The structure of the social welfare - The welfare mix

Résumé du document

Over the past century, the provision of social welfare has changed dramatically, in both the recipients of welfare care and the scale of the social protection services. This evolution is mainly due to the development of welfare states. In the 1910s and 20s the growing movements, like the trade union movement or Labour Party in Britain have enlightened, and sort of created a conflict between the poor working class, the industrial, and the powerful class. The state intervention was seen, as the only efficient solution in order to protect the workers against industrial capitalism. The provision of social welfare is commonly linked with the notion of a welfare state. However, the state is not the only entity which can respond efficiently to social problems. In addition to the state, we can find the private market, the voluntary sector and the 'informal welfare', that is, the family, the neighbourhood, etc. This welfare mix takes a different form, based on the time period during which, and to the country in which it has been developed. On one hand, the development of the welfare state in Britain is, for example, mainly a consequence of the Beveridge Report in 1942 stating that it was time to 'remove the five giant evils that had haunted the country before the war : disease, idleness, ignorance, squalor and want'. This concept was challenged unsuccessfully by Margaret Thatcher. In modern times, the concept of a welfare state is being questioned and more than ever the boundaries between the different sectors in this welfare mix are blurred. On the other hand, in the United States, the provisions of social welfare, are in the largest part dedicated to the private sector whereas in the Scandinavian Countries, the state takes a greater part in the social welfare provision.

Extraits

[...] The provision of social welfare is commonly linked with the notion of welfare state. However, the state is not the only entity which can respond efficiently to social problems. There is a mixed economy of welfare and according to Alcock we can distinguish four sectors that make up the provision of social welfare. In addition to the state, we can find the private market, the voluntary sector and the “informal welfare” that is, the family, the neighbourhood, etc. This welfare mix takes a different form based on the time period during which and to the country in which it has been developed. [...]

[...] But by campaigning, it also works on many issues about which a large numbers of people worry and as a matter of fact helps the state to develop politics in that way. The cooperation between the state and the voluntary sector is also important at the local level. In France, for example, associations defending the poor people and the right to housing meet with the president of the departmental council and other members of the administration to attribute the RMI to people in need. [...]

[...] First of all, the informal welfare meets its limits quite quickly. As we have seen above, the changes within family and society structures have weakened the provision of informal care which heavily depends upon the availability of family members to operate in an efficient way. Another problem pointed out by Alcock is the possible difference between the expectations of a vulnerable person and the help that a care provider may bring them. Moreover, sometimes this informal care might become a burden because of its growing weight and thus, people caring for others one are not able to do so anymore. [...]

[...] But the voluntary sector is far from being perfect and its advantages might easily turn into disadvantages (being flexible and varied also mean being unpredictable, unstable, incomplete ) To overcome the problems inherent in all sectors, the emphasis must be put on the welfare mix. Every country understood this point and has introduced a real mixed economy of welfare where market, state, informal and voluntary sectors work in co-operation and take advantage of the best part of each sector. REFERENCE Alcock Pete: Social Policy in Britain (2nd edition), Palgrave/MacMillan For details, see Ibid., p See Figure Ibid., p Ibid., p. [...]

[...] The voluntary sector was somewhere in between. However the differences between these three sectors are far from clear due to the consensus which emerged in the ‘50s. This consensus, called Middle or Third Way means that market and state work in co-operation in order to provide the best social service to the populace. Governments are just interested in what is the best solution to meet the social needs. This political orientation makes it possible to avoid the intrinsic problems of the state and of the market. [...]