Comparing British Welfare Systems with 2 Other Countries

A 2000 word comparative review of the ways different countries approach welfare, as discussed on the unit. The aim of this essay is to discuss and compare the British Welfare system with Germany and Sweden’s welfare systems. A welfare system is the structure of welfare provisions and services that provide a specific social need, but it is not only provided or organised solely by the government (Blakemore, 2001). It is a view that is rooted in individual exchanges between five organisations (State/Government, Market/Private Sector, Family/Kin networks, Local Communities and Civil Society).It reflects the history and cultures of different countries around the world (Haralambos, 2012). It is these providers that assume principal responsibilities of how welfare systems are organised and how they are worked for the welfare of its people in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security (Haralambos & Holborn, 2012b). The essay will focus on Adult Disability benef its and describe which of the main provider delivers disability benefits for the short-term and long term unemployed.The essay will also describe how they work and what patterns of provision is provided for the disabled. Then comparisons will be made on how the British welfare approaches on disability payments are provided and how they work, and I will examine the differences and similarities to each countries welfare system. The structure of the essay is based on a comparative method systematically designed for equivalences, similarities and shared common features. According to (Landman, 2004) the selection process involves two main types of research designs.Comparing different results across similar countries is known as ‘most similar systems’ and comparing similar outcomes across different countries known as ‘most different systems’. Either way using similarities and differences of different countries is meant to uncover what is common to each country (L andman, 2004, p28). The methodology approach is to select a ‘small –N’ (a few countries) and use the ‘trine’ method of involving three countries (Lewis, 2012). The method identified common features of the British welfare state with that of Germany and Sweden.Classification is a way of grouping common features which are mutual with other countries (Lewis, 2012). All 3 countries have a welfare system for those who have full or permanent disabilities. In order for things to be comparable they have to share certain features like welfare systems and have common features, called equivalences. Most countries have common features such as institutions, policies and services without these common features a comparison cannot be made. The essay will draw on an implicit approach rather than explicit because it is the British welfare system that comparisons are being made.All countries provide certain benefits for those who have full and permanent disabilities but they differ in the types of benefits they provide. Studies reviewed showed that some countries have changed part or the entire financial burden of short-term benefits from governments onto employers and private organisations. Disability benefits are provided by the state or local governments by all three countries however, in the UK only short term benefits are provided but in Germany and Sweden both short term and time limited benefits are provided for the disabled (Mitra, 2009). In the United Kingdom, the disability employment rate has been at 40%† (Huang et al, 2009, p. 46). The Liberal state of the United Kingdom faced major crisis of social and economic modernisation at the end of the Second World War. It was David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill who led the drive for what became the National Insurance Act of 1911, which brought in disability insurance. In fact, the reconstruction of welfare in the UK involved a set of relationship between the state, the market and th e family (Clarke & Logan, 1993).The Disability and Carers Service, which is part of the Department of Work & Pension (DWP) has the responsibility of providing benefits for people on benefits such as DLA. DLA is a tax-free benefit to help with extra costs you may have because your’re disabled, this is given to all claimants whether they are working or not (Directgov). Some people who make a claim for DLA may be asked to have a medical examination. Working tax credits was introduced in 2003 along with disability element to help people stay in work or to return to work (Mitra, 2009).Then the 2005 Disability Discrimination Act came into force (Haralambos & Holborn, 2009). (Burchardt, 2000) cited that according to the European Commission (1998), people with disabilities have low levels of participation in society and the employment rate for people with disabilities is 20-30% lower than people without disabilities (Huang, 2009). From 2013 Disability Living Allowance for disabled pe ople aged 16 to 64 will be replaced by a new Personal Independence Payment programme (Directgov).This is a non-means tested, tax free benefit. The DWP is to run a pilot scheme to help assist and reintroduce claimants back into the