial democracies and the American States. He maintains that the welfare state improves life for everyone, regardless of social class (as do similar institutions, such as pro-worker labor market regulations and strong labor unions).[57][b]
Gender and welfare
Esping-Andersen's welfare typology is often criticized by feminists for being gender blind.[58] According to Keerty Nakray, Esping-Andersen's three types of dimensions (state and market relations, stratification, and social citizenship rights) does not acknowledge unpaid care-work done by women within the household economy. This failure of recognizing unpaid work is due to the fact that welfare states are focused on the male-breadwinner concept.[58] Because Esping-Andersen argued that the welfare state set the stage for employment evolution, the lack of gender analysis creates an unintended emphasis on male employment.
Sociologist Ann Shola Orloff reframes the three dimensions with a gendered lens. As she reframes, Orloff incorporates gender and expands the decommodification index within three dimensions: 1) focus on families and the welfare states in state and market relations, 2) including the relationship between gender and labor in stratifications on social provisions, 3) how men and women are dependent on the labor market and the effect of welfare on decommodification for both genders.[59] Reframing the decommodification index with a gendered lens ensures women doing care-work don't get left behind within the welfare state.
UBI as a replacement for the welfare state
Universal basic income (UBI) has been proposed as a replacement for the traditional welfare state where social protection schemes are also social policies with a precise aim that can be regarded as social engineering. The focus of the UBI is granting individuals more freedom in determining life choices by providing a lifetime of financial security regardless of one's career preferences or lifepath.[60]
According to statements of American Enterprise Institute-affiliated Libertarian/conservative scholar Charles Murray, recalled and sanctioned by the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist[61][62] Veronique de Rugy, as of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI in the US would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the US system put in place at that date.[63] By 2020, it would have been nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.[64]
Prior to 1900 in Australia, charitable assistance from benevolent societies, sometimes with financial contributions from the authorities, was the primary means of relief for people not able to support themselves.[65] The 1890s economic depression and the rise of the trade unions and the Labor parties during this period led to a movement for welfare reform.[66]
In 1900, New South Wales and Victoria enacted legislation introducing non-contributory pensions for those aged 65 and over. Queensland legislated a similar system in 1907 before the Deakin government introduced a national aged pension under the Invalid and Old-Aged Pensions Act 1908. A national invalid disability pension was started in 1910, and a national maternity allowance was introduced by the Fisher government in 1912.[65][67]
In the 1920s and 1930s, detailed proposals were developed for a comprehensive national insurance scheme covering medical, disability, unemployment and pension benefits. Multiple royal commissions were held on the subject and the scheme was legislated as the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act 1938. However, the scheme was ultimately abandoned for cost reasons in the lead-up to the Second World War.[68]
During the Second World War, the federal government created a welfare state by enacting national schemes for: child endowment in 1941; a widows' pension in 1942; a wife's allowance in 1943; additional allowances for the children of pensioners in 1943; and unemployment, sickness, and special benefits in 1945.[65][67]
Medicare is Australia's publicly funded universal health care insurance scheme. Initially created in 1975 by the Whitlam Labor government under the name "Medibank". The Fraser Liberal government made significant changes to it from 1976 leading to its abolition in late 1981. The Hawke government reinstated universal health care in 1984 under the name "Medicare".
Canada
Canada's welfare programs[69] are funded and administered at all levels of government (with 13 different[69] provincial/territorial systems), and include health and medical care, public education (through graduate school), social housing and social services. Social support is given through programs including Social Assistance, Guaranteed Income Supplement, Child Tax Benefit, Old Age Security, Employment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans.[70]
After 1830, French liberalism and economic modernization were key goals. While liberalism was individualistic and laissez-faire in the United Kingdom and the United States, in France liberalism was based instead on a solidaristic conception of society, following the theme of the French Revolution, Liberté, égalité, fraternité ("liberty, equality, fraternity"). In the Third Republic, especially between 1895 and 1914 "Solidarité" ["solidarism"] was the guiding concept of a liberal social policy, whose chief champions were the prime ministers Leon Bourgeois (1895–96) and Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau (1899–1902).[71][72] The French welfare state expanded when it tried to follow some of Bismarck's policies.[73][74] Poor relief was the starting point.[75] More attention was paid to industrial labour in the 1930s during a short period of socialist political ascendency, with the Matignon Accords and the reforms of the Popular Front.[76] Paxton points out these reforms were paralleled and even exceeded by measures taken by the Vichy regime in the 1940s.
