home » Style » The liberal model of the state has advantages and disadvantages. Models of social policy

The liberal model of the state has advantages and disadvantages. Models of social policy

A social state of a liberal type is a state that guarantees the preservation of minimum incomes and a sufficiently high quality of pension and medical services, education, and housing and communal services for the population. But not for every citizen. A liberal state is a state of social services, social insurance and social support. Such a state takes care only of socially vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society. The main emphasis is not on issues of gratuitous social guarantees, but on the protection of individual economic, personal freedom and human dignity. Supporters of the liberal model of the welfare state proceed from the fact that liberal social policy and a high level of legality in society guarantee the sustainable development of society. Timely resolution of emerging conflicts guarantees the sustainable development of relations of solidarity, partnership and social tranquility. A high standard of living for people is ensured through labor income and property income. The state assumes the responsibility only to compensate the citizen for the lack of social benefits if market structures, public associations and the family cannot do this. Thus, the regulatory role of the state is reduced to a minimum. Its activity in matters of social policy consists of establishing the amount and payment of benefits. In such countries there are many charitable organizations, private and religious foundations to help those in need, and church communities. There are various federal programs to help former prisoners, national minorities, etc. There is a developed social insurance system, including health insurance by private firms and the state, pension insurance, employee accident insurance, etc., which removes a significant cost burden from the state budget. But this type of service is not available to all citizens due to its high cost.

The liberal model does not imply the achievement of social equality, but, nevertheless, there is support for low-income segments of the population. The social security system does not undermine the work motivation of citizens, i.e. a person must first of all improve his well-being through his personal work. The redistribution of benefits is based on the principle of recognition of the citizen's right to minimally decent living conditions. There is a lower limit to welfare, and it outlines the extent of rights guaranteed for everyone.

Examples of countries with a liberal model are Australia, Canada, and the USA.

2 Conservative model

“The basis of this concept is the assertion that universal prosperity has already been achieved in the industrialized countries of the West. The rest of the countries will sooner or later take a similar path of economic and social development or will find themselves outsiders forever.”

The main idea is to peacefully pursue public policy with such efficiency that gradually brings the economy and social sphere to the level of the needs and interests of the majority of citizens. We are talking about reasonable needs that correspond to the capabilities of the state.

With this model of the welfare state, a pragmatic approach is taken to the provision of social services by the state. This allows us to concentrate on solving pressing, pressing social problems.

The main task of the state is to provide all citizens with equal starting conditions and opportunities for development. The foundation of conservative policy is the idea of partnership between the state, the private sector, public and charitable organizations. In the economic sphere, the principle of a mixed economy dominates, which creates a social market economy. It ensures personal freedom, prevents the concentration of economic power, promoting competition and assistance to the neediest groups of the population. Social policy should not be about providing more and more poor people with better things, but rather about eliminating the causes of poverty, which are structural in nature and cannot be eliminated by distribution policies alone.

In a conservative social state, there is wide coverage of various groups of the population with diverse forms of social protection, a high level of social guarantees, when the amount of payments actually ensures the implementation of the goals for which they are intended (housing, education). Private social insurance plays a much smaller role than in the liberal model. The state is ready to replace the market where it cannot ensure the well-being of citizens. However, social guarantees in a conservative welfare state depend on the social status of the individual, and many social responsibilities are transferred to the family. The state intervenes only when the family's possibilities are exhausted. Great Britain and Japan are focused on this model.

For example, in Japan, social policy is based on the principle of ensuring equality of opportunity, maintaining a low level of unemployment, actively creating jobs, and reducing income differentiation. The Japanese state pursues a policy of large-scale investment in the social sphere. The material basis for active social policy is the redistribution of wealth. This is done through the introduction of a wealth tax, which can amount to up to 80% of total income. Japan does not have a layer of super-large property owners and has one of the lowest poverty rates in the world.

