<<
>>

Laws of evolution of systems of social protection


Formation of modern systems of social protection is connected with industrialisation process, strengthening of state regulation of social processes, complication of socially-demographic structure of company.
Originally social risks were covered in a voluntary order at the expense of creation of funds of mutual aid among handicraftsmen and merchants (shop cash desks), then among hired workers (cash desk of a mutual insurance of workers). Industrialisation and caused by it mass proletarizatsija the population, a low standard of living of workers have resulted in the end of XIX century in occurrence of obligatory social insurance including employers and the states and registration corresponding civil and the labour legislation.
In work it is revealed, that the sequence of introduction of separate systems of obligatory social insurance in the European countries consists that, as a rule, the first entered accident insurance, then medical insurance, pension and much later - an insurance for unemployment. It is possible to explain the given sequence of introduction of systems of social insurance by means of two factors. The first - various degree of complexity of the organisation of insurance systems. The second - conformity of these systems to principles of liberal market economy. Traditions of liberal market economy were changed both with the advent of obligatory social insurance, and by means of that the state accepted responsibility for management and financing of the social programs until then existing on care of church, local and public organisations. Unlike other branches of social insurance accident insurance introduction on production can be considered as event least mentioned former principles of liberal economy. Maintenance on an old age and illness, on the contrary, meant more significant transformation of principles of liberal market economy as it has been connected with carrying over of risks covered by these programs as main sources of poverty from individual collective responsibility in sphere. Simultaneously social insurance systems on age and illness required also more a high level of administrative innovations, than the accident insurance which realisation remains to the granted employers. At last, financing of medical and pension insurance required considerably the big means, and parity account between instalments and social services and payments put more difficult administrative and financial problems before insurers. Insurance for unemployment realisation has been connected with the greatest difficulties. First of all, it has been caused by unemployment interpretation as the social risk caused by the socioeconomic reasons. Besides, dependence on cyclic fluctuations did unemployment not enough insurable risk. Prevalence of the neoclassical approach to the economic policy, essential interference of the state denying necessity in economic processes was distinctive line of the period of occurrence of an insurance for unemployment. According to such approach unemployment was understood as result of a voluntary choice of the individual, and its growth during the periods of an adverse economic conjuncture - as a temporary phenomenon which overcoming is possible thanks to action of self-regulated market mechanisms. In this connection the basic measures have been connected first of all with softening of consequences of unemployment during the periods of economic crises.

Unlike existing before forms of the collective mutual aid, arising in the end of XIX - the beginning of XX centuries of system of obligatory social insurance have a number of qualitative features. First, they are based on legislative regulation by the state. Secondly, they grant social payments and services in case of approach of social risks: accident on production, illness, physical inability, an old age, death of the supporter and unemployment. Thirdly, the area of their application is not limited to separate specialities or groups of hired workers, and the width of coverage of workers is connected by social payments only with the sizes of their income. Thus, unlike early forms of social protection new systems of insurance covered bolshee quantity of workers. Fourthly, these systems have a binding character that means, on the one hand, necessity of social insurance for workers, and with other - imposes on the state certain responsibilities (legislative and administrative) concerning social insurance. Fifthly, in financing of systems of social insurance participates both the hired worker, and the employer, and the state. At last, the important feature of systems of social insurance is that social security is considered now as the right of the citizen to reception of social services and payments and is not connected (as it was earlier in case of programs social prizrenija) with its sociopolitical discrimination. Hence, registration of systems of social insurance meant complete turn concerning principles of social support. If earlier social prizrenie it was considered as means of preservation of a public order now social insurance became connected with understanding of necessity of indemnification of loss of the income as preconditions individual so, and public well-being.
Thus, responsibility division on insurance of social risks between the employer, the hired worker and the state was key idea of obligatory social insurance. Besides, obligatory social insurance of hired workers underlined a principle of an individual responsibility for own well-being, but unlike voluntary personal insurance supplied solidary alignment. Sharing of employers and the state, besides, accented idea of social solidarity.
The peak of development of systems of social protection is necessary for 1960-1970 when many states have accepted high obligations on maintenance of social protection of the population. It was promoted by the accelerated rates of economic growth, strengthening of a role of the state in social and economic processes, scientific registration of the theory of "the social state” (table 1).
In the course of expansion of programs of social protection in the West European countries during this period it is possible to allocate two defining tendencies. The first tendency consisted that the greatest increase in costs was necessary on those social programs (medical, pension insurance) which have not been connected with sphere of production and a labour market and pensioners extended on such big on number and important from the political point of view of group of voters, as, for example. The second tendency consisted in essentially smaller growth of costs for the social programs caused
Problems of a labour market or wages (insurance for unemployment). This situation speaks following circumstances: first, structure
The unemployed more geterogenen, than pensioners, also it is changed quickly enough, secondly, the important factor are existing fears of politicians and economists about harm of high costs for unemployment benefits as in itself they promote not so much to its reduction, how many to increase. For this reason reduction of social financing was made mainly at the expense of programs having a smaller public resonance, such, as an insurance for unemployment, rather than by means of decrease in costs for more socially significant pension and medical insurance.
Table 1. Costs for social protection in nine EU countries in 1950 - 2000

