, ,

.
.
. - , ,
, ,
.

,
,

, , ,
.

(CEVIPOF)


.
.
.
- .
.

12

1.
2.

^
16

3.
4.

I
24

II

34
38

1.

JO

1.1.
1.2.
1.2.1.
1.2.2.
1.3.

48
49

62
70

2.
2.1.
2.2.

74
77
8
6

2.3.
3.

90
92

3.1.
4.

92
99

5.
6.
7. -

ilJ

119

8.
198

-
, 1998

.rt-J3"

ISBN 957-324-948-12

LTD.

8.1." 129
8.2.
132
iJ

The Modern Social States, Conclusion

( )
142

10
148
I C Q

JO


The Modern Social States

,
,

,
, .
,
, ,
. -
, .

The Policies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden
Contents
Preface
Parti
Welfare capitalism models

12

1. The modern society

13

2. Social policy and welfare state

16

3. Welfare state and the free market

19

4. Typology of welfare capitalism models

24

Part II
Social policy's practices and social institutions

34

1. Income maintenance systems

38

1.1. Social assistance

38

1.2. Social security

48

1.2.1. Access regulation

49

1.2.2. Replacement income

62

1.3. Universal social programs

70

2. Social services

74

2.1. Health policy

77

2.2. Education policy

86

2.3. Housing policy

90

3. Regulation and support of individual market position

3.1. Employment policy

92
92

4. Social programs financing

99

5. Public and social finances

103

6. Social programs' clienteles

115

7. Social effects of tax-benefits systems

119

8. Social objectives in public policy profile

8.1. Economic efficiency v/s social equality
8.2. Inflation v/s full employment
Conclusion

128
-

129
132
I35

Conclusion in English

142

Tables

148

Bibliography

158

,
1
90-


. ,
, ,
2
3,5 ,

.

,
.

, : 1.
; 2. ; 3.
; 4.

; 5. ; 6.
3 .
, ,

. ,
.
,
.
,
,
,
' , "" ,
"",
.
2
Sachs J., Consolidating Capitalism, in Foreign Policy, spring 1995, p-p 50-64.
3
Ibid., p. 51.

 .
,
,
.
,
.
, ,
, ,

.
,

,
.
,
,
90- .
: ""
, ,
4
, .
. , .
"-" .
" - -".

.
,
, ,
,
, . ,
, " laissez-faire " .
,

.
,
,
, ,
.
.

4

Ibid., p. 52.

. ,
,
,
,

-
5
.
(
)

, - ,
.
, .


.
,
,
.
- , - .

, -
, .
80-
( 1987 .),
90-,
, .

-
,

- , .
""
(-
) , ( ) .
, , -,

.
.

,
,
, ,
, ,

(
)

( ) .
5

Hart J., Rival Capitalists, International Competitiveness in the United States, Japan, and Western
Europe, Cornell University Press, 1992.

 , ,

, ,
.
, ,
-
.
, ( )
.
6

" "
""
( ) ,
.
.
"
"
,
. ,
,
,
, .

- . ,
80- "-"
.

,
.


.

,

.

, ,
. (80-

. -
,
. Esping-Andersen
G., The three worlds of welfare capitalisme, SAGE Publication, 1990.

) (90- )
- ,

.
-
, .
, .
,
-
.
, , ,
.
,
. -,
.

.
,
. ,
,

.
. -
, ,
- .
, ,
, .
, .
, ,

,
.
, ,
.
, -
. ,
.
,
.


, , .
-
,
.
.
.
,
.

.
50- 80 . , ,
. ""
. 80-
, ,

. ""
,
.

.
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
.

Rhodes R. A. W., M a r c h D., "Policy Networks in British Politics", Clarendol Press,

