The Impact of Perspectives in the Shaping of Irish and German Welfare Systems - Essay Example

A D Paul The Impact of Perspectives in the Shaping of Irish and German Welfare Systems Different people understand welfare systems differently. A simplistic concept is to name the systems that help people unable to support themselves as welfare systems. Beneficiaries are the aged, mentally and physically challenged and those who do not have the means to support their dependent children. These are the recipients of doles administered by the state. However experts who dabble in the field of public policy and social work use the terms Welfare system in a broader and inclusive meaning to explain any strategy either private or government funded that empower people to perform more fully in a social milieu. In his monumental work, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Esping-Anderson has provided a definition of the concept of Welfare State. He writes: A common textbook definition of a welfare state is that it involves state responsibility for securing some basic modicum of welfare for its citizens (P.9). The modicum of welfare is a roof over ones head, the ability to feed one and the family and the absence of anxiety about the next meal and the medical bill. A welfare state distinguishes the individual as a labourer from individual as a citizen. This is de-commodification of its citizens. Hence in a genuinely welfare context the daily routine of the activities of the state would be geared towards servicing the welfare needs of the households. According Esping-Anderson, there are three approaches to social policy and welfare. The Liberal approach to social policy followed in the United States, Canada and Australia view welfare in terms of minimal assistance on the part of the state. The conservative approach to social policy is with minimal state intervention at the same time securing social welfare through alternative structures which state encourages. The German system is vastly conservative. The Social Democratic view to social policy is protectionist in its approach and ensures full employment and access to social welfare irrespective of the merit of the individual but on the contextual need. Norway and Sweden fall to this category. The influence of religion in the policy framing is indeed a factor. No comparative study can ignore the impact of religion in the formation of the welfare systems in Germany and Ireland. F.Castles recognizes that religion defines both the cultural appropriateness of beliefs and behavior (F. Castles 1998: 53). Ireland being predominantly Catholic, the welfare system is heavily influenced by values centered on families and dignity of human life. Similarly the study of cleavage politics has shown that religious behaviour is very closely associated with a conservative orientation in most countries, whatever social class one belongs to. The waning influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland need not deflect us from its past influence in some of the social policies of Irish Government today. The Church-state conflict can give rise to specific cleavage resulting in the formation of anti-clerical parties. The two countries where there is virtually no anti-clerical tradition: at present are Ireland and Poland. Ireland's welfare policies consequently reflect a Catholic bias. In Germany though there was strong anticlerical sentiments, in the recent history Germans do not bring religion much to the forefront. The Catholics and Protestants in Germany are not contestants politically and there is much absence of the conservation element of religion in German social welfare. According to Peillon, The Irish Welfare System eludes our classifications. Culture, traditions institutions and geography decide the approach to welfare. Ireland' position in the welfare world is ambiguous. Its de-commodification score is low, placing it in the liberal category. Its score on socialist regime attributes is also low. Similarly it has low scores on liberal attributes and medium scores on conservatism. However Cochrane and Clarke describe Ireland as 'Catholic corporatist' (1993) because of the many-documented instance of the Church-State conflict in social matters and the unrelenting loyalty of the people to Catholic moral standard and religious observances. Ireland refashioned its liberalism to a neo-corporate liberalism combining European neo-corporatism and Anglo-American neo-liberalism. Thus Ireland can be said to have stationed near and away from Berlin, Boston and London. This is an intriguing situation indeed but unavoidable as the Irish welfare system was born out of a struggle and historical context. The struggle was between the state, Catholic Church, trade unions, business coalitions, voluntary associations as well as partnerships, and feminist groups. The history of Ireland is also a intricate one influenced by the British colonial heritage, the lasting lesson of the famine of 1840, the semi-peripheral position of Ireland in Europe, Ireland's continuing relationship with the United Kingdom, and its link in the EEU. It can be seen that Irish response to American led globalization and European integration was very cleverly maneuvered by making delicate balancing acts in its social welfare system without sacrificing its innate character. The framework of social welfare system is not an accident. Many aspects play a decisive