welfare mix Flashcards
vertical equality
more favourable treatment of those with lower incomes than those with higher ones in order to avoid or reduce the depth of poverty or reduce inequalities in resources more generally.
horizontal equality
compensatory treatment of those with similar incomes but greater needs of one kind or another (such as larger families or needs related to disability status).
Life-cycle redistribution
allowing for cash and in-kind provision at times in people’s lives, particularly childhood and old age, when incomes from market activities are low, with net contributions made when market resources are higher.
insurance in welfare
protection against loss of income in events such as unemployment, ill health, or greater than average life expectancy, and provision of services if needs for health or other care occur
state can intervene without it being public provision
o Using public financing to meet a need for distributional reasons does not necessarily imply that state agencies should be the provider. Similarly, ensuring that children’s needs are met after divorce, for example, can be met through a public decision to enforce a private transfer without there being any necessary state provision or finance.
typical pros of private provision
- Choice + competition
- State – is one size fits all the best way ? small organisations do better at fiiting in with local needs
- Voluntary and informal sectors give a chance to realise social citizenship- might promote local bonds and help you realise participatory ideal – doing things for each other. Not just realising rights through the state.
the state and life cycle redistributions
- much of social security is concerned with life-cycle redistribution, with the majority of spending going on pensions and other benefits for the elderly. While some of this can be achieved through private savings or pension systems, the state remains dominant, reflecting both high costs of private retirement provision for those on low incomes, and the complexity and incentive problems created by attempts to limit its role through means-testing.
a time and place for private provision?
- Private insurance market failures, that can justify a strong role for the state on efficiency grounds, are more important in some areas than others—particularly future health or social care needs affected by long-term uncertainties that are hard to quantify, such as the likelihood and cost of someone’s care needs for dementia 30 years after the point in their lives when earnings are highest, for instance.
left and right on role of the state
- The left tends to favour a larger role for the state, while the right leans towards commercial, voluntary, and informal solutions, advocating for a welfare society over a welfare state
- Social Division of Welfare (SDW)
- Statutory/state
-> most obvious and visible
-> ‘public’
->Titmuss argued to be most progressive- Occupational
-> “the ‘fringe benefits’ of employment such as subsidised pensions, health insurance, mortgages, and company cars”7
-> less obvious
-> ‘substantial’ scale - eg. Employer contributions to social protection receipts 7% of GDP in UK 2000; statutory provision only 3.8% (Farnsworth, 2004) - Fiscal
-> “the benefits delivered through the taxation system such as tax reliefs and later on private pensions and health insurance”
-> ‘very long but largely neglected history’
-> ‘upside down benefits’
-> can be regress (tax expenditures) or progressive (tx credits)
-> relief of non-state pensions is biggest fiscal expenditure in UK
-> controversial - has been considered ‘outside’ of the welfare state (Sinfield, 2016); or ‘second institutional ayer’ (Stebbing and Spies-Butcher, 2010)
- Occupational
good v bad of public v private financing
when public is more distributively egalitarian. Questions of quality and efficiency are more debated. In terms of accountability debated- public financed eg healthcare in NHS is hidden – people don’t hold government to account for this so private financing alleviates issues of accountability.
good v bad of public v private provision- health outcomes
some evidence that for-profit have worse outcomes eg private elderly care correlates to higher levels of death when they take over from state providers. Dependent on sector eg cataracts publicly provided is poorer and also facing cut crunches. In long-term care eg social and elderly care, for-profit tends to be worse. Some sectors work better when nationalised than others eg telecommunications v water
good v bad of public v private control
also murky. Choice may increase satisfaction and some responsiveness and some private providers have innovated new ways. But also questions of accountability and can lead to segregation (church running schools) or ‘cramming and parking’
Powell on criteria for privatisation
No ‘commonly accepted’ criteria for privatisation.
Crouch on criteria for privatisation
- Crouch (2003: 15) argues that privatisation occurs when ownership of a previous public resource is transferred to private firms, while under contracting out ownership remains with the public sector.
- In his view, Labour reforms in health involve partnerships and sub-contracting rather than privatisation
Young on criteria for privatisation
- Young (1986) presents a wide concept of privatisation, arguing that policies contain one or more of the following elements: current balance (size, scope, role); balance in the longer term by creating opportunities for the private sector to grow (e.g., by changing regulations); private resources to solve government problems (e.g., use of business practices); and increased market pressures to bear on the use of assets staying inside the public sector (e.g., internal and external competition).
