Social Welfare and Social Work Practice - Essay Example

The term welfare may be defined as having to do with the well-being of citizens at the physical, social, and financial levels. Steps taken to ensure the welfare of citizens in a country include reformation of employment, social security, health, education, and disability policies. In Europe, several models exists for the way that states choose to finance and implement these policies, and each country subscribes to one or a mixture of these forms. The four principal ones are The Scandinavian Model, the Beveridge Model, The Bismarck Model, and the Subsidiarity Model. The Scandinavian Model attempts to provide benefits to all citizens on an equal footing, regardless of employment status. In contrast, The Beveridge Model seeks to provide benefits to those citizens perceived as experiencing "the greatest need" (Ploug). First advocated by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the third model benefits most "those who have been on the labour market" (Ploug), and the fourth model places the burden of welfare on the family. It is with the first two of these models, and the countries in which they are practiced, that this essay is concerned. Quality of life is in large part dictated by the way in which a state runs its welfare policies. Such concepts as social cohesion versus social exclusion are important identifiers of the quality of life that is typical in a state. These things influence and are influenced by such variables as citizenship, migration, and even the state of the family units. State welfare policies often have much to say on these topics. Though many are the domestic factors influencing the direction of a state's policies, these policies are often also influenced by outside factors, such as trade and senior governing bodies. Since its inception, the European Union has implemented policies that have affected the way its member states carry out their own social welfare policies. This supranational body was developed over several decades, and now comprises 25 co-operating European countries. It recognizes its principal goal as being "to promote and expand cooperation among member states in economics and trade, social issues, foreign policy, security and defense, and judicial matters" (Urwin, 2005). Based on the fact that a major goal of the EU is the unification of the European market and the reduction of economic disparities among the member states, many of the policies with which it is concerned also affect the social welfare policies of its member states (2005). In addition, lobbyists for several causes frequent its gates in order to influence the formulation of policy. Though the extent to which the EU exerts influence on its member states is varied, the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries have had to make changes or adjustments to their policies in response to the actions of the European Union. This essay will, therefore, discuss the similarities and differences of the two models represented in these regions in light of social cohesion and exclusion, migration, citizenship and family life. It will also examine the two models in light of ways in which they have changed as a result of the influence of the European Union. The term "Scandinavian welfare model" specifically defines the method of state-run welfare as it exists in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The type of welfare system represented in this model is often placed in what is known as the "Social-Democratic" camp, though this does not necessarily mean that its tenets are supported solely by the socialist parties of those countries (Ploug). The system is, however, based on the idea of equality, and it recognizes what it considers the right that each individual possesses to the opportunities that will secure a good quality of life. This, therefore, is provided to all citizens regardless of their social or employment status. On the other hand, the social welfare model adopted by the United Kingdom (also known as the Beveridge model) is placed in what is known as the liberal camp. This system was developed "to encourage the provision of the social services on the same basis as the public services - roads, libraries and so forth" (Spicker, 2005), and covers the spectrum of concerns regarding the social well-being of its citizens. This model differs from the Scandinavian model in many ways, but one thing they do have in common might be regarded as the problem that they seek to address. The model approaches this problem in several ways and from several angles. Under the Scandinavian model, the state is largely responsible for formulating, financing, and implementing the social welfare benefits that are due its citizens. For example, according to Sweden's profiles of public management, as much as 95% of all funding for education is provided by the state (1992). This daunting task is undertaken by the government largely because of a general desire for a high quality of life for all its citizens, and that includes the cohesiveness of the society. Social cohesiveness can be defined as the degree to which citizens feel connected to or ownership of the state in which they live, and social inclusion is advocated as