O x f o r d , 1992; Ginsburg N., Britain: the Liberal Collectivist Welfare State, in
Ginsburg N., . .; Perry R., United Kindgom, in Flora P., (ed.), "Growth
to Limits, European University Institut", t. 1 and 2, 1986.; Robinson R. and Judge
K., Public expenditure, privatization, and the welfare state in Britain, in M o r r i s R.
(ed.), . .; Dunleavy P., The United Kingdom: Paradoxes of an
Ungrounded Statisme, in Castles F.G. (ed.) . .
: Ginsburg N., The Federal Republic of Germany: the Welfare
State in the Social Market Economy, in Ginsburg N., . .; A l b e r J.,
Germany, in Flora P., (ed.), . .; A l b e r J., The West Germany welfare
state in transition, in M o r r i s R. (ed.), . .; Esping-Anderson G., Welfare
state without work: the impasse of labor shedding and familialisme in continental
european social policy, in Esping-Andersen G. (ed.), . .; Schmidt M.G.,
Learning from Catastrophes: West Germany's Public Policy, in Castles F.G. (ed.)
. .
: Rothstein B o , Marxism and Institutional Analysis: WorkingClass Strength and Welfare State Development in Sweden, in A s h f o r d D.(ed.), .
.; Ginsburg N., Sweden: the Social Democratic Welfare State, in Ginsburg
N., . .; Olsson S., Sweden, in Flora P.(ed.), . .; Olsson S. E.,
Decentralization and privatization: strategies against a welfare backlash in Sweden,
in Morris R. (ed.), . .; Stephens J. D., The Scandinavian Welfare States:
Achivements, Crisis and Prospects, in Esping-Andersen G. (ed.), . ;
T h e l b o r n G., "Pillarazation" and "Popular Movement". Two Variants of Welfare
State Capitalism: the Netherlands and the Sweden, in Castles F.G. (ed.) .
.

: Ginsburg N., The United States: The Welfare State in the

Corporate Market Economy, in Ginsburg N., "Division of welfare: A Critical
Introduction to Comparative social policy", S A G E Publications, 1992.; Gilbert N.,
Changing structure for the delivery of social benefits in the United States, in M o r r i s
R. (ed.) "Testing the limits of Social Welfare", Univ. Press of New England, 1988.;
Myles J., When Markells Fail: Social Welfare in Canada and the United States, in
Esping-Andersen G. (ed.), "Welfare States in Transition. National Adaptation in
Global Economy", S A G E Publication, 1996; A m e n t a E., Skocpol T., Taking
Exception. Explaining the Distinctiveness of American Public Policies in the Last
Century, in Castles F.G. (ed.), "The Comparative History of Public Policy", Polity
Press, Cambridge, 1989.
: Skillen A., Welfare Ideologies and State Policies:
British Oppositions, in Ashford D.(ed.), "History and context in comparative
public policy", U n i v of Pitsburg Press, 1992; Johnson N., "Reconstructing the
Welfare State: a Decade of Change: 1980-1990", Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990;

10

11

,

,
.

,

.


.
" "
.
.
, ,
.
" ".


. ,

- .
,

.

.
,
,
,

. .
.


, -, - ,
.. -

12

7
, , .

. ,
, () .

- . ,
,
-
, ,
- . ,
, - ,

.
"

,
" 8 .
,
,

(,
,
)

. 9 -,
,
. ,
,

()
,

,
.
,
, .
, ,
.
, , .
,
, . X I X ,
7

Hayek F. A., La presomption fatale: les erreurs,trad. de l'allemand, Payot, 1985.

"Polanyi K., Dahomey and the slave trade. An analysis bf an archaic economy, . no Colas D.,
Sociologie politique, PUF, 1994, p. 295.
"Ibid., p. 321.

13

"" .

. ,
.

.

, ,
.

'
.
.
.

.
, ,
. , ,
.

, ,
, :

X I X . -
, "
,

10
" , ,

,
.
. ,
,
. X I X ( 1840
. )
.

, . 1990 .,

. ,
1990 1 1 . ,
, ,
.
""
. ( )
,
.
,
,
10

Sachs J., op. cit., p. 54.

"Ibid., p. 57.

12

1. - ,

, ;
2. -

, ,
,
;
3.
;

4. -
,
, .
( ""

(
""
)
.
.
(
) - (
).


, .
?
,
. . -
, .

.

. ,
12

14

. Flora P., (ed.), Growth to Limits, Walter de Gruyter - Berlin - New York, 1986, p. XIV.

15

, ,
.

,
.
,
,
- ,
.

,
"
/
13
" . ,
.
, .
,
,
, / ,

.


. ,
.
, ,
, ,
,
.
- ,

,
. ,

, .

.

13

, Bramley G., Analysing Social Policy, Billing and Sons LTD, Worcester, 1986.

16

,
.
. , -
,

.
,
,
.
,
(
- , . ) ,
.
,

.
,
, ,
.
,

.
,
.
- , ,
, ,
.

. ,
, .

,
, .

.

, .
,
. ,
,
, ,
.

17

 ,
,
,
.
- "


14
" .
, ,
.

, .
,
,
.
,
, - .
,

,
.
,

, ,

.
,
,
,
.
, , ,

,

.

. ,

.
,
, .
,
,

^International Encyclopedia of the Social Science, 1968, vol. 16, p. 512.

18

.
, ,
.
,
.
"" , ,

, ,
15
.