Some policies enacted to enhance social welfare in Germany were Health Insurance 1883, Accident Insurance 1884, Old Age Pensions 1889 and National Unemployment Insurance 1927. Otto von Bismarck, the powerful Chancellor of Germany (in office 1871–90), developed the first modern welfare state by building on a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that had begun as early as in the 1840s. The measures that Bismarck introduced – old-age pensions, accident insurance, and employee health insurance – formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His paternalistic programs aimed to forestall social unrest and to undercut the appeal of the new Social Democratic Party, and to secure the support of the working classes for the German Empire, as well as to reduce emigration to the United States, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist.[77][78][79] Bismarck further won the support of both industry and skilled workers through his high-tariff policies, which protected profits and wages from American competition, although they alienated the liberal intellectuals who wanted free trade.[80][81]
During the 12 years of rule by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, the welfare state established by previous German governments was maintained, but it was restructured so as to help only Aryan individuals considered worthy of assistance, excluding "alcoholics, tramps, homosexuals, prostitutes, the 'work-shy' or the 'asocial', habitual criminals, the hereditarily ill (a widely defined category) and members of races other than the Aryan."[47] Nevertheless, even with these limitations, over 17 million German citizens received assistance under the auspices of the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV) by 1939.[47] The agency projected a powerful image of caring and support for those who were seen as full members of the German racial community, but it also inspired fear through its intrusive questioning and the threat of opening investigations on those who did not fulfill the criteria for support.[82]
Since 2001, India has developed a strong welfare state with continuous increase in government expenditure on the social sector over the years. The general government's expenditure on social security and welfare which includes health insurances and public hospitals, education, grants for housing, financial transfers to the poor, free bus or metro tickets, unemployment benefits and a variety of social pensions was approximately ₹7,164,000 crore (US$860billion) in 2022, representing 8.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[83][84][85][86]
Latin America
Welfare states in Latin America have been considered as "welfare states in transition",[87] or "emerging welfare states".[88] Welfare states in Latin America have been described as "truncated": generous benefits for formal-sector workers, regressive subsidies and informal barriers for the poor to obtain benefits.[89] Mesa-Lago has classified the countries taking into account the historical experience of their welfare systems.[90] The pioneers were Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, as they started to develop the first welfare programs in the 1920s following a bismarckian model. Other countries such as Costa Rica developed a more universal welfare system (1960s–1970s) with social security programs based on the Beveridge model.[91] Researchers such as Martinez-Franzoni[92] and Barba-Solano[93] have examined and identified several welfare regime models based on the typology of Esping-Andersen. Other scholars such as Riesco[94] and Cruz-Martinez[95] have examined the welfare state development in the region.
About welfare states in Latin America, Alex Segura-Ubiergo wrote:
Latin American countries can be unequivocally divided into two groups depending on their 'welfare effort' levels. The first group, which for convenience we may call welfare states, includes Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil. Within this group, average social spending per capita in the 1973–2000 period was around $532, while as a percentage of GDP and as a share of the budget, social spending reached 51.6 and 12.6 percent, respectively. In addition, between approximately 50 and 75 percent of the population is covered by the public health and pension social security system. In contrast, the second group of countries, which we call non-welfare states, has welfare-effort indices that range from 37 to 88. Within this second group, social spending per capita averaged $96.6, while social spending as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of the budget averaged 5.2 and 34.7 percent, respectively. In terms of the percentage of the population actually covered, the percentage of the active population covered under some social security scheme does not even reach 10 percent.[96]
Middle East
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (November 2022)
The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labor market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution and liberal use of the expansionary fiscal policy.[54]
While there are differences among the Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society and maximizing public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.[102]
China traditionally relied on the extended family to provide welfare services.[103] The one-child policy introduced in 1978 has made that unrealistic, and new models have emerged since the 1980s as China has rapidly become richer and more urban. Much discussion is underway regarding China's proposed path toward a welfare state.[104] Chinese policies have been incremental and fragmented in terms of social insurance, privatization, and targeting. In the cities, where the rapid economic development has centered, lines of cleavage have developed between state-sector and non-state-sector employees, and between labor-market insiders and outsiders.[105]
Sri Lanka
In 1995, the government started the Samurdhi (Prosperity) program aimed at reducing poverty, having replaced the Jana Saviya poverty alleviation programme that was in place at the time.[106]
Singapore
In Singapore, the government provides financial and social support through a variety of social assistance schemes for lower and middle-income Singaporeans. The Ministry of Social and Family Development runs ComCare, a program which provides income support for low-income citizen households through various schemes for short-to-medium term assistance, long-term assistance, child support, and urgent financial needs.[107] The Community Development Councils also run various local assistance schemes within their districts.[108] The Ministry of Manpower runs a Silver Support Scheme which provides additional financial support for low-income elderly with no family support.[109] Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health also runs MediFund to assist anyone on their behalf to pay off the rest of their medical bills after initial government subsidies, other health financing schemes as well as funds from the Central Provident Fund has been used.[110]