The country

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Germany

14,8

14,2

15

16,6

17

23,7

24

23,8

25,4

28,9

29,5

Denmark

8,4

9,8

11,1

12,2

16,6

22,5

29,9

25,9

28,7

32,2

28,8

Finland

6,7

7,6

8,7

10,6

13,1

15,7

18

22

25,1

31,8

25,2

France

-

13,4

13,4

15,8

15,3

24,1

26,7

28,7

27,6

30,7

29,7

The Great Britain

10

9,5

11

11,7

13,8

16

17,3

20

22,9

28,2

26,8

Italy

8,5

10

11,7

14,8

16,3

21,2

21,5

11,3

24,3

24,8

25,2

The Netherlands

7,1

8,4

11,1

15,7

20

25,5

28,3

29,1

32,4

30,9

27,4

Austria

12,4

12,8

13,8

17,8

18,8

20,2

22,5

25,2

26,7

29,6

28,2

Sweden

8,3

9,9

11

13,6

18,8

25

31,9

14,7

33,1

35,5

32,2

On the average

8,4

10,6

11,8

14,3

16,6

21,5

24,4

22,3

27,3

30,2

28,1

It is made on: Schmidt M. Sozialpolitik. - Opladen, 1980. - S. 137; Eurostat Yearbook 2002. - Luxemburg, 2002. - P. 186.
The subsequent economic crises have changed a situation therefore in 1980 - 1990 were designated the basic problems of the present stage of development of systems of social protection. They have been caused by the reasons sotsialnodemograficheskogo, political and economic character. Special importance the last decades was acquired by demographic factors XX century. Birth rate falling in the majority of the European countries below level of natural reproduction of the population, and also the increase in average life expectancy and growth of a share of people of a pension age create financial problems for pension systems and medical insurance. By 1990 years the tendency of expansion of social protection has reached the possibilities, having come nearer to threshold significances. Therefore these years gradually there is a revaluation of a social role of the state, connected with failure of general state support of social protection in advantage of less expensive corporate or collectively-contractual forms using a principle of insurance.
Features of the European integration in sphere of social protection of the EU countries At the present stage social policy of the European Union countries saves the national competence of regulation that is why within the limits of the accepted documents the European community does not possess a legal basis for assistance in acceptance kommunitarnogo the social legislation influencing national systems of social protection. If in the field of monetary and credit and trading regulation there are obliging concrete agreements in social protection sphere it is possible to speak only about coordination of the social programs which are carried out by member states, and only then about
Redistribution of the limited financial resources for realisation of the social programs promoting development of integration as a whole.
Signing of agreements on formation of uniform insurance space and coordination of national legislations in the field of social protection became the big achievement of social policy of EU. As a matter of fact it means not only possibility of free moving in Union borders, but also employment in any state of EU at a reservation of a right on national social protection. However the signed agreements did not unify national legislations in uniform European system as similar unification, according to the author, is hardly possible in the near future in connection with essential distinctions in social standards of the various states. It is connected also by that the EU countries still are at different levels of economic development, therefore social costs counting on soul the population expressed in absolute indicators, differ several times. So, in 2003 (Before expansion) the five of the countries with the best indicators included Luxembourg (12 653 euros), Denmark (10 782), Sweden (99 333), and into a three with the lowest - Greece (3 671), Portugal (3 192) and Spain (3 656 euros) [1]. Therefore, despite certain redistribution of the gross product in the European Union including through the Fund of rallying created for this purpose, its scales are modest enough, and their increases to expect it is not necessary, as it would be interfaced to decrease in social standards and a standard of living in more developed countries. A conclusion from told such is: it is obvious, that national systems of social protection and their finance and remain further under the authority of EU member states.
Now in nadnatsionalnom the social legislation the principle according to which at moving of the citizen in space of EU it never will get to the worst situation concerning the rights to social protection in comparison with that as though it worked in the country all life acts. As in some EU countries social insurance rules are based on a citizenship principle (universal systems), and in others - on an insurance principle, i.e. an accessory of the worker and his family to the insurance organisation to avoid cases of double insurance or any in general, agreements describe social protection rules in each separate case for a migrating labour. Agreements describe the periods which are necessary for buying the allowance in other country, thereby harmonising national legislations in the field of social protection.
So, now the European national systems of social protection save the autonomy, that in certain degree process of the European integration brakes. Despite it, and also that association of the markets potentially creates threat of "a social dumping”, the European Union fixes in the program documents a principle of preservation already reached in those or other EU member states social standards. In this case EU does not aspire to regulation of all aspects of national systems of social protection, the general norms of EU define only minimum social standards (they have been fixed in the Charter of the basic social rights of workers of 1989 and include the guaranteed mode of work and rest, the maximum duration of working week etc.) below which the national governments of exhibiting countries undertake not to lower social protection level.
Economic models of social protection in the states of the European union Under economic model of social protection it is possible to understand developed principles of the organisation and functioning of its programs in this or that country. In the countries of the European union four basic models dominate: continental or bismarkovskaja, Anglo-Saxon or model Beveridzha, Scandinavian and South European [2].