. . X V I I I
.
" ",
. X I X
-. XX
, . ,
- .

,
-
.
, , ,
, .

.

.
,
,

, - - .
, ,
.

,
.
15

Habermas J., L'espace publique, trad, de I'allemand, Payot, 1993, pp. 233 et suiv.

19


, .
, ,

.
,
.

, - .
16
.
" "
, ,
, . ,
- -,
.
, , ,
, -,
. - " - ",

, .
,

.
-
- , ,

.
1 7 .

,
- .

- .

, , ,
.
. ,
. ,
- ,
, .

,
.
. -
.
,
.
. .

, ( )
.

, .

,
, ,
. ,

, , .
, ,
,
.
,

.

1 8 , 1940 .
,
,
.

. ,
, ,
,
.
laissez-faire , ,

16

Weale A., Political Theory and Social Policy, St. Martin's Press, 1983.
Rawls J., The Theory of Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1972, p. 62

17

20

18

Polanyi ., The Great Transformation, BostoniBeacon Press,1957.

21

 ,
.

, . ,

. ,
.

.
,
.
.
, ,
-.
,
.

.
,
. ,
. ,
, .
,
, .
- j- ,
.
.
,
.
,
.
- ,
, .
,
, , ,
.
.

.
.

22

.
,

. , ,

19
.

, , ,
, ,

.
-

,
. ,
,
.

" "
,
.
,
.
,
2 0 .
,

.
.

. ( X I X
XX .) ,

.

, . XX .
- (. N 18
). ""
,

19

. Block F., Social Policy and Accumulation: A Critic of the New Consensus, in Rein M.
Esping-Andersen C, Rainwater L., (eds.), Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy, M. E. Sharpe,
Inc., 1987, p. 21.
20
Theret Bruno, Regimes economiques de l'ordre politique, PUFrance, 1992, p. 15-16

23

.
, -
.
,
.
.

. (
) ,

,
.
-
,
. ,

. ,
,
. ,
,
.

, ,
, .

.

,
,
.

,
, .
,
.
,
.

24

"
".

, , .
,
21
- , - - .
, ? ,
, 90- , -,
- -,
22
- - . ,

23
. -
. ,

,
.

.
-
2 4 .
:
1. ,
,
- , ;
2. ,
,
, ;
3.

, ,
.
-
, - ,
- .
2l

Castel F. G. (ed.), The Comparative History of public Policy, Polity Press, 1989.
Pempel T.J., Japan's Creative Conservatisme, in Castel F.G. (ed). op. cit.
Titmuss R. M., Commitment to Welfare, London: Allen and Unwin, 1968, . no Castel F.G.
(ed),. op. cit.
24
Tittmuss R. M., Social Policy, Allen and Unwin, 1974., . no Flora P., (ed.), p. XXI.
22
23

25

,
k . 80-

25
- .
,
, ,
. ,

,
,
.
- " "
( ), "
- . - '
". , ,
- ,
.
.
.

. ,

.
.

.

.
, ,
P.
-.
,

- , -
. , , ,
, ,

,
(. N1).
25

, ,
.
,
,
. 11 ,
( ) ,
-

26
,
.
, -,
, -
"
",

.
- , .
.
( , , )
,
,
, ,
.
.
- , ,
, , , ,

,
, - ,
. -
- .
- , ,
,
,
,

, .

,
,
.

Esping-Andersen, op. cit..

26

Ibid., p. 52 - 54.

26
27

 -

-

.
.
27
.
.

28
, - .
, ,
, .

. N1. -

- , ,
.

, - .
- ,
.
.
- .


.

.

;

;

;
;

29

- :
1. ,
.

.
2. ,
.

3. ,

.
4. ,
.
.

* -

.
1980 . 1930 1950
. , ,
.

2. ,
, ,
. -
,
.

28

28

1.
-
;

27

Offe , Advanced capiltalisme and #ie welfare state, in Politics and Society, 1972, N 4.
Parkin F. Marxisme and the Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, London: Croom Helm, 1979.
Lipset S. M. Political Man, New York: Doubleday, Anchor, 1960.

29

Esping-Andersen G., op. cit., p. 52.

29

3.
.


.
.
.
70- 80-
.
, .

, -
.
,

.
,
,

.
, ,

80-
,

3 0 . 80 , , -, ,

.
,
, 3 1 .

.
.
.
.

.

.
,
, ,

.
,
32
, ,
80- ,
. (
- ),
, .
,
, ,

.
. ,
,
, (.
N2). , ,
( ) ,

. .
,
,
.
.
30

Esping-Andersen G. (ed.) Welfare State in Transition. National Adaptation in Global

Economies, SAGE Publication, 1996.
31
Ibid., p. 9.