In 2012, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) was introduced. It is a medical card that provides extended subsidies exclusively for Singaporean citizens usually from lower-to-middle income households, as well as the older generations, where they could receive treatment for common illnesses, chronic health problems and specific dental issues at private clinics for free. The intentions behind the scheme were to encourage Singaporeans to use such a card and tap into the private healthcare sector for common or minor chronic illnesses, as well as dental care, to reduce the strain at public community hospitals. Originally, only a blue and orange card existed, depending on their household income.[111] The CHAS scheme was further expanded in 2019 to include a new green card that provides for all Singaporeans no matter their household income. As a result, all Singaporeans became covered for chronic and common illnesses as well as dentistry at privately owned clinics. Subsidies for complex chronic conditions was also increased.[111]
In addition, the National Council of Social Service coordinates a range of 450 non-government voluntary welfare organisations to provide social services, while raising funds through The Community Chest of Singapore.[112] Taking the World Bank's International Poverty Line (IPL)'s poverty threshold into account, the population of Singaporeans living below the poverty line is virtually non-existent.[113] Singapore also has one of the highest housing ownership rates in the world – over 90 percent – owing to the government's policy of constructing extensive and quality public housing throughout the country and providing extensive subsidies for its citizens to obtain them.[114]
About the British welfare state, historian Derek Fraser wrote:
It germinated in the social thought of late Victorian liberalism, reached its infancy in the collectivism of the pre-and post-Great War statism, matured in the universalism of the 1940s and flowered in full bloom in the consensus and affluence of the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s it was in decline, like the faded rose of autumn. Both UK and US governments are pursuing in the 1980s monetarist policies inimical to welfare.[115]
The minimum wage was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1909 for certain low-wage industries and expanded to numerous industries, including farm labour, by 1920. However, by the 1920s, a new perspective was offered by reformers to emphasize the usefulness of family allowance targeted at low-income families as the alternative to relieving poverty without distorting the labour market.[121][122] The trade unions and the Labour Party adopted this view. In 1945, family allowances were introduced; minimum wages faded from view. Talk resumed in the 1970s, but in the 1980s the Thatcher administration made it clear it would not accept a national minimum wage. Finally, with the return of Labour, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 set a minimum of £3.60 per hour, with lower rates for younger workers. It largely affected workers in high-turnover service industries such as fast-food restaurants, and members of ethnic minorities.[123]
December 1942 saw the publication of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services, commonly known as the Beveridge Report after its chairman, Sir William Beveridge. The Beveridge Report proposed a series of measures to aid those who were in need of help, or in poverty and recommended that the government find ways of tackling what the report called "the five giants": Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. It urged the government to take steps to provide citizens with adequate income, adequate health care, adequate education, adequate housing, and adequate employment, proposing that "all people of working age should pay a weekly National Insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired, or widowed." The Beveridge Report assumed that the National Health Service would provide free health care to all citizens and that a Universal Child Benefit would give benefits to parents, encouraging people to have children by enabling them to feed and support a family.
Before 1939, most health care had to be paid for through non-government organisations – through a vast network of friendly societies, trade unions, and other insurance companies, which counted the vast majority of the UK working population as members. These organizations provided insurance for sickness, unemployment, and disability, providing an income to people when they were unable to work. As part of the reforms,[clarification needed] the Church of England also closed down its voluntary relief networks and passed the ownership of thousands of church schools, hospitals and other bodies to the state.[126]
Welfare systems continued to develop over the following decades. By the end of the 20th century parts of the welfare system had been restructured, with some provision channelled through non-governmental organizations which became important providers of social services.[127]
The United States developed a limited welfare state in the 1930s.[128] The earliest and most comprehensive philosophical justification for the welfare state was produced by an American, the sociologist Lester Frank Ward (1841–1913), whom the historian Henry Steele Commager called "the father of the modern welfare state".
Ward saw social phenomena as amenable to human control. "It is only through the artificial control of natural phenomena that science is made to minister to human needs" he wrote, "and if social laws are really analogous to physical laws, there is no reason why social science should not receive practical application such as have been given to physical science."[129] Ward wrote:
The charge of paternalism is chiefly made by the class that enjoys the largest share of government protection. Those who denounce it are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it. Nothing is more obvious today than the single inability of capital and private enterprise to take care of themselves unaided by the state; and while they are incessantly denouncing "paternalism," by which they mean the claim of the defenceless laborer and artisan to a share in this lavish state protection, they are all the while besieging legislatures for relief from their own incompetency, and "pleading the baby act" through a trained body of lawyers and lobbyists. The dispensing of national pap to this class should rather be called "maternalism," to which a square, open, and dignified paternalism would be infinitely preferable.[130]
Ward's theories centred around his belief that a universal and comprehensive system of education was necessary if a democratic government was to function successfully. His writings profoundly influenced younger generations of progressive thinkers such as Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, and Frances Perkins (1880–1965), among others.[131]
The United States was the only industrialized country that went into the Great Depression of the 1930s with no social insurance policies in place. In 1935 Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal instituted significant social insurance policies. In 1938 Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, limiting the work week to 40 hours and banning child labor for children under 16, over stiff congressional opposition from the low-wage South.[128]
The Social Security law was very unpopular among many groups – especially farmers, who resented the additional taxes and feared they would never be made good. They lobbied hard for exclusion. Furthermore, the Treasury realized how difficult it would be to set up payroll deduction plans for farmers, for housekeepers who employed maids, and for non-profit groups; therefore, they were excluded. State employees were excluded for constitutional reasons (the federal government in the United States cannot tax state governments). Federal employees were also excluded.