The continental model (model of Bismarck) establishes rigid connection between level of social protection and duration of professional work. In its basis the social insurance which services are financed basically at the expense of instalments of employers and insured lays. At the heart of this model the principle of professional solidarity providing existence of safety funds, operated on an equal footing hired workers and businessmen lays. They accumulate social deductions from wages from which insurances are made. Financing of such systems, as a rule, is not carried out from a public finance as the principle of budgetary universality is opposite to such model of social protection. However in modern conditions of existence of the social state in Europe with its extensive network of social programs, this model of social protection, as a rule, not always is based only on the given principle. Therefore for the needy members of company who do not have possibilities to receive insurance social payments for some reasons (for example, owing to absence of the necessary insurance experience), national solidarity is realised through systems of the social help. In this case speech can go about auxiliary mechanisms which are deviations from the basic logic "bismarkovskoj" models. Despite existence of a principle of compulsion of social insurance (for example, in Germany compulsion of social insurance is ordered by the law), it is observed not to the full. It is connected with existence of marginal levels of wages above which the accessory to social insurance modes is not obligatory (probably only voluntary insurance), or limitation of deductions (in this case within the limits of obligatory social insurance of deduction are made only within limiting wages, and social payments are estimated in the relation to this level). Thus, at the heart of this model the principle aktuarnoj justice when the size of insurances is defined first of all by size of insurance instalments lays. At the moment of the birth in Germany in the end of XIX century the German system of social protection reproduced this model. For today significant development of system of the social help (under construction on a relief aid principle, instead of insurance) leads to updating of this model and increase in a share of budgetary financing of social protection.
The Anglo-Saxon model (model Beveridzha) is presented in Europe by the Great Britain and Ireland. In its basis the report of English economist U.Beveridzha presented to the government of the Great Britain in 1942 [3] Significant influence on put forward Beveridzhem of position lays have rendered Keynes's ideas that dynamics of a social production and employment are defined by effective demand factors and consequently, redistribution of incomes in interests of the social groups receiving more low yields, is capable to raise monetary demand of mass buyers. The model bases on following principles: a principle of generality (universality) of system of social protection - its distribution on all citizens requiring material aid; a principle of uniformity and unification of social services and payments that is expressed in the identical size of pensions, allowances and health services, and also conditions of their granting.
Principle of distributive justice - basic in the given model, as in this case it is a question not about professional (as in a case with model of Bismarck), and of national solidarity. Financing of such systems of social protection is made both at the expense of insurance instalments, and from taxation means. So, financing of family allowances and public health services is carried out from a public finance, and other social benefits - at the expense of insurance instalments of hired workers and employers. Unlike continental, this model includes social insurance with low enough social payments and the social help which in this system plays a dominating role.
The Scandinavian model of social protection is characteristic for Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Social protection in it is understood as the legitimate right of the citizen. Distinctive line of the Scandinavian model is wide coverage of various social risks and vital situations which require company support. Reception of social services and payments, as a rule, is guaranteed to all inhabitants of the country and not stipulated by employment and a payment of premium. As a whole the level of social security offered by this model, is high enough. Not in the last instance it is reached at the expense of the active redistributive policy directed on alignment of incomes. The necessary prior condition of functioning of the given model is highly organised company which is under construction on the basis of adherence to principles institutsionalnogo companies of well-being.
Financing of systems of the social protection concerning given model, is carried out mainly at the expense of the taxation though the certain role is played by insurance instalments of businessmen and hired workers. A unique part of the social protection allocated from the general system is the insurance for unemployment which is voluntary and copes trade unions. Until recently working on hiring have been practically released of a payment of premium and participated in system of social protection by tax payment. However the last decade the tendency of gradual increase of a share of sharing working on hiring in financing of insurance programs and increases in insurance deductions from wages XX century was scheduled. Same the tendency is traced and in relation to businessmen whereas social costs of the state the last years were considerably reduced.
The South European model of social protection is presented to Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Only the last decades under influence sotsialnoekonomicheskih and structural changes in these states social protection systems have been created or improved. Unlike previous the given model can be interpreted without delay as developing, transitive, that is why not having the accurate organisation. For this reason "rudimentarnost" it is marked this model as its basic feature by various western researchers [4]. As a rule, level of social security, characteristic for the given model, is rather low, and the social protection problem is considered often as care of relatives and a family. Therefore the family and other institutes of civil company play here not the last role, and social policy has mainly passive character and is focused on indemnification of losses in incomes of separate categories of citizens. Characteristic line of the given model is also the asymmetric structure of social costs. So, in Italy it is shown that the largest part of social costs makes a provision of pensions (14,7 % of gross national product at Central European level - 12,5 %), whereas on support of a family, motherhood, formation and to the politician of employment rather insignificant means (nearby 1 %) [5] are expended.
<< | >>
A source: Antropov V.V.. ECONOMIC MODELS of SOCIAL PROTECTION of the POPULATION In EU STATES / the Dissertation. 2007