role in its formation. Castles and Mitchell have examined this phenomenon in their work, worlds of Welfare (1993). According to them social policies are shaped over a long span of time. What a welfare state is expected to do is the reflection of a country's ethos about social justice and how that target may be reached. The perception about this is different for indifferent countries. In this respect social systems are comparable to elephants on the move advancing on guarded and ponderous steps. However at times they may deviate from the norm to manage a crisis. In fact Irelands certain maneuvers which appear to be a deviation from its normal phase is occasioned by its need to survive effectively in a globalized milieu. Irelands formation of social welfare system is vastly different from other European nations. The first difference that strikes the attention is the absence of social-democratic politics and potent and organized workers' movement. Ireland indeed has a centralized social security system in Europe but the social service is not provided in an organized manner. The Catholic Church's dominant, but somewhat eroding influence, does play a major role especially in health care. Irish social welfare system has ample provision for child welfare, treatment for tuberculosis and infectious diseases. These are absolutely free for all. Similarly persons who cannot afford to pay are entitled to comprehensive free healthcare. Middle income group, smaller farmers and others of restricted means are entitled to free maternity and child welfare service, free hospital service and specialist service. Other benefits include widow's and orphan's pensions, unemployment and disability benefits, deserted wife's payments and old-age pensions. Children's allowances are paid to all households for each child under the age 16, irrespective of means. Because of the Catholic influence Ireland has strict social laws and Ireland protects also the rights of the unborn child, as abortion is illegal in the country. Castles and Mitchell's views are equally relevant to the formation of German welfare system. The first principle of social welfare in Germany is the realization that economic development is the key to social welfare. This priority is reflected in the structure of German social service. Social benefits are earnings-related. Secondly the German welfare system is developed through a corporate structure. This system was entrenched in German thinking after Bismarck consolidated the existing mutual aid associations and remained the backbone of social protection in the years to come. Social welfare needs are administered from independent funds. Thirdly German welfare system is based on the principle of subsidiarity. This means welfare is administered in decentralized way by independently managed funds with only residual state intervention. The three factors influenced in the shaping of the welfare structure in Germany. The Catholic social philosophy with its insistence on self- help and the family values resulted in the formation much voluntary organization substituting the state run department. The social arm of the Churches and Labour movements came to play an important role in welfare. A strong second impetus was that of the conservative state-patronizing attitude that wanted people to be wholesome. Finally there was a liberal tradition of promoting a market driven economy and a system of unhindered enterprise. The German social welfare system is termed corporatist, as it is cooperation between interest groups rather than competition as in the pluralist Anglo-American systems. The salient features of German Welfare system are the following. The German welfare system is a Social solidarity insurance model. The economic governance is directed to reduce labor costs and hence early retirement, longer vacations and shorter workweeks. The social assistance schemes are underdeveloped. In the operational level social service benefits are provided in kind-transfers and cash-transfers. Social housing provision is an example of kind-transfer. One becomes eligible for it only after fulfilling certain social profile like acquiring a certain age, marital status, number of children and a level of income. An example of cash-transfer can found in the administration of healthcare cash vouchers are provided for availing the service of doctor from the private sector. Though the aim of welfare system is to ensure the overall well being of all the citizens in a country, the ways of achieving it is determined differently by different countries. The two different approaches to welfare found in Germany and Ireland are outcomes of the different perspectives that two nations have acquired over the years. References Castles F and Mitchell D. (1993) Worlds of Welfare and Families of Nations (ed) Castles F. (Aldershot: Dartmouth) Cochrane, A. and J. Clarke (1993) Comparing Welfare States. London: Sage Esping-Anderson G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press Cambridge. Peillon, Michael. (1994) Placing Ireland in a comparative Perspective Economic and Social Review, 25 (2): 179-95. Spicker, Paul (1991): The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Social Policy of the European Community. Journal of European Social Policy. 1 (1), pp. 3-14 Titmuss, R. M. (1974): Social Policy. London: Allen and Unwin. ============================================================== | Read More