3 Corporate model

A corporate-type welfare state is a state that takes responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, but at the same time delegates most of its social responsibilities to the private sector, forcing it to participate in the implementation of state social programs. At the same time, it turns out that a significant part of the social care for their employees is taken directly by enterprises and organizations themselves - they pay for the costs of personnel training, implement pension programs, and undertake payment for medical and other social services. This model is successfully implemented in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France.

Definition 1

Social policy is a set of measures that are aimed at achieving the well-being of society, improving the livelihoods of Russian citizens, as well as ensuring social stability in society.

Social policy can be implemented in the following areas: ensuring social protection and social guarantees for citizens, stimulating full employment of citizens, partnership at the social level, protecting national health and income differentiation. Today, the state is developing an effective social policy that is aimed at protecting socially vulnerable groups of the population and citizens in general.

Review of the main models of social policy

The history of the last century has openly demonstrated that state ideas regarding the social mechanism can be fundamentally different. In developed countries with market economies in the post-war years, various models and mechanisms for the implementation of social policies were formed.

The conservative model of social policy (institutional, continental European) has a main central direction - special attention is paid to insurance and the market. This model is based on the principle of those achievements where labor activity determines future social security, but in this case the state does not implement social services. With a conservative model of social policy, difficulties may arise for those groups of the population that do not have insurance and are not engaged in professional activities, since the level of tax distribution in this case is very small. Citizens are forced to rely only on public assistance and regional charitable institutions. At the same time, the employee’s insurance contributions and budget contributions for social events are equal. The main instruments of redistribution are private and public social insurance fund organizations. The conservative model of social policy is actively used in Germany, Austria, France and Belgium.

The social democratic model is also called Nordic or Scandinavian. Its main principle of social protection and provision is universality. In accordance with its policy, all citizens have the right to social security and insurance, which are implemented through the state budget. State taxes sold through retail services are indirect in nature; only income is subject to direct tax. The social democratic model is based on the following principles:

regardless of productivity and age category, all citizens have the same value;
social support and assistance is provided on a voluntary basis;
social protection should cover all spheres of life and be continuous;
social security should equalize the social conditions of all categories of the population.

This model is actively used in the politics of such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway.

The liberal model of social policy considers the market as the main tool for organizing interaction between people. This model provides for social protection of a residual type, when people can exist in society without social security. In this case, the state bears limited responsibility for the social security of the population. Because of this nature of funding, implementation of the liberal model depends on large levels of informal and voluntary assistance. This model is used in England, Great Britain, USA and Ireland.

The Catholic model is based on the principle of auxiliary, according to which the nearest authority is obliged to solve all problems. In this case, the closest authority is a person. And if he cannot help himself on his own, then he turns to his relatives and family. If these authorities cannot help, then the next stage will be the community, including civil organizations and the church. If this does not help, then the person can turn to insurance services. The final authority in the Catholic model is the public sector.

Note 1

It can be summarized that the Scandinavian and social democratic models are improved versions of the liberal model, but the Catholic model is a worse version of the conservative model of social policy.

In accordance with the principles of the organization, the Commission of the European Community identifies two main models of social policy: “Beveridge” and “Bismarckian”.

The idea of the “Beveridge” model is that any citizen has a legal right to minimal protection of his health or due to a reduction in income. In those states that have chosen this model of social policy, health insurance systems operate, and pension structures provide minimum social benefits to all older citizens, regardless of their past work activity. These social security systems are financed through the tax structure from the state budget. In this model, the principle of national solidarity prevails.

The “Bismarck” model establishes a connection between professional activity and the level of social protection. The rights of citizens to social benefits are determined by those contributions that have been paid throughout life, i.e. Social benefits are transformed into insurance premiums. In this case, social protection does not depend on the state budget.