More on topic Laws of evolution of systems of social protection:

  1. Features of systems of social protection in the EU countries
  2. the concept Contents “population social protection” and necessity of social protection for modern market economy
  3. CHAPTER 1. EVOLUTION of the PRINCIPLE And the CONCEPT of PROTECTION And ENCOURAGEMENT of FUNDAMENTAL LAWS of the PERSON In the RIGHT of the EUROPEAN UNION.
  4. § 2.3. Judicial protection of laws of persons on insurance payments on obligatory social insurance
  5. 2.1. Evolution of scientific approaches to economic and social research
  6. the Problem of a social revolution and evolution in «to the Chronicle...»
  7. CHAPTER 3. TRANSFORMATION of the LABOUR LEGISLATION of the COUNTRIES EAES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF the INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATES About SOCIAL DIALOGUE And SOCIAL PROTECTION
  8. § 4. Problems of interaction of the state, economic sector, political institutes and public associations in maintenance and protection of social rights of citizens of Republic Kazakhstan. Questions of social partnership
  9. § 1. Evolution criminally-right protection properties in Russia
  10. § 3.2. FUNCTION OF SELF-ORGANIZING OF IS SOCIAL-LEGAL SYSTEMS
  11. Legitimatsija ways of political management in nonequilibrium social systems
  12. Gusevs ALEXEYS JUREVICH. JUDICIAL PROTECTION of the RIGHT of the RUSSIAN CITIZENS ON SOCIAL SECURITY. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. 2017Москва, 2017