Young and complexity of privatisation in the UK
Young argues that seven different forms of privatisation are identifiable in Conservative policy since 1979 (although he gives few NHS examples):
o (a) selling off public assets
o (b) relaxing state monopolies
* (c) contracting
* (d) private provision of services
* (e) investment projects
* (f) extending private sector practices into the public sector
* (g) reduced subsidies and increased charges
example of complexity of privatisation In the UK
- Even private schools have some tax benefits which mean they are at least somewhat intermingled with the state.
Bozeman on privatisation
- Publicness Perspectives: Bozeman (1987: 17) and argues that political control is the essence of publicness: ‘all organizations are public because political authority affects some of the behavior and processes of all organizations’.
Powell’s mixed economy of welfare - 4 main components
o State: Public service provision, addressing market failures.
o Market: Efficient alternative to state provision.
o Voluntary: Includes philanthropic and mutual elements, supported by the left.
o Informal: Involves family, friends, and neighbours, favoured by the right but criticized by feminists
Powell mixed economy of welfare - dimensions
o 1-dimensional: Focuses on a single issue or sources of welfare.
o 2-dimensional: Examines provision and finance.
o 3-dimensional: Considers provision, finance, and regulation.
In a pure public sector, a public actor makes choices about where spending goes and how much is spent, the opposite for private
Powell and universalism
: Powell argues for universal access to social welfare benefits and protections, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or other factors. Universalistic policies ensure that all members of society are entitled to essential services and supports, reducing the risk of stigma, exclusion, and discrimination
Powell and culture in welfare
Powell emphasizes the importance of cultural competence in welfare provision, ensuring that services are responsive to the cultural, linguistic, and contextual needs of diverse populations. This may involve providing culturally relevant programming, language access services, and community-based outreach efforts to engage underserved communities.
Powell’s institutional changes
structural changes to social policies and institutions to address systemic barriers and inequalities. This may include reforms to address disparities in access to education, employment, housing, healthcare, and other social determinants of well-being, as well as efforts to dismantle discriminatory practices and institutional racism.
importance of participatory governance and community engagement- By involving affected communities in decision-making processes, policymakers can ensure that policies are responsive to the needs and priorities of those they are intended to serve.
Wheels of welfare- scholars behind it
Buchardt + Hill
wheels of welfare dimensions to analyse welfare provision
- Provision- is the provider of the service a public- or private sector body?
- Finance - does the public sector pay for the service directly through tax-financed public spending or indirectly through tax reliefs?
- Decision - can individuals choose for themselves the amount of service used or whether the provider is public or private, or is this decided for them by the state?
wheels of welfare pure public
o Pure public= tax-financed, provided by a publicly owned and run organisation, and with little or no choice on the part of the beneficiary about how much or from whom to receive the service. Emergency treatment in an NHS hospital is an example.
wheels of welfare pure private
Pure private= activity undertaken by individuals at their own initiative and purchased in the free market, such as private medical insurance
size of pure public in the UK
- In the UK for education, health care, and income maintenance, the ‘pure public’ still represented more than half of total activity in 2007-8, but for personal care it was two-fifths and for housing less than a tenth.
o The share of the “pure public” sector (fully funded and controlled by the government) decreased slightly, falling from 50.3% to 48.2%. Despite this decline, the real value of the “pure public” sector still grew by 50%,
size of Private provision of publicly financed and publicly controlled services
‘contracting out’ and its equivalents—was around a fifth of total activity within education and health care, and a third for personal care, but much less important for housing and almost absent for income maintenance.
size of publicly financed but privately controlled and provided services
were more than a tenth of all income maintenance activity—representing the value of tax advantages of private pension contributions- but small in the other areas.
o Public finance for private provision and decision declined, influenced by the abolition of mortgage interest relief for owner-occupiers and the decreased importance of “contracting out” of the state second pension
size of pure private
- The ‘pure private’ sector, while growing, was a fifth or less of activity in four of the areas, but was dominant—three-quarters of the total- in housing.
o private spending on private education increased, while health care saw rapid growth in private medicine and over-the-counter medicines. Housing saw a significant rise, mainly due to increased owner-occupiers’ imputed rents.
relative decline of our public and relative growth of pure private
- one prominent feature has been the steady fall in the share in the ‘pure public’ sector from 52 per cent in 1979-80, to 50 percent in 1995-6, and again to 48 per cent in 2007-8. Meanwhile the ‘pure private’ sector grew from 24 to 27 %
public provision but private finance in the UK
- Public provision but private finance - declined due to the transfer of housing to housing associations, resulting in less rent paid by tenants. + The sector of public provision but private finance and decision remained small, with some offsetting factors such as the end of “pay beds” in NHS hospitals and growth in other health services provided to the private sector.
