Global Welfare Models - Essay Example

GLOBAL WELFARE MODELS al Affiliation) The offset of World War II saw countries more interested and involved in their own development agendas. The losses and underdevelopment that came with the world wars made the agendas to become more vivid. Global welfare is a progressive development in terms of social shared amenities on an international basis. It ensures that rather than having said amenities acquired at the national level its acquisition spreads on an international level so that sustainability is a more likely eventuality. In the event that policy issues are solved on a global basis, the resulting event is much more successful because firstly, of a wider platform of ideas and secondly, garnered support within countries whose primary and secondary agendas are similar (Giddens, 2006). The European countries have especially been the more inclined, in comparison to the rest of the world when it comes to this regard. Global welfare, as with any other phenomenon, is requisitely of strategies, hence the onset of Global Welfare Models. These models are either liberal or Conservative – Corporatist. Liberal Models embody open mindedness within strategy and policy formulation. They are of the belief that there must be acquisition of change both politically as well as socially for the subsequent achievement of progress. They base their economic approaches on freedom in addition to the lack of restraint as well as incorporation of free competition and marketing systems that are self-regulated. Conservative – Corporatist on the other hand, base their approaches on the existing traditional practices within the societal setting. These models are in preference of strategies that are devoid of change within societal establishments. This papers focal point is on the liberal global welfare models: Anglo-Saxon Model and the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model bases its existence on the involvement of the state in the development and welfare agendas. It is practiced within the Nordic society (Iceland, Denmark and Finland), but also extends to the Scandinavian setting (Norway &Sweden Peninsula). It focuses on ensuring that there is the avoidance of oppression that stems from the ruling classes and that these classes play different roles within welfare. In this way, their contributions, different as they may be, are embraced as a stepping-stone to the end goal that countries have set. Intermediary institutions, according to this model, have very little if any influence on welfare matters. People consider their contribution as irrelevant and strict followers of the model argue that said contribution is in essence an illustration of pending underdevelopment. It observes the state functions in its extension of the public service domain as well as in the cash generation schemes that are set up from taxation. In this model, the acknowledgment of the issue of “private or public” does not have much importance. The model focuses on ensuring that people of different classes acquire their respectful rights. There is the belief that the middle class, because of its lack of uniqueness, is frequently overlooked in service extension and hence the necessity for its inclusiveness. The model also emphasizes on independence and subsequent equal sharing of profits and losses as a single unit. It emphasizes the equality of men and women in development as both have specific roles to play. In the Scandinavian setting both men and women, suffer from tyrannical exploits of markets of labour and family respectively (Einhorn, 2003). The equality principle on ensures the eradication of tyrannies. The Anglo-Saxon Model came into existence in the 18th Century in the United Kingdom. Its existence relies on the liberal strategies and ideas that A. Smith developed. It employs the use of the common law operated by judges, legalized principles, as well as oral argumentation. This model is particularly to Anglo-Saxon countries (The United Kingdom and Ireland). It advocates the principle of allowance of government intervention within an economical setting. The government is the greatest contributor, both socially and politically, in national welfare and as such, it is responsible for the economic structure. Other than the Anglo-Saxon Countries, the United States has taken the employment of the model and some scholars even argue that it has gone on to master the model much more effectively than its originators. Moreover, the model argues that the success that the US Economy enjoys is an attribution to its employment. The transfer of money, resources centres on the working population. They are the largest contributors and subsequently, beneficiaries of labour flow within the economy. The model emphasizes the enhanced access to regular means of employment and the consequent benefits to the demographic group in question. It consists of unions regarded as socially, politically, and economically weak in comparison to other European Welfare Models. As a resultant factor, wage dispersion is consistently on the rise and in comparison to other European Welfare Models; the rift in wage dispersion is much wider. The Nordic Model’s emphasis is about redistribution. In this sense, there is a need to redistribute resources within an economy equally in regards to the demographics. The utility of the resources needs to benefit all the demographics to achieve