By 2013, the U.S. remained the only major industrial state without a uniform national sickness program. American spending on health care (as a percent of GDP) is the highest in the world, but it is a complex mix of federal, state, philanthropic, employer and individual funding. The US spent 16% of its GDP on health care in 2008, compared to 11% in France in second place.[132]
Some scholars, such as Gerard Friedman, argue that labor-union weakness in the Southern United States undermined unionization and social reform throughout the United States as a whole, and is largely responsible for the anemic U.S. welfare state.[133] Sociologists Loïc Wacquant and John L. Campbell contend that since the rise of neoliberal ideology in the late 1970s and early 1980s, an expanding carceral state, or government system of mass incarceration, has largely supplanted the increasingly retrenched social welfare state, which has been justified by its proponents with the argument that the citizenry must take on personal responsibility.[134][135][136] Scholars assert that this transformation of the welfare state to a post-welfare punitive state, along with neoliberal structural adjustment policies and the globalization of the U.S. economy, have created more extreme forms of "destitute poverty" in the U.S. which must be contained and controlled by expanding the criminal justice system into every aspect of the lives of the poor.[137]
Other scholars such as Esping-Andersen argue that the welfare state in the United States has been characterized by private provision because such a state would better reflect the racial and sexual biases within the private sector. The disproportionate number of racial and sexual minorities in private sector jobs with weaker benefits, he argues, is evidence that the American welfare state is not necessarily intended to improve the economic situation of such groups.[54]
Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most Western countries whose welfare states constitute at least a fifth of GDP.[138][139]
Country
Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991) (threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[138]
Researchers have found very little correlation between economic performance and social expenditure.[140] They also see little evidence that social expenditures contribute to losses in productivity; economist Peter Lindert of the University of California, Davis attributes this to policy innovations such as the implementation of "pro-growth" tax policies in real-world welfare states.[141] Social expenses have also not contributed significantly to public debt. Martin Eiermann wrote:
According to the OECD, social expenditures in its 34 member countries rose steadily between 1980 and 2007, but the increase in costs was almost completely offset by GDP growth. More money was spent on welfare because more money circulated in the economy and because government revenues increased. In 1980, the OECD averaged social expenditures equal to 16 percent of GDP. In 2007, just before the financial crisis kicked into full gear, they had risen to 19 percent – a manageable increase.[142]
A Norwegian study covering the period 1980 to 2003 found welfare state spending correlated negatively with student achievement.[143] However, many of the top-ranking OECD countries on the 2009 PISA tests are considered welfare states.[144]
Early conservatives, under the influence of Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), opposed every form of social insurance "root and branch". Malthus believed that the poor needed to learn the hard way to practice frugality, self-control and chastity. Traditional conservatives also protested that the effect of social insurance would be to weaken private charity and loosen traditional social bonds of family, friends, religious and non-governmental welfare organisations.[145]
On the other hand, Karl Marx opposed piecemeal reforms advanced by middle-class reformers out of a sense of duty. In his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, written after the failed revolution of 1848, he warned that measures designed to increase wages, improve working conditions and provide social insurance were merely bribes that would temporarily make the situation of working classes tolerable to weaken the revolutionary consciousness that was needed to achieve a socialist economy.[c] Nevertheless, Marx also proclaimed that the Communists had to support the bourgeoisie wherever it acted as a revolutionary progressive class because "bourgeois liberties had first to be conquered and then criticised".[147]
In the 20th century, opponents of the welfare state have expressed apprehension about the creation of a large, possibly self-interested, bureaucracy required to administer it and the tax burden on the wealthier citizens that this entailed.[148]
Conservative and libertarian groups such as The Heritage Foundation[149] and the Cato Institute[150] argue that welfare creates dependence, a disincentive to work and reduces the opportunity of individuals to manage their own lives.[151] This dependence is called a "culture of poverty", which is said to undermine people from finding meaningful work.[150] Many of these groups also point to the large budget used to maintain these programs and assert that it is wasteful.[149]
In the book Losing Ground, Charles Murray argues that welfare not only increases poverty, but also increases other problems such as single-parent households, and crime.[152]
In 2012, political historian Alan Ryan pointed out that the modern welfare state stops short of being an "advance in the direction of socialism. [...] [I]ts egalitarian elements are more minimal than either its defenders or its critics think". It does not entail advocacy for social ownership of industry. Ryan further wrote:
The modern welfare state, does not set out to make the poor richer and the rich poorer, which is a central element in socialism, but to help people to provide for themselves in sickness while they enjoy good health, to put money aside to cover unemployment while they are in work, and to have adults provide for the education of their own and other people's children, expecting those children's future taxes to pay in due course for the pensions of their parents' generation. These are devices for shifting income across different stages in life, not for shifting income across classes. Another distinct difference is that social insurance does not aim to transform work and working relations; employers and employees pay taxes at a level they would not have done in the nineteenth century, but owners are not expropriated, profits are not illegitimate, cooperativism does not replace hierarchical management.[153]