a major contributor to this. In education, policy makers have sought to make students feel a part of their society, and in states such as Denmark this has been approached from three different perspectives: "The perspective of equality; the perspective of including children with special needs; and the perspective of ethnic minorities" (Tawil, 64). In addition, according to data provided by The European education directory, the state covers health/social costs and most or all tuition costs for students, regardless of their countries of origin (2005). The United Kingdom provides education to students up to the age sixteen or to the end of high school (the fifth form or eleventh-grade level). After this, funding for further education is supplied by various governmental organizations, such as the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), the Adult Learner Grant (ALG), and the Learner Support Funds (LSF). Both the EMA and the LSF are offered to persons based on their incomes, but the LSF goes further to include people with diverse challenges, describing itself as "a safety net for the most disadvantaged and socially excluded students" (Learndirect, 2002). The preceding information demonstrates a fundamental likeness between the Scandinavian and the UK models of social welfare with regard to education. Both models fully fund education for all citizens up to the end of the high-school years. In addition to this, they both consider social inclusion as an important goal of the welfare state and take steps to secure this in their educational societies. However, a major difference between the two models lies in their treatment of higher education. The Scandinavian model provides almost full tuition benefits to all students, while the UK metes out subsidies based on the need of the particular student. The two differences identified stem from and underscore the difference between the camps represented by each model. While the Scandinavian is more Social-Democratic in orientation, aiming at equalizing benefits to all, the United Kingdom focuses on granting aid to the most needy, as dictated by the liberal approach to the welfare state. The policies of the European Union have also influenced the direction of these countries' own educational policies and reforms. According to the European Council at Lisbon in March 2000, it is the aim of the EU to "become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" (ICT, 2004). In the pursuit of this, radical plans have been devised and implemented to improve education and training throughout the countries of the European Union. The EU set up such organizations as Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group, and gathered ministerial representation from all over Europe. Training programs being organized include "peer learning" activities, through which the European countries support each other by sharing their successes (Modernising, 2005, p.9). It is also clear that the concept of social cohesion is espoused by the Union, as expressed in the statement that it is "particularly worrying that, notwithstanding the early achievement of the EU benchmark on increasing the number of maths, science and technology graduates, there is too little progress against those benchmarks related most closely to social inclusion" (Modernising, 2005, p.10). Policies in the UK and Scandinavian countries that promote education and challenge social exclusion have been encouraged by these EU concerns. Unemployment has become a major issue in Europe over the past few decades. On a whole, the general trend for employment in Europe has been toward a decrease. For this reason, the policies toward unemployment in both the UK and Scandinavian welfare states have lately become even more important. In Scandinavia, the government exerts a certain amount of control in the capitalist economy, and via heavy taxation and a guarantee of unemployment benefits to all, effects a redistribution of wealth. However, Kildal argues that not all persons fit into the apparently comprehensive welfare model. Therefore, "needy citizens, who neither receive income from wealth or work, nor fit into the national income-security system, are rescued by residual safety nets, Social Assistance Acts" (Kildal, 2001, p. 13.). This is done to allow for even more equality among the nationals. The UK's Department for Work and Pensions lists as one of its goals: "to help individuals achieve their potential through employment" (2005). In order to facilitate employment, it supplies a child maintenance bonus, which is "a one-off payment of up to 1000" ("Child," 2005). This promotes healthy families, as it supports the need parents have to see that children are taken care of. The program also offers other benefits such as Council tax benefits and lone-parent run-ons. As with the Scandinavian model, these programs are facilitated by taxation; but unlike that model, benefits are paid out with regard to a person's need. In addition, the amount given is based on past employment levels and/or amount contributed to the unemployment scheme. Thus, unlike the Scandinavian model, the provisions of the UK model help the government maintain a lower taxation rate. In earlier times in Europe, persons who