32

., Social Policy: A comparative Analysis, Prentice Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1996.

31
30

 ,
.

N2. /

( )

, .
- ,
.
,
"". -
,
""
.
*

, , .
-
.

,
,
, .
34
, ( )
.
- ,
,
.
,

,
,
,

. ,
- -,
. ,
, ,
,
, .
,
,

. - ,
- (
)
, "" .

,
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
,
,

34

"Ibid., p. 4.

32

Esping-Andersen G., op. cit., p. 52.

33

 I I

,
,
.

,
. ,
,
,
. ,
,
.

: 1.
; 2.

.

.

. -
,

3 5 ,
3 6 ,
.
- -

,
.
: 1. ,

3 7 ; 2.
35

Mishra R, Society and Social Policy, London: Macmillan, 1977

Buchanan and Tullock, 1962, The Calcul of Consent, A n n Arbor, Ml:
University of Michigan Press.
37
,
.
36

34

, ; 3.
,
; 4. ,
- ,
, , .


,
. ,
,
.
, ,

.
,
( 60- XX .)
,
,

.
3 8 .

"
"
(

) ,
,
,
.
- . ,
. -

. ,
.

: 1. ,

(, /, ),
( , ,
), 2. (
38

Esping-Andersen G., op. cit.

35

/ - , ,
, ; 3.
- ,
, .


. ,
.
,

. -,
. ,
,
,
.

, . .

.

, (
- ) ,

.

,
. -
. .
, ,
( ),
,
.
,
. ,
. ,
.
,

-
,

,
. ,
.

36

.

.
. ,
. ,
, , , .
, ,
.
-,
- .

,
.


,
-
, ..

- '
.
, .

,
.

.

. ,
,
,
,
. ,
, .
, . ,
,
, .

, .

37

, , ,

. ,
,

.

: 1.
,
; 2.
,
; 3. ,
39
.
,
(
)
.

.
,
, .

.
, ,
.

.

.
,
. ,
,
.

39

Myles J., When Marketts Fail: Social Welfare in Canada and the United Stattes, in EspingAndersen G. (ed.), op. cit., p. 118.

38

,
, .
,
.

,

,
. ,
.
,

,

, .
,

.
.
. ,
.
,
, ,
.
.
, ,
, ,
.


.
-
.
, , ,

.

,
.
, -

40

. N3. .

- .


.
*

,
.
, A F D C
. (
30- -
) A F D C
, 1960 .
, , 1990 .
,
, .
,
, 70- ,
80- 10% , .
,

, .
A F D C
, .
(1935 .)
, .
60- .
60- ,
, 4 . 80-
11 , 5% .
,
- (. N3).
, ,
- .

40

1.

. %
18%,
6% (. N11 ).
:
A F D C ( ), food stamps (
) , Medicaid ( ).

1960

18,5

15,2

48,1

..

..

1970

9,7

7,7

22,9

..

32,7

1980

9,2

6,9

27,8

20,3

30,4

1986

11,4

9,1

28,7

25,5

34,0

..

40,8

2. 125%
1986

15,3

12,7

. , .
,
.
. 1984 . $ 9 1 ,
$ 489.
$ 325. 4 1
20,2%,
40,0 10,9.

.
. .
80- - ( 5 , 6 % )
- (22,6% ).
.

,
, ,
. , - ,
, , ,
.
,

40

Ginsburg N., Division of welfare: A critical introduction to comparative social policy, SAGE
Publication, 1992, p. 104. US Bureau of Census, 1987: tabl. 746, 749.
""Plotnick R., How much poverty is reduced by state income transfers?, in Monthly Labor Review,
July, 1989, . no Ginsburg N., op. cit, p. 108.

41

 .
.

.
-
.
5 2 % ,
3 4 % 3 7 % .
5 0 %
22,4%,
- - 6,4 (. N12 ).

, ,
.
1980-86 .
3 6 % . 2,2%.
42
3,1 . 80-
1 1 % ,
- 1986 - 9,6%. 80-
.

, . .
. 80-
, 7 % . .
.
. ,
.
: ,
.

,
. 80-

. 90- ,
,
,
42

Sharp . , Register Ch. A., Leftwich R.*H. (eds.), Economics of Social Issues, Richard D.
Irwin Inc., 1990 (9th edition), p. 283.

42

.
43
.
44

45
.
-
.
,
. "
"

46
.
,
.



47
.
60-
.
80-

. , , ,
, .
( 9,8%
1987-88), ( 4%
15% ).
.
, -

.