In 2017, historian Walter Scheidel argued that the establishment of welfare states in the West in the early 20th century could be partly a reaction by elites to the Bolshevik Revolution and its violence against the bourgeoisie, which feared violent revolution in its own backyard. They were diminished decades later as the perceived threat receded. Scheidel spoke to Vice's Matt Taylor in an interview:
It's a little tricky because the US never really had any strong leftist movement. But if you look at Europe, after 1917 people were really scared about communism in all the Western European countries. You have all these poor people, they might rise up and kill us and take our stuff. That wasn't just a fantasy because it was happening next door. And that, we can show, did trigger steps in the direction of having more welfare programs and a rudimentary safety net in response to fear of communism. Not that they [the communists] would invade, but that there would be homegrown movements of this sort. American populism is a little different because it's more detached from that. But it happens roughly at the same time, and people in America are worried about communism, too–not necessarily very reasonably. But that was always in the background. And people have only begun to study systematically to what extent the threat, real or imagined, of this type of radical regime really influenced policy changes in Western democracies. You don't necessarily even have to go out and kill rich people–if there was some plausible alternative out there, it would arguably have an impact on policy making at home. That's certainly there in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. And there's a debate, right, because it becomes clear that the Soviet Union is really not in very good shape, and people don't really like to be there, and all these movements lost their appeal. That's a contributing factor, arguably, that the end of the Cold War coincides roughly with the time when inequality really starts going up again, because elites are much more relaxed about the possibility of credible alternatives or threats being out there.[154]
The welfare queen
Some argue that the public opinion on welfare in the US is in part a product of racist and classist political and ideological campaigns.[155] The popular myth of the welfare queen, a person taking advantage of the welfare system, came to be as a result of one such effort. In 1980, Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign relied on anti-poor tactics and the anti-black strategy of putting down the black vote in order to win the favor of the white populace. Thus, racist stereotypes and polarizing dog-whistles of this era gave birth to this fictitious character.[156][157]
The first version of the welfare queen was a lazy and selfish woman, living off of state benefits and having many children to obtain as much financial support as possible. In another case, it was a man buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, while the rest of the country struggled to put food on the table. While never stated directly, it was presumed by the public that both characters were, of course, black people, who were lazily exploiting the system and lived lavishly, while the regular hard-working middle-class American, imagined by the public to be white, had to foot the bill.[156]
In "The Welfare Queen: Race, Gender, Class, and Public Opinion", Carly Hayden Foster analyzes Martin Gilens' writing in "Why Americans Hate Welfare" and argues that race interacts with gender and class. These aspects together are then key determinants in whether or not there is public support for welfare. According to her analysis, survey respondents are more likely to support welfare spending if the mother reliant on welfare is described as white, while a black welfare mother fares significantly less support.[155] It is argued that this is in part because of the idea that the black mother would then have an incentive to have more black babies, but is in general interrelated with the perceived reproductive behavior of the mother,[155] which in this case is affected by the enduring Jezebel stereotype that presents black women as inherently sexually promiscuous.[158] Similarly, public support of welfare is unlikely in the case of poor single mothers.
The widespread assumption that welfare recipients are fraudulent and lazy apparently guides public opinion. In "The Crime of Survival" Jullily Kohler-Hausmann defends the position that anti-fraud campaigns as it relates to welfare worsen public perception of welfare recipients and frame them as criminals.[159] He goes on to cite Martin Gilens who in "Why Americans Hate Welfare" argues:
[A] large majority of Americans agree that government should provide monetary support to those who are unable to support themselves. But the perception of welfare abuse is widespread. Indeed, as the survey evidence … suggests, it would be hard to exaggerate the level of cynicism toward welfare recipients held by the American public. This perception of welfare recipients' dishonesty and freeloading is at the core of Americans' conviction that welfare spending should be cut.[155][160]
This sentiment was perpetrated by the Reagan administration and he himself addressed the supposed fraud in public programs in his first inaugural address. During his presidency, welfare spending tighetened and the anti-fraud rhetoric was used to justify big cuts to welfare programs.[157] Regarding this period, Martin Gilens cites Julius Wilson, who writes:
As the economic situation worsened, Ronald Reagan was able to convince many working- and middle-class Americans that the decline in their living standards was attributable to expensive programs for the poor…
Martin Gilens argues that economic circumstance is a deciding factor in the public opinion on welfare. He says that during the period of growing economy, people are willing to share their profits with the less fortunate, but this generosity disappears in times of economic turmoil, as people are primarily preoccupied with their own well-being and are less willing to provide for the poor because their own situation takes precedence.[160]
He cites Michael Katz, who claims that the stagflation following the 1973 energy crisis caused the public opinion to shift toward a negative attitude toward the expansion of the social welfare state, as people who worried for their financial future were in search of a scape-goat for their economic losses, in this case welfare recipients.[160]
↑ According to the French sociologist Georges Menahem, Esping-Andersen's "decommodification index" aggregates both qualitative and quantitative variables for "sets of dimensions" which fluid, and pertain to three very different areas. These characters involve similar limits of the validity of the index and of its potential for replication. Cf. Menahem 2007.