Figure 1. Models of social policy. Author24 - online exchange of student work

Classification of social policy models

Depending on the type of basic process, social policy is divided into the following models:

Social help. This model of social policy consists of charitable support for low-income families, as well as disabled and vulnerable citizens. In recent decades, exactly this approach has been implemented in the Russian Federation, which has led to a decrease in the effectiveness of social security and the extinction of state social functions.
Social care. This model is to compensate for negative social factors that have arisen due to uneven socio-economic development. The main goal of this model is to minimize differentiation on a declared basis in the standard of living of citizens.
Social insurance. The model consists of financing social services and payments through insurance contributions from employers and employees of the enterprise. The main idea of this model is the formation of a middle class and increasing the responsibility of citizens for their lives and future.
Social development. This model of social policy is to improve the main criteria of quality of life - health, employment, education, housing, as well as the state of the environment. The main direction of social security in this case is the organization of various actions that provide initial opportunities for self-support.

Social policy, depending on the subject of responsibility, is divided into the following models:

Liberal model. Its main principle is that the personal responsibility of each citizen for his life, as well as the role of social assistance, is minimized. The financial basis in this case is private insurance and savings.
Corporate model. The main idea is that the organization where the citizen works is responsible for the fate of its personnel. The corporation encourages employees to make a labor contribution to the activities of the enterprise and offers various insurance guarantees in the form of partial payment for medical, recreational services and pensions.
Social model. This model of social policy is redistributive, in which the rich pay for the poor, the healthy for the sick, and the young for the old. The main institution that implements this distribution is the state.
Paternalistic model. The financial basis of this model is state budget funds; it implements the principles of equality and accessibility in the consumption of social and material goods, thereby ensuring a high level of social equalization.

Social policy, depending on the degree of participation, can be divided into the following models:

charitable model – funds for charitable assistance are generated from donations to charitable and government foundations;
administrative model - state intervention in the market and redistribution of income are carried out, which are under state control;
stimulating model - the state takes indirect participation in solving social problems (this model can be implemented in situations with a high level of economic development, as well as a developed market economy and civil society infrastructure).

test

2.1 Liberal model

Examples of countries with a liberal model are Australia, Canada, and the USA.

It developed in Great Britain and was widespread in the countries that were part of the British Empire. Great Britain consists of administrative-territorial units in which elected bodies of local government are formed - Councils...

Foreign models of local government

local self-government Anglo-Saxon imperious Formed in France, called continental as opposed to the “island” British model. France is characterized by a high degree of centralization of local government...

Foreign models of local government

In Germany, the basic unit of local government is the community. Communities can comprise a city, a rural settlement, several settlements...

The Anglo-Saxon model is common in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and other countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal system, where local representative bodies formally act autonomously within the limits of their powers...

Foreign experience in organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation

Distributed in continental Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium) and in most countries of Latin America, the Middle East, and French-speaking Africa. Is a hierarchical structure...

International legal order and international legality

Of particular interest are the widespread views in American literature on the legal order of liberal-minded developers of utopian projects for a supranational world order of the future...

A social state of a liberal type is a state that guarantees the preservation of minimum incomes and a sufficiently high quality of pension and medical services, education, housing and communal services for the population...

Models of the welfare state

Taxes and taxation

One of the representatives of this model is Great Britain. Its tax system developed in the last century; significant changes were made to it during the reform process of 1973. In particular...

Taxes and taxation

A prominent representative of this model is France. The French tax system can be divided into three large blocks: - indirect taxes included in the price of goods...

Taxes and taxation

Let us consider the features of this model using the example of Bolivia. In the period from 1985 to 2003. The Bolivian tax system has undergone quite a lot of changes and, in the end, as of the beginning of 2005, it developed as follows...

Taxes and taxation

The representative of this model is Russia. The modern Russian tax system took shape at the turn of 1991-1992, during a period of political confrontation, radical economic transformations and the transition to market relations...

“The basis of this concept is the assertion that universal prosperity has already been achieved in the industrialized countries of the West...

Basic models of the welfare state

A corporate-type welfare state is a state that takes responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, but at the same time delegates most of its social responsibilities to the private sector...