received unemployment benefits did so at the expense of their rights as citizens. The effects of unemployment now have been reduced to a stigma; however, this does have an impact on a person's feeling of belonging to the state. Larsen comments that "it is a common assumption that the residual welfare regimes found in USA, Great Britain etc. is much more stigmatising than the universal welfare regimes found in Scandinavia" (2002, p.3). He goes on to write that this stigma has a connection to the manner in which the benefits are meted out, and this stigma might be seen as relating positively to social cohesion. According to Hein and Schulten in their study "Unemployment, wages, and collective bargaining in the European Union," the EU's policy to combat its high levels of unemployment involves "wage restraint and increasing wage differentials" (2004, p. 5). This information, they indicate, is laid out in the "Broad economic policy guidelines" issued by the European Commission in 2003. Also pertinent to unemployment policies is the question of immigrants to EU countries. The EU has drafted policies that make it easier for citizens of member states to travel and work anywhere within the European Union. However, it has been found that a significant percentage of persons unemployed are immigrants from non-EU countries (Kogan, 2001). This leads to the policies of the UK on migration and citizenship. The United Kingdom offers uninterrupted social security benefits to its citizens who migrate to certain countries by allowing them continued contribution to the government's social security plan. With regard to immigration, Britain has over the past four decades implemented legislation to control it. Such legislation as the "Commonwealth Immigration Acts (1962 and 1968) and the 1971 Immigration Act tightened migration controls by closely defining who was entitled to what kind of British citizenship" (Solomos & Schuster, 2001). These controls have generally persisted, though the British involvement in the European Union has made its doors relatively open to EU member citizens. Issues of citizenship are very closely tied to issues of race, and issues of race have much to do with social inclusion/exclusion. Still, Britain has considered itself multicultural, and has in fact also developed a Race Relations Amendment Bill to facilitate social inclusion of minorities. However, more recent enactments, such as the British Nationality Act (1981), the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act (1993) and the Asylum and Immigration Act (1996), have had somewhat of a mitigating effect on these bills, maintaining tension with regard to immigrants' sense of belonging, family cohesion, and by extension to the social cohesion of the state (Solomos & Schuster, 2001). On the contrary, in Scandinavia, a more positive welcome is given to foreigners. Especially in regard to refugees, the Nordic countries are among the countries who lead in the acceptance of refugees. According to Honor (2003), "The Nordic countries have all ratified and implemented the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the its 1967 Protocol." Lately, however, since the attacks of September 11, the Scandinavian countries have advocated the "exclusion of combatants and those involved in crimes against humanity" from refugee privileges (Honor, 2003) It appears then that Scandinavian sentiments are more directed toward the welcoming of non-nationals than that of the British. The policies of the British appear to be more strictly stacked against the admission of migrants and refugees. This demonstrates a higher level of social inclusion in the Nordic territories. However, the United Kingdom policies toward race relations betray its interest in social cohesion, as it strives to improve the relationship among nationals and to increase the sense of belonging experienced by persons of minority groups. The welfare states of the two regions represented by Scandinavian and the United Kingdom differ fundamentally with regard to the underlying models that govern their individual policies. The Scandinavian model has been identified with the Social-Democratic model, and has proven itself to be inherently equalizing with regard to its manner of disbursing benefits. Its policies on taxation aim at the redistribution of wealth among the citizens. With regard to employment, it focuses on expanding the job market in accordance with its belief in employment for all. Where unemployment exists (as it has existed much in the past decades) the model aims at providing benefits to all persons in an attempt to "decommodify" labor. Its commitment to education means that it provides that opportunity to all persons (citizens or residents) at no (or very low) cost to the individual himself, and this is provided even at the tertiary level. Lastly, the Scandinavian model, as shown by the policies and activities of the Nordic countries, demonstrate a certain level of openness to immigration from other countries, and especially to refugees. In this, it has shown a high level of commitment to socially inclusive and cohesive policies, which support the solidarity of the nation as a whole. The UK Model is one that appears more merit-oriented than that