The Meaning Of Social Policy

The Comparative Dimension In Social Welfare

Bernice Q. Madison

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367293802
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000303278
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The purpose of this book is to survey the literature on social welfare policies and planning of different nations in order to explain some of the major problems that are encountered in comparative research and to highlight what has been learned so far.

1 Introduction

The importance of a cross-national approach to social welfare policy and planning is currently achieving growing recognition among social welfare scholars, administrators and practitioners and is being widely used by social scientists as they become more aware of the limitations of their own 'national' frames of reference,¹ The first international conference of ministers responsible for social welfare (1968) recommended that comparative studies should be among the first new directions to be explored (1:23). The International Labour Conference adopted a resolution on the need for developing internationally comparable statistics on social security in 1944 (at its 26th session). Behind this spreading and intensified interest in comparative studies and international perspectives in the social welfare field are both theoretical and practical considerations.

At the theoretical level, comparative studies are among the better instruments for establishing general laws about social life — for searching out the theoretically relevant similarities. Clear of irrelevant specifics, such laws transcend cultural and national settings and reveal whether what is found 'to be true in one society is a phenomenon that occurs under a given set of circumstances in all societies or whether it is relevant for that society only' (2:13). Alternatively, such laws indicate what is true to a particular situation, to specific circumstances of time and place. Discrepancies stimulate new hypotheses by pointing to new independent variables. Where circumstances cannot be experimentally varied, 'controlled observation of the same identifiable phenomenon in different places and at different times' (3:834) can help us understand causal relationships. When comparative studies shed light on the similarities and differences between the social institutions of two or more nations, they often reveal the causal links within each nation.

By comparing and contrasting public expenditures of many nations, Pryor was able to discover

relationships which, for lack of perspective, can never be unearthed from study of such expenditures in a single country. If nations with different economic systems are used in such comparisons, additional generalizations with political and ideological significance can be derived which are unobtainable if we limit such comparison to nations with the same economic system (4:19—20).

By comparing and contrasting different cultures, Mead was able to discern the actual dimensions of a problem, complete a picture and thus restate the problem in new terms (5:214). By comparing youth in two worlds, Kandel and Lesser gained insights 'that would never have been forthcoming from a study in the United States alone or in Denmark alone' (6:xiv). By comparing work incentives and welfare reform in Britain and the United States, Rein showed that the real problem of disincentives among the able-bodied poor is the lack of jobs at non-poverty wages rather than the availability of high public assistance benefits — the latter, a widely held belief in the United States (7:151 —95). In short, as Emile Durkheim noted in 1897 in his pioneering study, Suicide, 'only comparison affords explanation'; and if we refuse to compare ourselves with anyone else and deal 'solely with ourselves and our fantasies both on an individual and on a national level, we obliterate the possibility of a communal approach to experience', warn Gavin and Blakeley (8:74).

At a practical level, comparative studies make possible the detection of trends and the placing of a given system in clearer perspective, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the social policies of particular countries. Nations can draw upon the experience of others if methods of dealing with certain problems 'prove "exportable" '(9:242), offering 'policy-makers a wider range of culturally adoptable possibilities and [helping them] to make better informed choices' (10:260). Some programs tried elsewhere may provide pilot experience worth studying further. By showing where specified conditions in one country stand in relation to those in other countries, cross-national research may stimulate questions about reasons behind the selection of a particular policy and this, in turn, may prompt creative thinking about alternatives — the varieties of policy options and the conditions required for their successful implementation. By permitting us to know where we stand in relation to others comparative studies often 'lead to new interpretations and fresh evaluations of social institutions with which [a particular country] has long been familiar' (11:13). Experts and policy-makers in different countries can make their experience more understandable and useful to each other, and prepare themselves better for intelligent international cooperation. The perspective gained through cross-national research helps to avoid the 'here and now' view which repeats previous mistakes and relies on a pseudo-inventiveness that ignores the experience of others. In short, it can help policy-makers decide what not to do, as well as what to do.

To what extent cross-national studies can be used for predictive purposes has been of concern for some time. Writing in 1966 as the editor of the influential book Social Indicators, Bauer explained that he deliberately used the word anticipation of the future instead of the more popular term prediction because he wanted

to avoid certain prevailing errors in thinking about the future as a guide to action. For example, prediction ordinarily is thought of as identifying that future state of affairs which is considered to be the most probable of all the conceivable outcomes. However, a program of action must contemplate more possible states of affairs than solely that one which appears to be the most probable. It must take into consideration a whole range of events which are reasonably probable and reasonably important. For this reason, we prefer the broader concept of anticipation to that of prediction, which has come to imply concern with the single most probable future event among all those that are possible (12:17).

The predictive potential of comparative studies remains a moot point. While some social scientists think that social forecasting is feasible, they note that methodology for it is as yet in an underdeveloped state; in an international perspective the situation is complicated by the problem of transferability of social phenomena to different environments. Nevertheless, there is a growing conviction that the predictability of certain choices can be better assessed when evidence from more than one country is available. And Mouton points out that 'at a more modest level' comparative studies can 'try to discern some of the broad lines of future developments, bearing in mind present trends, the underlying factors which can also affect future prospects, and the possible solutions to problems [uncovered by them]' (13:159—60).