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. Liberal model of a welfare state

2. Liberal model of the welfare state: advantages and disadvantages

2.1 Advantages and disadvantages

2.2 The position of modern liberals

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance. The economic crisis has brought back to life concepts that seemed a thing of the past just a couple of years ago. Marx and Keynes were again elevated to the rank of oracles. No, no one took them out of the pantheon of classics. However, Keynesian economic policy, and the Marxist image of a just society, have long ceased to be mainstream. Liberal principles dominated the minds of politicians and government economists. This does not mean that Western societies have begun to live according to the canons of classical liberalism. Nevertheless, it was liberalism that became the dominant way of thinking of the political elite.

The current crisis has been blamed on the unregulated free market. Radical intellectuals who rejected capitalism began to find interest and understanding among politicians. The global economy was given a disappointing diagnosis: the cause of the crisis was that states, due to globalization, lost control over ongoing economic processes. They traded global chaos for order at home. And therefore, the state needs to be strengthened by restoring “correct” regulation, and then the economic machine will work like clockwork again. The main thing is not to let capitalism get out of control again. This point of view is now shared by both the “man on the street” and highbrow specialists.

1. Liberalwelfare state model

The liberal model of a welfare state is based on the individual principle, which presupposes the personal responsibility of each member of society for his own fate and the fate of his family. In this case, the role of government agencies in the direct implementation of social policy is minimized. Its main subjects are the individual and various non-governmental organizations - social insurance funds and associations. The financial basis of social programs is primarily private savings and private insurance. Therefore, the principle of equivalence, retribution, and not solidarity operates here. Under a liberal model of social policy, the state assumes responsibility for maintaining only the minimum income of citizens and for the well-being of the least disadvantaged segments of the population. But on the other hand, it maximally stimulates the creation and development in society of various forms of non-state social insurance and social support, as well as various means and ways for citizens to receive and increase their income.

A liberal model based on social support for vulnerable sections of society, which is implemented through the institution of social assistance; government measures are limited to establishing low uniform tariff rates in the field of pension insurance; the distribution of material goods is close to what the market provides. This kind of model of state social policy is typical for the UK, USA, Canada and Australia;

The liberal model also views the market as the most important sphere for organizing human interaction, but differs from the conservative one in at least two respects. In the liberal one, firstly, social security of a residual type is provided, that is, people, as a rule, should be able to exist in a society without social security. Secondly, the government now has a limited, yet universal, responsibility for the social welfare of all citizens. Accordingly, social security is associated with deep stigma, thus leading to low returns. Due to the residual nature of funding, implementation of the model depends on the availability of a large amount of voluntary informal assistance.

The strength of the above lies in the macroeconomic and political ways of assessing the nature of social policy; weak - in the certain conventionality of the assessment methods used. It seems that a certain abstractness of them could be offset by the use of indicators of the distribution of the produced national product and the institutional approach.

The liberal (American-British) model also views the market as the most important area for organizing human interaction. At the same time, it has a number of features. Firstly, it provides social security of a residual type, i.e. citizens must be able to exist in society without social security. Secondly, the state bears limited, but nevertheless universal, responsibility for the social security of all citizens. Due to the residual nature of funding, implementation of the model depends on the availability of large amounts of voluntary and informal assistance. A similar model of the welfare state is typical for the USA, Great Britain, England and Ireland.

2. Liberal model of the welfare state: advantages and disadvantages

2.1 Advantages and disadvantages

There are several models of the welfare state. One of them is the liberal model, which is based on the individual principle, which provides for the personal responsibility of each member of society for his own fate and the fate of his family. The role of the state in this model is insignificant. Funding for social programs comes primarily from private savings and private insurance. At the same time, the state’s task is to stimulate the growth of citizens’ personal incomes. This model is used in the USA, England and other countries.

