Public responsibility for welfare a comparative perspective

1
Public responsibility for welfare a
comparative perspective

• Mikko Kautto

2
Public responsibility

• public/private responsibility (collective/persona
  l)
• family, civil society and markets
• shared responsibility, demarcation lines never
  fully solved
• regime approach changes in responsibility have
  effects for other institutions
• Nordic welfare model largest public
  responsibility
• one way to address public responsibility from a
  comparative perspective is to assess it by the
  scope of social protection

3
Human needs are rather similar, why do we have
diversity in public responsibility?

• Homo liberalismus, homo familius and homo
  socialdemocraticus (Esping-Andersen 1999)
• liberal, conservative and social-democrat
  regimes (Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999)
• South-European, Confutsean and East-European
  regimeswe may find more clusters, but do we
  really find more stances towards public
  responsibility?

4
Explaining welfare state development

• functionalist, structural theories -gt common
  causes, linear development
• politics and agency -theories -gt role of politics
  and actors, qualitative differences
• regime theory combinations of factors, interplay
  of institutions and (welfare) outcomes
• convergence thesis ageing, globalisation,
  technological development, Europeanisation
• neo-institutionalism new politics, permanent
  austerity, blame avoidance and path-dependent
  adjustment

5
Convergence race-to-the-bottom catch-up or
towards the European average?
6
Alternative development scenarios divergence
parallel trends and regime changes
7
First comparison what has happened in public
responsibility?

• how did public responsibility develop in Western
  welfare states after the Southern enlargement
  (ES, PT, EL)?
• public responsibility measured
  two-dimensionally how much in total and how much
  by tax-payers?
• EU 14 (plus Norway)
• data from Eurostat 1980, 1990, 1997, 2002

8
(No Transcript)
9
Public responsibility in EU 14 in 1980
10
Public responsibility in EU 14 in 1990
11
Public responsibility in EU 14 in 1997
12
Public responsibility in EU 14 in 2002
13
So, what happened?

• Compared to 1980, we have seen convergence in
  public responsibility
• Concergence took place in 1980s and 1990s
  latest figures show almost no change at all
• Catch-up convergence Southern European MS
  moved closer to other EU MS cost-containment
  among high-spenders (NWS)
• Scope of public responsibility showed some
  Europeanisation a shift toward plural
  financing methods
• Relative differences among EU MS remained
• Regime characteristics most visible in 1990
  since then have become more arbitrary

14
Public responsibility and redistribution cash or
care?

• Total welfare effort can be divided into
  transfer and service efforts
• Cash transfers a cash compensation (often for
  income loss in the event of certain social
  risks), that can be used as the recipient wants ?
  transfer states
• Transfers in kind health, social care services,
  distribution according to need (public
  responsibility does not necessarily mean public
  provision) ? service states
• The way welfare states balance between these
  options partly reveals their redistribution
  strategy

15
Strategies of redistribution in 1990 cash or
care?
16
Cash or care, 1997
17
Cash or care, 2002
18
Have we seen convergence in redistribution
strategies?

• Yes overall gravitation towards the centre
• Yes Europeanisation in cash transfers, as
  variance has decreased
• Yes Catch-up convergence in service efforts
• Regime characteristics evident only partly in
  Southern Europe some of the Continental welfare
  states

19
What is going to happen next? Setting the scene
from a comparative perspective

• Two relationships seem crucial
• Economic growth and public responsibility
• Public responsibility and outcomes income
  inequality and poverty
• Approached with
• EU 14 (15), EU9 (10) and EU 23 (25)
• data from Eurostat, for 2003 (2002, 2001)

20
GDP per capita in PPS (EU 25100)
21
Social protection expenditure in PPS per head
22
Relative GDP and social protection expenditure in
PPS per head
23
Social protection and income distribution in EU 14
24
Social protection and income distribution in 9
new EU MS
25
Social protection and income distribution in EU 23
26
Social protection and (at-risk-of-) poverty in EU
14
27
Social protection and (at-risk-of-) poverty in 9
new EU MS
28
Social protection and poverty in EU 23
29
Conclusions

• With the measures of public responsibility
  employed, our evidence shows that previous
  enlargement led to catch-up convergence
• new MS saw their GDP grow,
• growth happened also in their investments in
  welfare,
• redistribution strategies converged, too.
• The context is now very different, but the
  diversity in the present Union in these respects
  is not greater than it was in early 1980s
• Higher GDP and higher welfare investment have
  gone hand in hand, at least so far
• Higher welfare investment and more equal income
  distribution and lower poverty rates have gone
  hand in hand, at least so far