The helping professions in all societies - especially those concerned with health, education and welfare — attach great importance to experiential learning considered essential for acquiring therapeutic skills as well as for enhancing the professional's capacity to act as a change agent in societal evolution — to contribute effectively to policy and planning. If one agrees with Titmuss that

It is only when one adopts a comparative approach and analysis that one can distinguish something of the nature of the real choices and priorities in social policy — which, in the ultimate, is all about the dilemmas of choice and change, individual liberty and collective responsibility (14:102-3),

then it becomes obvious that helping professionals can gain a great deal, indeed, from comparative studies of social welfare policy and an international view of social welfare planning.

The purpose of this book is to survey the literature on social welfare policies and planning of different nations in order to explain some of the major problems that are encountered in comparative research and to highlight what has been learned so far. It is hoped that this preliminary effort will contribute toward a better understanding of a rapidly emerging field of scholarly endeavor, thereby stimulating creative thinking and more effective action by both scholars and practitioners concerned with social welfare.

The surveyed literature includes single-country and cross-national studies by scholars as well as those sponsored by organizations whose membership is composed largely of social welfare administrators and practitioners. Single-country studies are included because some are useful for comparative purposes - those that concern themselves with universal issues and those that explain the interconnections between a country's welfare evolution and its historical development, political and value systems, and cultural norms. They shed light on the reasons for similarities and differences in welfare subcultures, and reveal which societal forces are especially determining, in contrast to influences that are weak or transitory. Although the authors of such studies may not themselves explicate insights useful for comparisons, they may help some of their readers to do so and to apply these insights to their own work.

Cross-national studies produced under the auspices of administrators and practitioners, in addition to those written by scholars, are included because they furnish practically useful knowledge - about substantive provisions, administrative structures, bureaucratic processes, effects on recipients (actual and potential), and other aspects of what happens when legal and administrative blueprints are transformed into benefits and services. These studies also reveal the judgments of administrators and practitioners as to which problems are most in need of investigation, as these problems evolve out of the ever-changing social environment and demand a more effective response to new or only partially satisfied needs. From questions asked in the 'real world', researchers can derive guidelines for more effectively addressing the claims of both analytic and experiential knowledge. If comparative policy research is to fulfill both its theoretical and practical potentials, it must emerge at the point where theory and reality converge, where it can encompass both theoretical significance and policy applicability.

Only studies and reports available in English are included because it cannot be assumed that readers know many foreign languages. The surveyed literature does not pretend to provide an exhaustive bibliography. To attempt this would have questionable utility since almost all of the included studies incorporate thorough inventories of relevant research and extensive bibliographies which draw attention to other sources pertinent for deeper analysis into the subject being investigated. From these, readers can extract additional bibliography, specifically in areas of their special interest. My objective was to select works that seem to have considerable significance and/or usefulness within the limits imposed by definitions of social welfare policy and planning adopted for this book. A number of studies that fulfill this criterion only partially are included because they raise questions about seemingly well-established notions or juxtapose conflicting points of view, and thus illumine areas that need further investigation; others, because they focus on issues that are now emerging as important; still others, because they employ novel approaches to the analysis of both old and new problems; and a few, simply because so little information is available on the countries about which they are written. Certain welfare programs that are covered by my definitions are not discussed because I could not find a sufficient number of policy-oriented studies in regard to them to permit meaningful comparisons. Some studies that I would have liked to include were not available to me.

In regard to definitions I was guided by several considerations. Given the enormous expanse of 'social welfare', it was essential to reduce the scope of this preliminary undertaking to manageable proportions. To do so, compromises and arbitrary decisions had to be made which means, among other things, that my 'definitions' may not correspond to conceptualizations entertained by some of my readers. In the process, I became more and more aware of the subtleties of national welfare vocabularies which often defy precise translation, especially when they deal with relative concepts — relative in the thinking of the person who is writing about them, as well as in time and place. It is well known, for example, that many similarly labeled programs of different countries do not uniformly display the same characteristics. The category of income maintenance does not have a standard international meaning or dimension; the lack of standardization is even more pronounced in personal social services. In the international literature on welfare one quickly becomes aware of puzzling ambiguities in the meanings of many terms. Although the aim of welfare everywhere is the 'well-being' of people, well-being is seen differently in different societies and the designations used to refer to programs expected to improve or achieve it, range over a variety of formulations: social development programs, social programs, social measures, social action, social services, social welfare, social welfare services, etc. These inexactnesses are magnified by uncertainities about which programs are required by the 'normal population' in contrast to those deemed necessary for the 'vulnerable sections' of the society. Nor does the literature provide universally accepted guidelines for selecting and classifying programs. Efforts to achieve a usable differentiation are complicated by the requirement that services and benefits personify a constantly interacting balance between social and economic development as it affects well-being.

Yet, for the most part changes in social welfare concepts and policies seem to be induced by the need to deal with changes in existing programs — however these programs are structured and by whatever forces bring the changes about. This usually means that departures from major assumptions that underlie these programs are either rare or gradual, although periodic break-throughs that bring about sudden and far-reaching departures do take place. Consequently, to replace widely accepted perceptions and established terminology with new concepts and unfamiliar terminology would not be helpful either to policymakers or to administrators. Nor is it likely that researchers who wish their findings to influence social policy would be successful if their concepts were not recognizably related to existing social welfare subcultures. Resort to conventional program categories, despite their shortcomings, was motivated by a d...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Introduction
• Part One: Framework for Cross-National Research
• Part Two: The Structure of Social Security
• Part Three: Personal Social Services
• Part Four: Planning
• Select Bibliography
• Name Index
• Suject Index