of the Scandinavian model. It demonstrates commitment to the provision of welfare according to need. Therefore, benefits granted to individuals are generally contingent upon his or her ability to prove need for the resources. It also requires that the adult individual has been paying into a national insurance scheme. Therefore, where the Scandinavian Model has imposed a high level of taxation, the UK Model has supported much lower taxes in favor of a smaller cross-section of support. With regard to employment, however, the UK appears to be equally committed to increasing the employment rate, and this has led it to implement welfare policies that help persons as they integrate or re-integrate themselves into the job world. Education policies, in comparison to that of the Scandinavian model, prove more modest, as free education in the UK ends at the secondary level. Lastly, with regard to migration and citizenship, the policies seem to waver between stringent restrictions on qualification criteria and provision of protection to minorities, many of whom have secured citizenship via naturalization. These policies do appear have social cohesion and inclusion at heart, though apparently to a lesser extent than the Scandinavian Model. Both territories are made up of countries that belong to the European Union (with the exception of Norway), and that union expresses commitment to such principles as social cohesion, social inclusion and family. In fact, in her work "Citizen of the union: Toward a post-national membership" Shaw writes that "the form of citizenship appropriate to the EU must, in view of the polity within which it is based, as well as the types of nation states which make up the Member States of the EU, be a type of social citizenship, indeed be one which resists, in particular, the effects of social exclusion." The policies and activities of the Scandinavian countries as well as the United Kingdom reflect the influence of the European Union's commitment to these principles. References "Child Maintenance Bonus." (2005). Department for Work and Pensions. Available: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/child_maintenance_bonus.asp "Denmark." (2002). "The European education Directory." International Association of Universities. Available: http://www.euroeducation.net/prof/denmarco.htm Finland. (2002). "The European Education Directory." International Association of Universities. Available: http://www.euroeducation.net/prof/finco.htm Hein, Eckhard and Thorsten Schulten. (2004). "Unemployment, wages, and collective bargaining in the European Union." Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut in der Hans-Bckler-Stiftung. Dsseldorf. Available: http://econwpa.wustl.edu/eps/mac/papers/0412/0412006.pdf Kildal, Nanna. (2001). "Workfare tendencies in Scandinavian welfare policies." Geneva: International labour office. http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/ protection/ses/download/docs/workfare.pdfKogan, Irena.(2001). "Unemployment risk of non-nationals in the European Union in the mid- 1990's: A multi-level approach." Mannheim Centre for European Social Research. Mannheim University. Available: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu:7101/ RC28/papers/Kogan.pdf "ICT adoption in Europe." (2005) EMarketer. Available: http://www.emarketer.com/ Article.aspx1003179 Larsen, Christian A. "Unemployment and Stigmatisation: The Dilemma of the Welfare State." Centre for Comparative Welfare State Studies. Aalborg University. Available: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/ turin/ws1/larsen.PDF "Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe." (2005). Commission of the European Communities. Available: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/ progressreport06_en.pdf Ploug, Niels. "Denmark - conditions of life - the Scandinavian welfare model." The Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available: http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap3/3-1.asp Shaw, Josephine. "Citizen of the union: Toward a post-national membership" New York: Jean Monnet Center. Available: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/97/97-06-.html Solomos, John and Lisa Schuster. (2001). "Migration, Citizenship and Globalisation: A comparison of trends in European societies." Social Science Research Papers. London South Bank University. Available: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/ahs/research/reports/solomos/johnsolomos.shtml Spicker, P. (2005). An introduction to social policy. Aberdeen: The Robert Gordon University. Available: http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction . Sweden. (2002). "The European Education Directory." International Association of Universities. Available: http://www.euroeducation.net/prof/swedco.htm Tawil, Sobhi. (2001). Curriculum change and social inclusion: perspectives from the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. Final report of the regional seminar held in Vilnius, Lithuania, 5-8 December 2001. Geneva: UNESCO. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001319/131959e.pdf Urwin, Derek W. (2005). "The European Union." Microsoft Encarta Reference Library DVD-ROM. Microsoft Corporation. 2005. Read More