![]() |
|
|
| |
|
||||
There are three main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
The development of welfare statesModern welfare states developed through a gradual process, beginning in the late 19th century and continuing through the 20th. They differed from previous schemes of poor relief in their scope and relatively universal coverage. The development of social insurance in Germany under Bismarck was particularly influential. Some schemes, including those in Scandinavia, were based largely in the development of autonomous, mutualist provision; others were founded on state provision. Examples of early welfare states in the modern world are the Sweden and New Zealand of the 1930s. Changed attitudes in reaction to the Great Depression were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries, a harbinger of new times where "cradle-to-grave" services became a reality in contrast to the harsh mass-poverty of the Depression. In the period following the Second World War, many countries in Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive coverage of the population. Welfare provision in the contemporary world tends to be more advanced in the countries with stronger and more developed economies; poorer countries generally have more limited welfare services. Arguments for and against the Welfare StateSee also: arguments for and against privatization and public ownership The main arguments for the Welfare State are:
The main arguments against the Welfare State are:
A second criticism of the welfare state is that it results in high taxes. This is sometimes true, as evidenced by places like Denmark (tax level at 50.4% of GDP in 2002) and Sweden (tax level at 50.3% of GDP in 2002). However, these countries also have high wage economies and high GNPs; high taxes do not imply poor economic performance. In addition, they have a strong system of progressive taxation, which ensures that less burden falls on the poor and middle classes. Lowering taxes would not necessarily result in more spending money for the average citizen (since a lot of free services would no longer be free). Third, there is criticism that welfare services provided by the state are supposedly more expensive and less efficient than the same services provided by private businesses. A first response might be that the purpose of state-provided welfare is to respond to social needs, not necessarily to be cheaper overall. In a welfare state, the poor and lower-middle classes receive certain services free of charge, whereas in non-welfare states they would have to pay for those services, and could possibly not afford them. More fundamentally, although private provision can reduce unit costs, it often does so through adverse selection, or exclusion of disproportionately expensive cases. The assumption that public provision is more costly overall is mistaken. National health care systems, for example, tend to be cheaper than equivalent provision through private care [2] (http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_33929_1_1_1_1_1,00.html). List of welfare states"General government total outlays" as a % of GDP during 2003 from the OECD "Fiscal balances and public indebtedness - EO75 Annex Tables".
See also
External links
Data and statistics
de:Wohlfahrtsstaat es:Estado de bienestar et:Heaoluriik fr:État-providence he:מדינת רווחה |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy
::
Terms of Use
:: Contact Us
:: About Us This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Welfare state". |