The formation of the liberal model, inherent in countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, occurred under the dominance of private property, the predominance of market relations and under the influence of a liberal work ethic. The main conditions for the functioning of this model are the minimal involvement of the state in market relations and the limited use of government regulation measures, which do not go beyond the development of macroeconomic policy; In the gross domestic product (GDP), the public sector of the economy accounts for only a small share. Social support for citizens is provided through developed insurance systems and with minimal intervention from the state, which is the regulator of certain guarantees. The amounts of insurance payments are usually small. Transfer payments are also insignificant, i.e., financial resources received from taxes transferred from state budget accounts directly to various groups of the population in the form of benefits and subsidies. Financial assistance is targeted and is provided only on the basis of a means test.

In the sphere of industrial relations, maximum conditions have been created for the development of entrepreneurial activity. Enterprise owners are not limited in any way in making independent decisions regarding the development and restructuring of production, including the dismissal of workers who turned out to be unnecessary. In its most stringent form, this situation is typical for the United States, where since 1948 the Labor Agreements Law, or “Wagner Law,” has been in force, according to which the administration of an enterprise, in the event of a reduction or modernization of production, has the right to make layoffs without warning or with notice two to three days in advance, without taking into account the length of service and qualifications of employees. The lot of trade unions is to defend the interests of workers with the greatest experience in the event of the threat of mass layoffs, which, however, they do not always succeed. This model fully satisfies its main purpose in conditions of economic stability or growth, but during a recession and a forced reduction in production, accompanied by the inevitable cuts in social programs, many social groups, especially women, youth, and the elderly, find themselves in a vulnerable position.

The above three models are not found anywhere in the world in their pure form, representing “ideal types” of a social state, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. In practice, one can usually observe a combination of elements of the liberal, corporate and social democratic models, with a clear predominance of the features of one of them. In Canada, for example, along with the insurance pension, there is a so-called “national” pension. A similar pension has been introduced in Australia. In the United States, there are many benefits paid in addition to Social Security. There are at least 100 financial assistance programs (many of them short-term; after the expiration of the term, they are replaced by others), varying in scale, selection criteria, funding sources and goals. Most of them are carried out under the auspices of five federal departments (Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Interior), as well as the Committee on Economic Opportunity, the Veterans Administration, the Railroad Retirement Board and the Civil Service Commission. services. Moreover, numerous programs operate in isolation, without forming a balanced and organized system, as a result of which they do not cover quite large groups of people in need of financial assistance, including the unemployed who want to work, for whom a very modest amount of benefits and compensation is established. At the same time, such programs to some extent encourage social dependency among people from the Afro-Asian and Latin American populations: entire groups have formed that have hardly worked a day for society for two or three generations. Another significant flaw of these programs is the negative impact on family relationships: they often provoke divorces and separation of parents, since receipt of financial assistance depends on marital status.

One of them is the liberal model, which is based on the individual principle, which provides for the personal responsibility of each member of society for his own fate and the fate of his family. The role of the state in this model is insignificant. Funding for social programs comes primarily from private savings and private insurance. At the same time, the state’s task is to stimulate the growth of citizens’ personal incomes. This model is used in the USA, England and other countries.

The liberal model is based on the dominance of market mechanisms. Social assistance is provided within the framework of certain minimum social needs on a residual basis to the poor and low-income segments of the population who are not able to independently obtain their means of subsistence. Thus, the state bears, although limited, but nevertheless universal responsibility for the social security of all citizens who are incapable of effective independent economic existence. The classic countries of the liberal model are the UK and the USA. In relation to people with disabilities, anti-discrimination measures are mainly being developed here, aimed at creating equal conditions and rights for disabled people with other citizens. Employers (except for government agencies acting as a “model” employer, obligated to employ primarily people with disabilities, as well as companies receiving funds from the state budget) have no obligation to employ people with disabilities. But there is a ban on discriminating against people with disabilities when applying for jobs.