43

Rank R.M., Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America, New York, Columbia
Univ. Press, 1994.
44
, , .
,
, .
45
Kaufmann Franz-Xavier, "Le developpement des Etats Providence en Europe", Revue francaise des
affaires sociales, N 3, 1990, 15-20
46

Minford P., Unemployment: Cause and Cure, Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1983.
Ginsburg N, op. cit, p. 153.

47

43

.
"".
4 0 % ,
,
. - %
5 0 %
(

')
,

6,7% 1975 . 12,0 1985.

12,8 13,9.

. 1980
. -
, - .
60-
.
2000 1968-69 ., 1979 .
" ". 1200
1985 . .
2 0 % "".
, " " ,
"
",

.
18
:
- ,
-
4 8 . ,
, . ,
(. N4).

,
.

.
, ,
,
.

48

Perry R., United Kindgom,

in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., vol. 2. p. 191.

44

. N4. c .

49

( )

1960

1 990

3,8

1972

1 780

3,4

1977

2,020

4,0

1981

2 810

5,3

1981 . : 680 000

, 1 120 000 ,
.
1966 .
. 80-
. .
- .
. .
- ,
. ,
, .
50

,

. ,
, "
" 5 1 .

(Sozialhilfe).

1957 .
- 2 0 % .
70-
.
, , .

. 1965 .
- ,
.

49

Ibid., p. 192.
'" .
, .
5l
Ginsburg N.. op. cit.. p.73.

45

 . , ^
, 1955 .,
1961 1971 .
.
1975 .,
. (% )
60- .

(. N5). 1961 .
, 1963-71 . .
70- ,
50- .
. N5.
52
.

(% )

1963
()

1969
()

1973
()

1963
(%
)

1969
(%
)

1973
(%
)

860

515

480

4,3

2,5

2,3
7,4

40%
50%

2 256

1 1668

1573

11,4

8,1

60%

4 364

3 520

2 492

22,1

17,1

16,5

40%

3 018

1582

1507

5,3

2,8

2,6

50%

8 051

5 414

5 087

14,1

9,7

8,9

11516

11 135

26,9

20,6

19,5

60%

15 331

40%-
( 4 0 % ) .
.
, -,
. 9 9 %

,
, . , .
-
.
52

, c
.
,
100 000
.

3% 2%
. ,
, .
, , ,
.
1981 .
: (27,6%
),
( 2 7 , 4 % ) , (17,0),
( 1 0 , 5 % ) , ( 2 , 7 % ) .
80- -
. 7 3 % ,
.
1979 . , .
-
. 1977-1983 .
6%.
1970 . 0,75 . ( )
. 1980 .
4 , 1987 . 2,4
. . ,
-
"" . ,

,
.

. ,
. ,

.

, ,

Alber J., Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., vol. 2, p. 54.

46

- 80-

47

53

. ,
, .
, 8 0 %
, 2 0 % - .

.
.
- -
5% .
.
16%
.
.
60- -
( 3 , 5 % ) ,
4 7 % .
- 3 4% 1/4
.
.

. ,

. , - ,

. 1982 .
,

.

. ,
,
. ,
.
.
"
". -

. ,
() ,
=
. ,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.

. ,
.


.
.

.
.
,
.

, .

.
- . . ,
,
.

.

, .
O A S D H I ( O l d
Age, Survivors, Disability and Health Insurance).
30- .

,

"Ibid, p. 55.

48

49

 , .

,

,
. ,
30-
, ,

.
,
, ,
1935 . ,
. -
, ,
.
(
).
- .
,
- , .
1988 . 15,2% .

70-
,

.
80-
,
- . :
,
,
65 .
O A S D H I .
37,3%
(, 65
.).

.
,
- 5,5% (. N6 ).
.

60,9.

( ,
) . - 1 7 , 1 %
(. N8 ).

. 1980 .
, ,
. 1985 . 1 5 %
, 2 0 %
, 9%
. -

(SSI), .
, ,

. 1985 .
$164.
( )
- .
, ,
26,8% , -
.
.

( 7 9 % ) ,
.
-
. 1 7 %
1980 . (. N8 ).
,

.
,
.
, ,
, .
70-
. 70-
.
-

50
51


.
.

. ,
,
,
.
, ,
6 5 % ( 1950 . - 5 8 % )
. ,
, .

. 2 0 %
. . .
, 1948 ., ,

1948 . ,
, .


, 5 4 :
1. -
.

,
, , ;
2. , :
- ..
,
;
- .
,
;

54

Join-Lambert .., Politiques sociales, Presse de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques
& Daloz, Paris 1994, p. 272.