job market (Mitra, 2009), this will lead to employers paying short term benefits rather than the state. In Sweden it is the Local government responsibility for welfare services. It was from the 13th century that the first local legislation was seen as the responsibility of the local parish to take care of the poor (Bergmark & Minas, 2006, p. 15).The Swedish health system for people with disabilities are that national policy is plainly maintained by legislation and political agreement (Lilja et al, 2003). Swedish disability systems are organised in 3 hierarchical levels; the state, the county councils and the local authorities. However, this responsibility has expired over time and the national government decided to place a great deal of the responsibility for public services on the local authorities (Lilja et al, 2003). In Sweden policies relating to people with disabilities is provided through integration, full contribution and equality.Ministry of Health and social affairs (2000) reported the Swedish parliament had adopted a national policy for individuals with disabilities; they should have the same rights and obligations as everyone and be offered equal resources no matter where they lived (Lilja et al, 2003). While central government is to blame of legislation, general designing and distribution similarly as social insurance, authorities (municipalities) are answerable for social services, and regional government (county councils) for health care.Municipal social services additionally the} health and medical services of county councils are ruled by framework legislation that specifies the framework and objectives of activities however that also affords municipalities and county councils ample chance to interpret the law and form their activities in line with their own pointers People with disabilities will apply for municipal grants to change their homes.Actions like housing with special services for adults, or daily activities for those that are inactive and not enrolled in education are regulated by the Act regarding Support and repair for Persons with sure purposeful Impairments. County councils and municipalities are answerable for that health care help and is provided within the type of rehabilitation and habilitation. however there has been ongoing discussion regarding shifting a number of the price from state as a full to the individual user within the type of increasing the little fees some county councils and native authorities need and presumably reducing subsidies.While central government is in charge of legislation, general planning and distribution as well as social insurance, local authorities (municipalities) are responsible for social services, and regional government (county councils) for health care. Municipal social services and the health and medical services of county councils are governed by framework legislation which specifies the framework and objectives of activities but which also affords municipalities and county councils ample opportunity to interpret the law and shape their activities according to their own guidelines (Olney & Lyle, 2011).More than 70 organisations represent specific disability groups with 2,000 local associations. These organisations receive financial backing from the state, county councils and local authorities (Bahle, 2003). High spending on disability and unemployment helps to prevent poverty and social exclusion in these groups. The local authorities and county councils together have the basic responsibility for ensuring that people with disabilities are guaranteed good health and economic and social stability, and also for enabling the individual to lead an independent life.People with disabilities can apply for municipal grants to modify their homes. Actions such as housing with special services for adults, or daily activities for those who are inactive and not enrolled in education are regulated by the Act Concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments. County councils and municipalities are responsible for that health care assistance and is provided in the form of rehabilitation and habilitation.But there has been ongoing discussion about shifting some of the cost from state as a whole to the individual user in the form of increasing the small fees some county councils and local authorities require and possibly reducing subsidies. Country by Country The form of the welfare state that emerged was The ‘social state' of Germany began in the late 19th century when Bismarck was concerned the political left would oppose his place in power, he decided to introduce welfare provision into Germany to gain support from the left (Esping-Anderson, 1998).Bismarck's basic idea was th at people who were in work would pay into a scheme and this money would be distributed back to the poor (Ginsburg, 1993), he introduced the world's first State Social Insurance Scheme in 1883 (Bryson, 1992). The welfare system was about the basic needs of the state, with individuals helping themselves, the state would only intervene if it was absolutely necessary (Ginsburg, 1993). It was upon this base that Germany placed the future of welfare provision. Between 1950 and 1970 