↑ "However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable."[146]
Related Research Articles
The welfare state of the United Kingdom began to evolve in the 1900s and early 1910s, and comprises expenditures by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland intended to improve health, education, employment and social security. The British system has been classified as a liberal welfare state system.
Welfare spending is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter. Social security may either be synonymous with welfare, or refer specifically to social insurance programs which provide support only to those who have previously contributed, as opposed to social assistance programs which provide support on the basis of need alone. The International Labour Organization defines social security as covering support for those in old age, support for the maintenance of children, medical treatment, parental and sick leave, unemployment and disability benefits, and support for sufferers of occupational injury.
Welfare reforms are changes in the operation of a given welfare system aimed at improving the efficiency, equity and administration of government assistance programs. Reform programs may have a various aims, sometimes the focus is on reducing the number of individuals receiving government assistance and welfare system expenditure, at other times reforms may aim to ensure greater fairness, effectiveness and allocation of welfare for those in need. Classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives generally argue that welfare and other tax-funded services reduce incentives to work, exacerbate the free-rider problem, and intensify poverty. On the other hand social democrats and socialists generally criticize welfare reforms that minimize the public safety net and strengthens the capitalist economic system. Welfare reform is constantly debated because of the varying opinions on a government's need to balance providing guaranteed welfare benefits and promoting self-sufficiency.
Some professionals and universities consider social policy a subset of public policy, while other practitioners characterize social policy and public policy to be two separate, competing approaches for the same public interest, with social policy deemed more holistic than public policy. Whichever of these persuasions a university adheres to, social policy begins with the study of the welfare state and social services. It consists of guidelines, principles, legislation and associated activities that affect the living conditions conducive to human welfare, such as a person's quality of life. The Department of Social Policy at the London School of Economics defines social policy as "an interdisciplinary and applied subject concerned with the analysis of societies' responses to social need", which seeks to foster in its students a capacity to understand theory and evidence drawn from a wide range of social science disciplines, including economics, sociology, psychology, geography, history, law, philosophy and political science. The Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at Harvard University describes social policy as "public policy and practice in the areas of health care, human services, criminal justice, inequality, education, and labor". Social policy might also be described as actions that affect the well-being of members of a society through shaping the distribution of and access to goods and resources in that society. Social policy often deals with wicked problems.
Social insurance is a form of social welfare that provides insurance against economic risks. The insurance may be provided publicly or through the subsidizing of private insurance. In contrast to other forms of social assistance, individuals' claims are partly dependent on their contributions, which can be considered insurance premiums to create a common fund out of which the individuals are then paid benefits in the future.
In political economy, decommodification is the strength of social entitlements and citizens' degree of immunization from market dependency.
Workfare is a governmental plan under which welfare recipients are required to accept public-service jobs or to participate in job training. Many countries around the world have adopted workfare to reduce poverty among able-bodied adults; however, their approaches to execution vary. The United States and United Kingdom are two countries utilizing workfare, albeit with different backgrounds.
Social welfare, assistance for the ill or otherwise disabled and the old, has long been provided in Japan by both the government and private companies. Beginning in the 1920s, the Japanese government enacted a series of welfare programs, based mainly on European models, to provide medical care and financial support. During the post-war period, a comprehensive system of social security was gradually established. Universal health insurance and a pension system were established in 1960.
A social welfare model is a system of social welfare provision and its accompanying value system. It usually involves social policies that affect the welfare of a country's citizens within the framework of a market or mixed economy.
The Italian welfare state is based partly upon the corporatist-conservative model and partly upon the universal welfare model.
Social programs in Canada include all Canadian government programs designed to give assistance to citizens outside of what the market provides. The Canadian social safety net includes a broad spectrum of programs, many of which are run by the provinces and territories. Canada also has a wide range of government transfer payments to individuals, which totaled $176.6 billion in 2009—this cost only includes social programs that administer funds to individuals; programs such as medicare and public education are additional costs.
In the United States, the federal and state social programs including cash assistance, health insurance, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, and education and childcare assistance. Similar benefits are sometimes provided by the private sector either through policy mandates or on a voluntary basis. Employer-sponsored health insurance is an example of this.
The effects of social welfare on poverty have been the subject of various studies.
Welfare dependency is the state in which a person or household is reliant on government welfare benefits for their income for a prolonged period of time, and without which they would not be able to meet the expenses of daily living. The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines welfare dependency as the proportion of all individuals in families which receive more than 50 percent of their total annual income from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Typically viewed as a social problem, it has been the subject of major welfare reform efforts since the mid-20th century, primarily focused on trying to make recipients self-sufficient through paid work. While the term "welfare dependency" can be used pejoratively, for the purposes of this article it shall be used to indicate a particular situation of persistent poverty.