work and further labor relations. These laws prohibit employers from refusing to hire people based on their biases and characteristics of applicants, such as gender, national origin, color, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. This means certain procedural restrictions for the employer, for example, during an interview, specific questions regarding the applicant’s health cannot be asked if similar questions will not be asked of other applicants. It is also prohibited to create additional job requirements that deliberately disadvantage people with disabilities compared to other citizens, unless this is a necessary component of job duties (for example, having a driver’s license or the ability to move quickly around the city 14

on public transport). And, of course, during the interview, equal opportunities should be provided for access to all materials and elements of communication with the employer (invitation of a sign language interpreter, translation of materials into Braille, etc.). In general, measures such as anti-discrimination legislation for persons with disabilities have proven to be effective. But it is necessary to take into account that these measures can only operate in conditions of a developed legal and judicial system, when the relevant state, public structures and citizens have the opportunity to monitor the implementation of laws. In case of violation of laws, it should be possible to appeal the existing controversial situations in administrative (in specially created commissions) and judicial proceedings. At the same time, people with disabilities can claim not only a solution to the problem that has arisen, but also significant financial payments for moral damage and lost economic profits.

According to Esping-Anderson, a liberal welfare state provides equal social chances to citizens (corresponding to a “positive welfare state”) and proceeds from the residual principle of financing the poor, stimulating their active search for work.

The liberal model is characterized by the provision of a minimum set of social benefits through the provision of public services or insurance schemes and is mainly aimed at low-income segments of the population. Within this approach, the state uses market mechanisms and involves market entities in the provision of services, thus effectively providing a choice - to receive a minimum set of services, often of low quality, or to receive similar services of higher quality, but on market conditions. In states with a liberal model, the implementation of social reforms was strongly influenced by the ideas of liberalism and Protestant traditions, and led to the adoption of the postulate that everyone has the right to at least minimally decent living conditions. In other words, in this type of state everything is subordinated to the market, and social functions are a forced concession dictated by the need to stimulate labor motivation and ensure the reproduction of the labor force.

This model is most pronounced in the USA and, to a lesser extent, other Anglo-Saxon countries (in the UK it is customary to talk about the liberal Beveridge model, within which citizens are provided with more guarantees and benefits (for example, free access to the healthcare system for all). Partly this is explained by cultural traditions and the role of market relations in the life of society. Indicative are the answers of Europeans and Americans to the question of whether poor people are lazy? 60% of Americans and 26% of Europeans answer this question in the affirmative. The distribution of answers speaks about the values that lie at the heart of the social protection system in European countries and America.

The liberal model has a number of negative features. First, it contributes to the division of society into poor and rich: those who are forced to be content with the minimum level of government social services and those who can afford to purchase high-quality services on the market. Secondly, such a model excludes a large part of the population from the system of providing state social services, which makes it unpopular and unstable in the long term (low-quality services are provided to the poor and politically marginalized groups of the population). The strengths of this model include the policy of differentiation of services depending on income, less sensitivity to demographic changes, and the ability to maintain a fairly low level of taxation.

When talking about comparing social protection models in different countries, it is necessary to take into account that researchers consider not only social and moral comparison criteria, but also the economic indicators of countries. In particular, economic indicators are compared in the United States - a liberal model - and European countries - a conservative model. GDP per capita in the USA in 2005 was $39,700, in France - $32,900, and in Austria - about $35,800, with annual working hours in the USA - 1822 hours, in France - 1431 hours and in Austria - 1551 hours. It should also be noted that in the United States there is the greatest difference between the richest and poorest segments of the population. The proportion of the poor population in the United States is three times higher than, for example, in Austria and is about 12% (Rifkin, 2004). At the same time, over recent years there has been an obvious trend towards “cutting” the volume of social benefits provided by the state to the population. And this policy finds significant support from the population. It can be concluded that the liberal model of social protection is strengthening its foundations and becoming even more liberal. Some researchers draw attention to the fact that policies within the liberal model aimed at actual exclusion from society and reduction of resources for the livelihood of the poor have a negative expression in the increase in the number of crimes committed by citizens from poor segments of the population in the United States. This caused the US prison population to increase from 380,000 in 1975 to 1,600,000 in 1995 and resulted in a significant increase in prison costs (308,486). This assumption - about the relationship between the existing social protection model in the country - and the crime rate can be tested on the basis of data from the European Crime and Security Study.