Germany's welfare system started to take shape.Interested in individual well being, the Christian, Catholic and Trade Unionists sections of the Government were introducing policies to increase job security (George, 1996). The neo- liberal ideas of strong market economy, individualism and democratic culture paired with the egalitarian approach to policy saw very distinctive priorities forming, of liberalism, conservative. Another example of how a corporatist system works in practice can be seen in the way a new insurance scheme for long term care was introduced in Germany in the mid-1990s.Time limited benefits was introduced in disability systems by the government via social insurance or social assistance programs (Mitra, 2009). The German welfare system is comprehensive and generous Social insurance lies at the heart of German social welfare. The disabled are also served by a broad range of medical and vocational programs designed to provide them with humane living conditions. Statutory social insurance programs are responsible for meeting the various needs of their members who become disabled.In addition, government agencies at the federal, Land, and local levels seek to provide employment and help with special housing and transportation provisions. Employment of the disabled is furthered by federal legislation that requires firms employing more than fifteen persons to reserve 6 percent of positions for the disabled or to make annual compensatory payments My hypothesis is, Germany and Sw eden disability programmes have a strong history with non-profit organisations that help support provisions for the disabled stronger than Britain’s profit based organizations.But on the other hand a result of social policies that are too strongly oriented towards the past on the one hand and sustainable conservative family patterns on the other, very little importance is attached to disability social policy contexts. CONCLUSION There is no longer a distinction between Germany’s contribution-based and Britain’s tax-based funding of welfare state programs, but in practice these two models have come together, as most social-insurance schemes are funded by a mixture of employer/employee contributions and grants from general state incomes.Contribution-based schemes, which are funded and administered independent of the government budget and in which members have vested benefits, have in history tended to be more generous and less prone to cutbacks than tax-funded sch emes, which the state can cut back when tax revenues are limited or an anti welfare state political party comes to power. It is, however, important to stress that there are considerable differences between the lives of disabled people and the type of welfare benefits across the European welfare system.The two decisive but interconnected differences consist of the amount to which the public sector takes the individual or the family as its point of departure and the degree to which disabilities is seen as a stage of life in its own right or how each individual is assessed. Welfare pluralism suggests that all welfare provisions will be provided by all the five providers in all countries in the future and less state/public responsibility. ?REFERENCES Bahle, T. (2003) ‘The changing institutionalization of social services in England and Wales, France and Germany: is the welfare state on the retreat? , Journal of European Social Policy, 13(5), pp. 5-20 Bergmark, A. and Minas, R. â₠¬ËœRescaling Social Welfare Policies in Sweden’ Institute for Future Studies [Online]. Available at: http://www. euro. centre. org/rescalingDocuments/files/Sweden. pdf (Accessed: 15 March 2012) Bode, I. 2006) ‘Disorganised welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), pp. 346-359 Clarke, J. , & Cochrane, A. (1993) Comparing Welfare States: Britain in International Context, London, Sage Etherington, D. & Ingold, J. (2012) ‘Welfare to work and the inclusive labour market: a comparative study of activation policies for disability and long-tern sickness benefit claimants in the UK and Denmark’, Journal of European Social Policy, 22(1) pp. 0-44 Haralambos & Holborn (2009) (7th edn) Sociology Themes and Perspectives, London, HarperCollinsPublishers Limited Huang, J. , Guo, B. , & Bricout, J. (2009) ‘From Concentration to Dispersion: The Shift in Policy Approach to Disability Employment’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1) pp. 46-54 Landman, T. (2004) Isssues and Methods in Comparative Politics: an introduction. 3rd edn. Dawsonera [Online] Available at: http://www. dawsonera. com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203929780/S0. 78/0Lilja, M, Mansson, I, Jahlenius, L. , & Sacco-Peterson, M. (2003) ‘Disability Policy in Sweden: Policies Concerning Assistive Technology and Home Modification Services’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3)pp. 130-135 Mitra, S. (2009) ‘Temporary and Partial Disability Programs in Nine Countries’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20 (1) pp. 14-27 Olney, M. F. & Lyle, C. (2011) ‘The Benefits Trap: Barriers to Employment Experienced by SSA Beneficiaries’, Rehabilitation Counceling Bulletin, 54(4), pp. 197-209