52

3. -

( , )
.
,

.
,

,
,
.
, ,
,
.
-
.

,
,
.

1961 .
,
. 1978 .
,
,
.

. ,
-
. ,
- (
) ( -
, ).
,
.
I (
,
.
.

- 1948 .,
, 1961 .
1975 . .
I , , " " .
11

53

 . 1983 . 5 3 %
,
.
,

.
, 1961 .,
, ,
. , ,
.
. 1975 .
(SERPS), (
)
. , , .
,
, .
-
- ,
.
-
.
.

, - ,
. " ",
,
.

, 1985 . 6 5 %
140% ,

. 1980 . ,
-
,
, ,
- .
, - .

54

.
,
.

. - ,
, ,
55
. 10%
.

,
-
, ,
.
. 1980 . 0,1 %
.
1985 . 5 1 % ,

.

-
.
(. N6
).

-
, .
( %
) , -
-
(. N7 ).
,
.

.
, :
,
,
5 6 . , 15

Ginsburg N., op. cit, p. 144.

!fi
Alber J., op. cit, vol. 2, p. 53.

55

 . ( 1, 20 28)
.
, ,
.
,
,
( )
( ) .
, (- ) ,
.
.
.

.
.
,
(, , ),

1200

.
,

.
, ,

. 1889 .
,
.
1957 .
.

5 7 :
1. ,
;
2.
, .. , ;

57

3. ,

( ),
( );
4. .

.
.
.


.
.
,
.

:

1. ,
- , ..;
2. ;
3. ,
.
,
,
.

.

.
50-
, , .

. ,

- ,
70-
-

.
1972 .
. ,

Join-Lambert .., op. cit, p. 270.

56

57

 .
, 63 .
1.
6 0 % 60 ,
.
,
. (- ) ,
,
.
.
40 . ,
.
.

1 1 % .
-
. ,
, , . (. N6
).

,
,
.
,
.
,
, .

.
, .
-
, .

. 1913 .
,
.
30- .
"
",
,
.

58

,
.
-
1936 .
. "
" ,
. .
, ,
- .
1938 .
.
. - ,
, ,

, .
. - ,

,
.
,
, ,
,
.
. ,
, ,
.
1948 .
,
.
- ,
. ,
,

. .

.
( )
, ,
. 40- ,

, , .

59

 15%.

.
1944 . ,

-
,
,
.
.
1951 . .

,
. 1955 . ,
, 40- . ,

,
.

, ,

.
,
. ,
. :
1.
,
.
.
2. ,
. , / .
3. ,
, ,
. ,
.
,
( )
( ),
.

60

7 2 % . 4 6 %
, 1 5 % - , 3 5 % . 4% ,
- .

.
,
.
.
,
.

. ,
, .
.
1.959 . -, , , .

.

.
.

, .
. ,

),

.
1963 . .

.

. ,
.
. 1980 . 5 9 %
,
- .
0 , 1 % .

61

(. N6 ). ,

.

f
,
. -
30- .
1970 ., ,
-
58
.

, 9 0 % 65 .
. 70-
.
.
,
,
. 1985 . - ($525), -
- ($403). $475.

, - , , .

,
- .

. -

,
,
.
- ,
(. N7). 5 0 %
. 70-
.
. N7.
61
1969-80 (%).

. N6. ,
1980 .

1969

24

30

40

1980

34

44

49

41
49

49

50

66

61

59

1969

%
58

42

24

(. N6). 6 0 . -
, .
,

,
. ,
58

Ginsburg N., op. cit, p. 36.

. no Myles J., op. cit.
Aschenbaum W., Social Security: Vision and Revision, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1986, . no Ginsburg N., op. cit., p. 106.

1980

-,
( 1980 .), ,
.

18 , .
-
,
,
,
.


| - ,
( (. N8).

59
60

62

12

I [bid.

63

. N9. (% ).

63

.

,
.
.
.

. .

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1981

30,4

29,9

30,7

34,8

31,6

35,4

38,8

25,7

30,2

30,7

35,1

31,6

29,1

27,7

53,7

42,8

36,1

62

1951-1981.

1950

1951

.
*

. N8.

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1981

**

..

..

..

54

43

36

(
)

..

30

30

31

35

32

35

39

()

26

30

31

35

32

29

28

()

..

..

..

..

32

35

36

()

30

30

30

34

31

29

29

28

28

19

18

14

11

12

(.
N9).
, .