Hill- the effect of housing on welfare expenditure
- the decline in the role of the public sector was somewhat less marked once housing is excluded. Indeed, over the Conservative period between the first two dates, it was only in terms of its role as a provider that the public sector declined, with no fall in the share of public finance, a rise in the proportion under public control, and a slight rise in the share of the pure public sector. In these terms, the ‘privatization’ of the Conservative years can be seen as being concentrated on the state’s role within housing.
from 2007 by early coalition - rise in public spending
- total public spending rose by more than had been planned in nominal terms and by 11% in real terms … the real increase in health spending was exactly as planned and that in education slightly lower. It was the 13% real increase in social security and tax credits that contributed most to the overshoot in total spending above plans. Given the fall in GDP, however all three elements contributes to the rise in spending as a share of GDP
difference in real spending on services 2010-11/2014-15
difference in real spending set to be £43 billion lower, yet with health spending £2 billion higher and state pensions £6 billion higher- non pensions social security and tax credits intended to fall by £12 bill and education by £10 b
increased privatisation of healthcare under Coalition
increased by APQ
o publicly funded, independently provided healthcare (including GPs and dentists) now accounts for 25% of total health spending, compared to 22% in 2007/08. Within this, however, NHS purchase of non-NHS- provided healthcare grew by 65% in real terms between 2007/08 and 2013/14. ‘Pure private’ spending on healthcare has also continued to increase in real terms (by 9% between 2007/08 and 2013/14),
income maintenance- public spending under coalition
o Pure public (benefits and tax credits) and pure private (private insurance against loss, private pensions etc.) make up 55% and 20% of total spending respectively.
o Spending on the basic State Pension (pure public) makes up just over one- third of total pensions spending (34%).
- Policies in relation to income maintenance other than pensions under the coalition have been dominated by cuts in benefit levels in real terms and restrictions on benefit eligibility, accompanied by the rhetoric of austerity, however in reality these changed have had a net zero effect on public finances
voluntary sector role in social welfare
o Voluntary sector- eg In 2013/14, food banks provided an estimated 20 million meals in the UK, a total value of perhaps £40 million. This is small fraction of total spending on income maintenance (1/100th of a percentage), but nevertheless significant in its impact on recipients and on public debate.
Education spending under coalition
o the share of total education spending that is public finance and public provision has fallen only slightly, from 61% to 60%.(2013/14)
o There has been a 76% increase in out-of-pocket spending on education – including on further and higher education – in real terms between 2007/08 and 2013/14. This segment now accounts for one-fifth (22%) of all education spending.
Hill on overall changes to welfare state under coalition
more than meets the eye- The selective nature of the cuts will mean that the structure of public spending on the welfare state will have changed, even if its overall scale in relation to national income returns to what it had been before the crisis. Healthcare and pensions are becoming more important, but non-pension social security, housing and non-school education less important.
social care spending under coalition
- Social care - Public spending began to fall in the late 2000s, despite increasing demand from the growth in the older and disabled population. A significant part of this was spending in the ‘pure public’ segment, which fell by nearly a quarter in real terms between 2007/08 and 2013/14. At the end of the period it accounted for just 26% of overall (public and private) expenditure. Meanwhile, contracted-out care (independently provided services commissioned and paid for by the local authority) grew in real value, and increased its share of overall spending, and at 35% is now the largest segment in this figure.
housing expenditure
- The proportion of total current spending on housing in the ‘pure private’ segment was 82% in 2013/14, similar to the proportion (81%) in 2007/08.
decline in voluntary sector provision under coalition
been affected by cuts to grant income from central and local government – down from £3.1 billion in 2009/10 to £2.2 billion in 2012/13. But, rates and mean hours of volunteering have been steady.
Evers- the 3rd sector of the welfare mix
otherwise made up of the market the state and the informal private household sphere
nuanced understanding of the third sector as an intermediary area within a mixed welfare system.
the importance of third sector organizations in balancing and integrating various social, economic, and political dimensions in modern societies.
Evers on which welfare policies are optimal
emphasizes the shift towards policies of ‘welfare pluralism,’ which prioritize synergistic mixes of resources and rationales over simple substitution processes between different sectors of provision. This approach seeks to make planned use of non-state resources to ensure welfare and well-being while managing the costs of public welfare.