independence. This means that in the incidence that there is an unequal occurrence of resource distribution, as per this model, development is not in the occurrence. The Anglo-Saxon Model is particularly on resource distribution being favourable to the working class. This is because they put in labour, creativity, and leadership and therefore they are to be the central focus of an economy. This model is of the belief that other demographics have little contribution to the economy. Therefore, they have no business in the distribution of resources. The Nordic Model accords no regard to the distinction of all that is “private and public.” All resources and consequent benefits exist for the good of people. It strongly asserts that defining some sectors of the economy as being private and others public limits free flow of profit and loss. If development occurs with this limitation then it is not essentially sustainable and amounts to no good. The Anglo-Saxon Model- strongly differentiates private and public property and resources. The private sector and the public sector to carry out distinct functions and interaction between the two are limited. However, development in this regard, is sustainable if both distinctions enjoy independence and progressive. In most instances, this distinctive characteristic ends up as a discriminatory factor between one of the two sectors and rarely is a balance in development achieved. The Nordic Model does not allow for government intervention. Its view of liberalism is one in which the state does not constantly interfere in matters of development. This interference, it asserts, disallows contribution of other stakeholders and makes development state centred hence causing disadvantage to the majority (Castles, 2010). This aims at reducing the occurrence of administrative costs, which in the long term impair the occurrence of economic and social progress. The Anglo-Saxon Model is keen on allowing government intervention. There is the belief in the establishment of a central control to ensure stability. Government intervention acts as a measure to ensure that institutions do not override each other’s function. The slow development in Anglo-Saxon countries relates to a “silent and indirect” lack of application of inclusiveness, as explained by Nordic supporters. Nordic Countries embody social assistance and protection. There is a high regard for development on a uniform social basis. There is the observance of each other’s well-being so that progress when it occurs does not leave out any members of the society. The Anglo-Saxon countries are more inclined in the belief of individualism and personal responsibility. Individuals need to exercise ultimate control and responsibility for their own development as opposed to social and uniform development. Consequently, social assistance and protection when it occurs, is only ever as a last resort. This is to ensure the avoidance of overdependence on institutions and social structures by the citizenship. The reduction of poverty is a relevant policy issue that both models have attempted to address. Poverty is a result of the imbalance of many sectors, labour, employment, markets, as well as sustainability. In terms of the rewards related to labour markets, there is distinct variation between the two models. The rates of employment in Nordic countries are much higher in comparison to the rates of employment in Anglo-Saxon Countries (all the statistical provisions laid out are as of 2007).The rate in Nordic Countries was at 72% whilst the rate in Anglo-Saxon countries was at 69% .The spectrum of age was attributed as the reason for this difference. Workers that are between the ages of 5 to 64 have a 56% employment rate in the Nordic countries and those in Anglo-Saxon ones have a 53% employment rate. The unemployment rate reduced for those that fall in between the ages of 15 to 24 is lower in Anglo-Saxon Countries (10%) and 13% in Nordic countries. However, both models have a close and above average rating in terms of employment rates. Research has found that there lies a strong link between the generated rate of employment within a socially based system and the tools used as a means of protection against the negativities and harsh factors in labour markets. The more a model employs strict legislation with regard to protection of employment the lower the rates of employment fall. Employment, market, and labour all contribute heavily in the attempt at averting poverty. As in the previous regard, both models fall above average when it comes to the aversion of poverty. However, there are observable differences in the overall statistics in this attempt. The capital (human) that various individuals contribute to the market is the reason for the existing variance. In Nordic countries, the number of people that fall under the ages of 25-64, that have at the very least an education level up to the higher secondary school is lower in Anglo-Saxon countries (60%) in comparison to Nordic Countries (75%). The higher the level of secondary education an individual has attained allows them much more ease in averting poverty as opposed to the contrary. This means that redistribution, as a factor would only come in as a secondary aspect when it comes to poverty aversion. The aversion of poverty is due to the attainment or lack thereof of equity and efficiency. If a model has successfully acquired