70-

30,4

27,8

29,9

29,9

27,5

19,0

. Dunleavy P., The United Kingdom: Paradoxes of an Ungrounded Statisme, in Castles

F.G. (ed.), op. cit., p. 270.

64

17,7

30,8

28,7

28,7

32,4

34,8

36,0

14,2

11,0

12,0

* 1965-70 .
, , .
** 1970 . .

1966 .
, , .
70- ,
.

, .
. 80- 2 5 %
-, .

: 1. " " 6 4 ,
,

, , ; 2.
. " "
.
, , , 1 6 5 (. N10).
fi1

62

33,6

I'erry R., United Kindgom, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., p. 189.

t 'I sping-Anderson G., Welfare state without work: the impasse of labor shedding and familialisme
111 continental european social policy, in Esping-Andersen G. (ed.), op. cit., p. 68.
ftbid., p.71.

65


60- .
,
,
.
. 60-

.
, ,
.
,
.
, ,
. ,
,
.
, ,
(
80- ) .
26,7%, 4,5%.

6 0 % 6 6 ,
9 3 % . ,
,
, , 5 0 %
6 1 .

68

. N10. % , 1990 .

80

100

113

79

77

100

60

63

29

83

53

46

80

30

89

31**

56

26

16

67

70

69

74

41

98

60

32

80

28

12

81

69

60

61

30

32

* .
**
, .

, .
.
,
.
,
.
. 4%
, 10-12 ,
, 17% 2 0 % (. N8 ).
-,
.
3 0 % , 2 0 %
. -
1 1 % 17%. 657 0 % , ,
6 9 .
.
60-65%
,
40-45% .

66

,
23% .
67
Pa!me J., Pension Right in Welfare Capitalisme, SOFI, Stockholm, 1990.

66

68

Ibid., p. 72..: European Community, 1993,

''"'Esping-Andersen G., op. cit., 1990, tabl. 4.3.

67

. N11. (%
70
).

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

(
)

34

34

45

42

43

48

47

50

47

51

53

49

38

40

( )*
( ,
.)

16

21

32

31

35

26

22

25

24

24

26

28

**

43

52

47

52

52

54

50

23

, (. N11).
-.
,
.
.
2/3 ( 6 5 % )
, 1/20.
. 1 1 %
.
. N12. (%
72
).

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

67,5

67,5

67,5

67,5

67,5

1980

25

27

19

21

25

29

( )

30

27

34

32

30

27

50,0

50,0

90,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

19

17

15

40,0

47,0

50,0

55,0

62,5

68,0

68,0

11
6

15

13

12

* 1960 . .
** 1970J. .
-
, .
70- ,
.
- 1 5 % 7 1 . 80-
- 2%
, - .
,
.
. 1977 .
- ,
.
,
40 . , (. N12). 70-
6 5 %
. , 70-
, ,
70
Ibid.,
71

p. 49.
Alber, Germany, in Flora P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 120.

68

* .
36,5%
7 3 . 8 0 %
. 4 a t T
,
.
, .
,
7 3 % .

, 70-
.

.
,
. .
-

.
.
''Ibid., p. 50.
' 'Ibid., .62 , Transfer Enqete Commission 1973 .

69

 ,
,
.

, ,
.
.
.
,
" - ",
, -
,
.
-, - ,
.
,
, ,
,

.
,
,
, - -

.
- ,
- ,
.
-
, ,
.

, . ,

.

74

.

.
.

. , -

. ,
, .
*

.

, .
.
,
. ,
, ,
.

.


,

, .
, ,
.

, .
, ,
.
,
.
, -
,
- ,
.
1942 . ,

. ,
74

Hsping-Andersen G., op. cit.

70


.
1977 .
,

. 70-
,
. , ,

75
, ,
,
.

,
. ,

, .

76
.

.
1954 .
,
, .
1961 .
, . 1964 .


, . 70-
, . ,
7 7 .
.
.
,
.
,
, , .

"Encyclopaedia Britannica, CD-1997, Social Welfare, Familly, Maternity and parental allowances.
76

Alber J., Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., p. 27.

"Encyclopaedia Britannica, CD-1997, op. cit.

72

30-
,
.

.
1948 .
( 1920 .)
,
.
1933 .

.

30- . 1935 .
.
,
. '
, -
, ..

.

. -
.
.
30- 40-
,
.
,

.
,
.
,
,

.
70- ,
,
.

. ,
.

73


. ,
.

,
.

, ,
.

,
, .

.

,
, .
,
, .
,
.

..
.
.
,
,

. ,
.

,
.

,
.
,
,
, . , ,
,
- .

,
,
.

.

.
, -, .
.