In the wake of the economic downturn and an increase in the number of unemployed, the governments of many countries inevitably faced the question of reducing the size of relevant benefits and the volume of services provided in the field of employment. In some countries, especially with a liberal model of social protection, it is the reduction of unemployment benefits that is the least painful and “acceptable” from the point of view of politicians and society as a whole.

As world experience shows, two main models of the state with their various modifications are now possible. The first is the so-called liberal (monetarist) model. It is based on the denial of state property and, accordingly, the absolutization of private property, which implies a sharp reduction in the social function of the state. The liberal model is built on the principle of self-survival, the formation of a personality - independent, relying only on oneself, with a certain system of moral concepts (“if you live poorly, then it’s your own fault”).

The second model is socially oriented. It rests on the free coexistence of various forms of property and the strong social function of the state. A socially oriented state takes on a number of national functions, for example, in the field of education, healthcare, and pensions. It protects people to a greater extent.

The state in the USA is closest to the first model. In Russia, this model has been persistently implemented over the past 10 years.

The second model is typical mainly for European and especially Scandinavian countries, as well as Israel and Canada. The same development paradigm was chosen by China, South Korea, and the rapidly developing countries of Latin America and the Arab East. Although, strictly speaking, none of these models exists anywhere in their pure form.

liberal social vulnerable society

2.2 The position of modern liberals

The position of modern liberals regarding the future of the welfare state is determined by the following points.

Firstly, there can be no talk of dismantling the welfare state. Neither the very idea of a traditional welfare state (real civil rights for all) nor the main method of its implementation (income redistribution) are by any means wrong. However, in the future it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the government must help those for whom, without such help, civil rights would be empty promises.

Secondly, there is an urgent need to simplify the functions of the welfare state. As is known, the main goal of such a state is to guarantee to all citizens a minimum level of civilized existence. However, one should not try to show special and always insufficient care in each individual case. To achieve the main goals, from the point of view of liberals, semi-automatic mechanisms and methods of financing, such as paying tax compensation and maintaining a minimum guaranteed level of income, are certainly preferable.

Thirdly, the relationship between the volume of government obligations and the size of individual tax payments should be clearly defined, which is necessary to solve the problem of financing social programs adopted by the state. The fact is that social payments increased significantly just at the time when there was a sharp increase in real incomes, and these payments began to be compensatory in nature. Many receive from the state the same amount as they themselves pay it, naturally, minus payment for the activities of the bureaucratic apparatus that carries out this operation. Hence the need for a deep understanding that people themselves are capable of satisfying their needs. A natural question arises: where are the limits of application of this principle? The liberals' answer: we need to help those most in need and those who cannot get out of poverty without outside help. This means a simultaneous expansion of private services.

Fourthly, one of the least protected groups of the population in the new social situation is young people, since vocational training, retraining, and equalization of starting opportunities require significant funds. One option for financing longer education may be a repayable loan. However, in general, direct redistribution methods remain dominant to meet the needs of the lower strata of the population.

Fifth, it is necessary to establish new relationships between public and private, as well as between central and regional (local) social service agencies. There is a tendency to replace state social institutions with municipal public and private structures as the most optimal for providing truly targeted assistance.

Sixth, the development of a network of non-state social assistance structures depends not only on certain monetary support, but also on political choice. However, it should not be expected that the provision of public services will easily fill the space left by the state. The obstacle to this is not only the scale of the needs, but also the fact that people are not easily captivated by the idea of creating charitable institutions and charity funds for the purpose of simply replacing state institutions. However, the sphere of voluntary services can bring significant benefits if their provision occurs against the backdrop of a transition from state to decentralized management.