equity, then logically there are high chances to achieve sustainability. This is because one portion of the society will not be overly dependent on another or on the existing institutions and structures within society. The social structure of the Nordic system allows that the countries within it acquire both equity and efficiency all at once. Anglo-Saxon practitioners on the other hand have an imbalance of the two, with efficiency take the upper hand. Although there is obvious mastery of efficiency, the same does not apply when it comes to equity (Giddens, 2007). Sustainability is also an aspect of its won in the terms of poverty aversion. Models would have to be efficient if at all they were to achieve sustainability. This explains why in spite of the fact that the Anglo-Saxon model is not equitable, it has survived thus far; it is efficient. However, there is always the question - which of the two is more efficient. The least efficient suffers greater constraints in terms of financial capability therefore influencing negatively in its capability to avert poverty. One observable factor is the public debt element. Anglo-Saxon countries have a much lower public debt (36%) in comparison to Nordic countries (49%). Debt defies the logic of sustainability because for every level of development achieved, a certain amount of the resultant benefit relates to credit institutions. Another factor that contributes to poverty aversion is the attitude and inclination towards globalization. Should it be that a model has a negative perception of the outcomes, that globalization will bear, then its likelihood of achieving sustainability falls even lower. This is especially with regard to its “supposed” negative effect on employment rates. In this regard, studies illustrated that the negative perception towards globalization in Anglo-Saxon Countries stood at 36% whilst in Nordic countries, it stood at 37% providing the former a slight lead. It is important to note that these two models compete favourably as opposed to one having a very high margin of development in comparison to the other. In actuality, countries within these two models, as opposed to other models (Mediterranean and Continental), in combination, are the most sustainable and developed countries in the world. The United Kingdom is a major source of reference in terms of Anglo-Saxon model. However little good has come of its employment of the policy this far. In the year 2000, the government of the United Kingdom acknowledged, in a very particular fashion, that the National Health program had deteriorated owing to years upon years of consistent underinvestment and dramatic rise in spending. Denmark, in comparison, as a Nordic country reference, is doing fairly well because rather than increase spending the struggle is focused on cutting it (Castles, 2010). The United Kingdom upon this recognition developed a plan to increase and sustain investment levels; the plan aimed to ensure that the UK spends on health became the fastest growing in the European Union. Nevertheless, Anglo-Saxon critics have used this setback in national health constantly as a point of observation. The Nordic Model of global welfare is much more progressive in relation to the statistics. This is because the Anglo-Saxon model, both in the organization and national level, is devoid of care for the interests that stakeholders within various structures may have in spite of the fact that they contribute greatly to welfare matters. It also brings about the distortion of information that is useful in the progressive element of stock markets. These two factors on their own are equal to the task of diminishing economies because they affect the two most important elements of development, labour, and equity. The Anglo-Saxon model is very efficient and chances are that were it to adopt a more equitable system, then countries within it would be economically higher than those within the Nordic Models would. Economic Scholars have actually illustrated that the Nordic System may be the champion of its own downfall when push comes to shove. As stated in the Economist 2007, “It is widely thought that the Nordic countries have found some magic way of combining high taxes and lavish welfare systems with fast growth and low unemployment, yet, the belief in a special Nordic model, or “third way,” will crumble further in 2007.” However, even with these predictions, as of 2013, the Nordic Model was way ahead of its counterpart (Economist Newspaper, 2007). While it is true that Anglo-Saxon countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are competitively ahead of the rest of the world, in terms of equity and social sustainability, they are lagging behind. Some may argue that these are not important in economic analysis, but if development is truly only relevant if it has achieved both (equity and sustainability), then Nordic countries occupy the higher steps on the ladder. References Castles, F. 2010. The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Economist Newspaper Ltd.Staff. 2007. Pocket World in figures 2007. London: Profile Boooks Ltd. Einhorn, E. 2003. Modern welfare states: Scandinavian politics and policy in the global age. Westport: Praeger. Giddens, A. 2007. Europe in the global age. Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A. 2006. Global Europe, Social Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press. Read More