The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism is a book on political theory written by Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen, published in 1990. The work is Esping-Andersen's most influential and highly cited work, outlining three main types of welfare states, in which modern developed capitalist nations cluster. The work occupies seminal status in the comparative analysis of the welfare states of Western Europe and other advanced capitalist economies.
South Korea's pension scheme was introduced relatively recently, compared to other democratic nations. Half of the country's population aged 65 and over lives in relative poverty, or nearly four times the 13% average for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This makes old age poverty an urgent social problem. Public social spending by general government is half the OECD average, and is the lowest as a percentage of GDP among OECD member countries.
Welfare in Peru began on a base of democratic views. Its political system is a multi-party system that includes having a President and Prime Minister. The economy of Peru has expanded substantially throughout the years making it one of the fastest growing economies. As described by Gøsta Esping-Andersen, in his book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, the Peruvian welfare system would most commonly fit in with the liberal model, since Peru mostly attempts to emancipate the less fortunate from poverty, through means of state-cultivated programs. In accordance, the welfare system has shown great expansion, with the focus primarily on education, healthcare, and the creation of a social safety net.
Public pensions in Greece are designed to provide incomes to Greek pensioners upon reaching retirement. For decades pensions in Greece were known to be among the most generous in the European Union, allowing many pensioners to retire earlier than pensioners in other European countries. This placed a heavy burden on Greece's public finances which, coupled with an aging workforce, made the Greek state increasingly vulnerable to external economic shocks, culminating in a recession due to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent European debt crisis. This series of crises has forced the Greek government to implement economic reforms aimed at restructuring the pension system and eliminating inefficiencies within it. Measures in the Greek austerity packages imposed upon Greek citizens by the European Central Bank have achieved some success at reforming the pension system despite having stark ramifications for standards of living in Greece, which have seen a sharp decline since the beginning of the crisis.
South Africa has one of the most extensive social welfare systems among developing countries in the world. In 2019, an estimated 18 million people received some form of social grant provided by the government.
The Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was a welfare program introduced by President Richard Nixon in August 1969, which aimed to implement a negative income tax for households with working parents. The FAP was influenced by President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty program that aimed to expand welfare across all American citizens, especially for working-class Americans. Nixon intended for the FAP to replace existing welfare programs such as the Aid to Assist Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program as a way to attract conservative voters that were beginning to become wary of welfare while maintaining middle-class constituencies. The FAP specifically provided aid assistance to working-class Americans, dividing benefits based on age, the number of children, family income, and eligibility. Initially, the Nixon administration thought the FAP legislation would easily pass through the House of Representatives and the more liberal Senate, as both chambers were controlled by the Democratic Party. In June 1971, the FAP under the bill H.R. 1 during the 92nd Congress, passed in the House of Representatives. However, from December 1971 to June 1972 H.R.1 bill that included the FAP underwent scrutiny in the Senate chamber, particularly by the Senate Finance Committee controlled by the conservative Democrats, while the Republicans were also reluctant on passing the program. Eventually, on October 5 of 1972, a revised version of H.R.1 passed the Senate with a vote of 68-5 that only authorized funding for FAP testing before its implementation. During House-Senate reconciliation, before Nixon signed the bill on October 15, 1972, the entire provision on FAP was dropped. The FAP enjoyed broad support from Americans across different regions. Reception towards the program varied across racial, regional, income, and gender differences. The FAP is best remembered for beginning the rhetoric against the expansion of welfare that was popular during the New Deal. It initiated the support for anti-welfare conservative movements that became mainstream in American political discourse during the Reagan era.
↑ O'Hara, Phillip Anthony, ed. (1999). "Welfare state". Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Routledge. p.1247. ISBN978-0-415-24187-8. The welfare state emerged in the twentieth century as one institutional form of this socially protective response. In the 1930s, the responses of emerging welfare states to the Great Depression were to the immediate circumstances of massive unemployment, lost output, and collapse of the financial and trading systems. Planning was not a key element in the response to the crisis of capitalism. Instead the character of welfare state intervention can best be described as an 'interventionist drift', reflecting the spontaneous, uncoordinated reactions of the protective response...By the late 1970s, the welfare state and the capitalist economic structure in which it was placed were in a general state of crisis. There had never been a well articulated vision or ideological foundation of the welfare state.
1 2 Thakur, Upendra (1989). Studies in Indian History. Chaukhambha oriental research studies. Chaukhamba Orientalia. Retrieved 30 August 2013– via The University of Virginia.
↑ Singh, Upinder (2012). "Governing the State and the Self: Political Philosophy and Practice in the Edicts of Aśoka". South Asian Studies. University of Delhi. 28 (2): 131–145. doi:10.1080/02666030.2012.725581. S2CID143362618.