Conclusion

Which of the two models is better? It is impossible to answer unequivocally. The liberal model has its merits. On the one hand, it forms a strong personality capable of withstanding life’s difficulties. On the other hand, this model is ruthless: a beggar, for example, is declared a victim of his own laziness and immorality. Any model is no better or worse than another. They're just different. The question is how adequate this or that version of the model is to a particular society, its history, traditions, and mentality.

Of the two models - liberal and socially oriented - for Russia, in our opinion, the second is more suitable. This development model is supported by the main political movements, business circles, and the majority of the country's population.

However, the second model should also be quite flexible, taking into account the uniqueness of various regions and national autonomous entities of Russia. It is unacceptable for Moscow to dictate seemingly progressive reforms for each region without taking into account national characteristics and types of culture.

Three groups of social states can be distinguished.

The first includes the so-called liberal social states, where the implementation of social reforms was strongly influenced by the ideas of liberalism.

Considering it fundamentally impossible to achieve social justice in modern society, liberals recognize the need for some concern for the least affluent segments of the population.

In accordance with the liberal doctrine, the social security system, which somewhat smoothes out social inequality, should not undermine the work motivation of citizens and create conditions for entrepreneurs to run their businesses profitably. In other words, the amount of benefits and benefits for the poor should encourage them to work to improve their well-being.

In liberal welfare states, redistribution is based on two interrelated principles. Firstly, it is impossible to concentrate in one hand such instruments of power (economic or political) that would infringe on human civil rights. Secondly, everyone has the right to at least minimally decent living conditions. In other words, there are upper and lower limits to civilized existence. These boundaries outline the space of guaranteed rights for everyone. And although, at first glance, this postulate is of a theoretical nature, purely practical conclusions flow from it (for the tax system, social security, healthcare, education, assistance to the unemployed, etc.), which actually determines the essence of the welfare state.

Characteristic features of the liberal model: means testing, limited universal transfers, social insurance programs. Benefits are paid only to people with low incomes. Eligibility for social security is limited by strict rules, and the benefits themselves are usually quite modest. This model is being implemented, in particular, in the USA, Canada and Australia.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

3.1 Liberal model

The state assumes the responsibility only to compensate the citizen for the lack of social benefits if market structures, public associations and the family cannot do this. Thus, the regulatory role of the state is reduced to a minimum. Its activity in matters of social policy consists of establishing the amount and payment of benefits. In such countries there are many charitable organizations, private and religious foundations to help those in need, and church communities. There are various federal programs to help former prisoners, national minorities, etc. There is a developed social insurance system, including health insurance by private firms and the state, pension insurance, employee accident insurance, etc., which removes a significant cost burden from the state budget. But this type of service is not available to all citizens due to its high cost.

Examples of countries with a liberal model are Australia, Canada, and the USA.

Foreign models of local government

In Germany, the basic unit of local government is the community. Communities can comprise a city, a rural settlement, several settlements...

Foreign experience in organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation

Distributed in continental Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium) and in most countries of Latin America, the Middle East, and French-speaking Africa. Is a hierarchical structure...

International legal order and international legality

Of particular interest are the widespread views in American literature on the legal order of liberal-minded developers of utopian projects for a supranational world order of the future...

Models of the welfare state

Taxes and taxation

One of the representatives of this model is Great Britain. Its tax system developed in the last century; significant changes were made to it during the reform process of 1973. In particular...

Taxes and taxation

A prominent representative of this model is France. The French tax system can be divided into three large blocks: - indirect taxes included in the price of goods...

Taxes and taxation

“The basis of this concept is the assertion that universal prosperity has already been achieved in the industrialized countries of the West...

Basic models of the welfare state

A corporate-type welfare state is a state that takes responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, but at the same time delegates most of its social responsibilities to the private sector...

Views