1 2 3 Paxton, Robert O. (25 April 2013). "Vichy Lives! – In a way". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 14 April 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
1 2 3 4 Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939, New York: The Penguin Press, 2005, p. 489
1 2 Kahl, Sigrun (2005). The religious roots of modern poverty policy: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Protestant traditions compared. European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 1, Religion and Society, pp. 91–126.
↑ Hacker, Jacob (2005). "Policy Drift: The Hidden Politics of US Welfare State Retrenchment". Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford University Press.
1 2 Bo Rothstein, Just Institutions Matter: the Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 18–27.
↑ Garton, Stephen (2008). "Health and welfare". The Dictionary of Sydney. Archived from the original on 15 August 2012. Retrieved 23 December 2014.
1 2 Yeend, Peter (September 2000). "Welfare Review". Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 23 December 2014. Retrieved 23 December 2014.
↑ Allan Mitchell, The Divided Path: The German Influence on Social Reform in France After 1870 (1991) onlineArchived 14 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine
↑ Nord, Philip (1994). "The Welfare State in France, 1870–1914". French Historical Studies. 18 (3): 821–838. doi:10.2307/286694. JSTOR286694.
↑ Weiss, John H. (1983). "Origins of the French Welfare State: Poor Relief in the Third Republic, 1871-1914". French Historical Studies. 13 (1): 47–78. doi:10.2307/286593. JSTOR286593.
↑ Spencer, Elaine Glovka (1979). "Rulers of the Ruhr: Leadership and Authority in German Big Business before 1914". The Business History Review. 53 (1): 40–64. doi:10.2307/3114686. JSTOR3114686. S2CID154458964.
↑ Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1996). Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economy. London: Sage Publications.
↑ Huber, Evelyne, & John D. Stephens (2012). Democracy and the Left. Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
↑ Mesa-Lago, Carmelo (1994). Changing Social Security in Latin America. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
↑ Carlos Barba Solano, Gerardo Ordoñez Barba, and Enrique Valencia Lomelí (eds.), Más Allá de la pobreza: regímenes de bienestar en Europa, Asia y América. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte
↑ Franzoni, Juliana Martínez (2008). "Welfare Regimes in Latin America: Capturing Constellations of Markets, Families, and Policies". Latin American Politics and Society. 50 (2): 67–100. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00013.x. S2CID153771264.
↑ Riesco, Manuel (2009). "Latin America: A new developmental welfare state model in the making?". International Journal of Social Welfare. 18: S22–S36. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00643.x.
↑ Segura-Ubiergo, Alex (2007). The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy and Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–31
↑ "Saudi Arabia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2000. 23 February 2001. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
↑ Huang, Xian (March 2013). "The Politics of Social Welfare Reform in Urban China: Social Welfare Preferences and Reform Policies". Journal of Chinese Political Science. 18 (1): 61–85. doi:10.1007/s11366-012-9227-x. S2CID18306913.
↑ Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1976). "David Lloyd George: Land, the Budget, and Social Reform". The American Historical Review. 81 (5): 1058–1066. doi:10.2307/1852870. JSTOR1852870.
↑ Derek Fraser 1973, The evolution of the British welfare state: a history of social policy since the Industrial Revolution.
↑ Quoted in Thomas F. Gosset 1997, Race: The History of an Idea in America Oxford University Press, [1963], p. 161.
↑ Lester Frank Ward 1950, Forum XX, 1895, quoted in Henry Steele Commager's The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880s New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 210.
↑ Henry Steele Commager ed. 1967, Lester Ward and the Welfare State New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
↑ Friedman, Gerald (2000). "The Political Economy of Early Southern Unionism: Race, Politics, and Labor in the South, 1880–1953". The Journal of Economic History. 60 (2): 384–413. doi:10.1017/S0022050700025146. JSTOR2566376. S2CID154931829.
1 2 3 Gilens, Martin (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: race, media and the politics of antipoverty policy. Studies in communication, media, and public opinion. Chicago (Ill.): University Press of Chicago. ISBN978-0-226-29364-6.
Ferre, Juan Cruz (2023). "Welfare regimes in twenty-first-century Latin America". Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 39 (2): 101–127.
Huddie, Paul, and Amy Carney. "Military welfare history: what is it and why should it be considered?." War & Society 42.4 (2023): 305–316. on welfare for soldiers and their families; also impact of warfare on welfare state online
Korpi, Walter; "The Democratic Class Struggle"; London: Routledge (1983).
Koehler, Gabriele and Deepta Chopra; "Development and Welfare Policy in South Asia"; London: Routledge (2014).
Kuhnle, Stein (2000). "The Scandinavian welfare state in the 1990s: Challenged but viable". West European Politics. 23 (2): 209–228. doi:10.1080/01402380008425373. S2CID153443503.
Obinger, Herbert, Klaus Petersen, and Peter Starke, eds. Warfare and welfare: Military conflict and welfare state development in western countries (Oxford University Press, 2018) online.
Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