, ,
,
,
.
, ,
. ,
.
.
60-
.
.
.


. -

, -
7 8 .

-,
1970 . 7 9 ,

,
,
.
,
. ,
,

78

Le Grand J., The Strategy of Equality, 1982.

Perry R., United Kindgom, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., vol. 2. p. 201.

79

74

75

 ,
(. N13).

-
,
- , .
,

16 ,
. ,
, . -
. - (
) , 4 0 %
. , ,
.
, ,
1 0 %
8 0 % .
1

. N13. ( ).

600

790

20

150

1 570

101

20%

600

800

40

70

1 550

100

20%

630

730

60

60

1 520

98

20%

630

650

80

60

1 440

93

650

840

130

50

1 670

108

610

760

50

70

1 550

100

.

.

.
, .
, ,
.

.

.
81
, - .
,
.
(, , - ) ,
.
-
. 15%
5 , 1 % (. N5
).

" ", .


.

, .
.

.
, , , .

, ,

.

.

80

"'I'ncyclopaedia Britannica, CD-1997, Social Welfare, Administration of services.

Ibid., p. 202.

76

77


.
,
.
^

,
(. N13
).
-
- . 1984 . 41,4%
. 1960 .
24,7%. 70-
-
.
80- , ,
( ) .
- 6 0 %
(. N14).
. N14. (%

1970

1985

38

26

24

33

-
,

. , ,
.

(. N15).

.
, 1984 . 17,4%
. 80-
83
5 0 % .

.
, 20 6 0 %
. (The
Statistical Abstarct of the United States) 31,3 13,3%
8 4 .
.
. N15.
,
85
1983 .

64

60

Medicare

11

18

Medicaid ( )

Medicaid

10

11

,
(%)

Medicare ( )

12

15

11

58

36

40

15

%
( ) - .
80- ,
(. N14 ). U
,
82

-.

.

Ginsburg N., op. cit., p. 128. US Bureau of Census, 1987: tabl. 126.

78

"'Ibid.
harp A. Register Ch. A., Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 252.
"\Slaples C, The politics of employement-based insurance in the United States, in International
1
nal of Health Services, 1989, 19, 3, . no Ginsburg N, op. cit, p. 130.

79

.
- , .
Medicare , .

. 4 0 %
65 .
, ,
6%.
Medicaid .
. ,
. 6 0 %
.

5%.
.
, 80-
.

. ,



.

, 8 6 .

:
( 8 7 ),
( )
( ).

,
.


. ,
86

Sharp . , Register Ch. A., Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit., p. 254.

Alford R., Health Care Politics, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1975, . no Ginsburg N.,
op. cit, p. 132.
87

80

,
,
. :

88
.

.


.

.

( )
- , .

.
.
- 80-
Medicare . 1983 .

. 1984 . 15
.
.
1978-1985 . Medicare
2 7 % , 1986 . 6,5%.

,
(
)
. 9 0 % (. N13
), .
( )
(. N14 )
1960 . ,
70- .
no-
( 5,1 ,
- 2,4 ) .
88

Davis ., National Health Insurance: Benefits, Costs and Cosequances, Washinghton,

D.C.:Brooking Institution, 1975, p-p 2-5.

81

 5% ,
10%, 2 0 % .
( N H S ) 1948 .
- .

. ,
40- ,
.
,
, .
,
40- ,

-
.
, .

, , .
N H S
,
1949 . .
. 50-

( ,
), -
.
2%
N H S . 80- 4 % .

. 1985 . 9,5%
.

.
, ,
.

. ,

.

.

9 0 % ,
,
.
,
, -
.
,
.
(
)
.

,
.

.
70-

. :
(
14% ),
( 4 , 1 %
1987 . 6,3%).
,
,

. 80-

.
.
1182
, .

, ,
.
- -
. -
- .

83
82

 . 70-

80- 90-
.
80- 9 0 %
, 7,5%

,
0,2%

.
-.
, ,
. ,
, ( .)
-, ,
.
. -


.

.
, 3 8 , 1 % ,
: ( ) - 7 1 % ,
- 2 3 % ,
- 5%, - 1 % . 70
.
. 1971-75 .
10% ,
1971 . 17%.
3 % . .
,
,

, .
3%
70- .

,

,
-
- .
30- .
20-

N4

5 0 % ,
.
-
( K V s ) .
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
9 0 %
. ,
, .
1955 .
,
.
, . .
, (
,
), .
1962 .
,
. -
. 1982 . ,

.


. 1930 .,
, . 3 0 %
, . 1970 .

.

9 0 % (. N13
). , ,

85

 , .
(. N14 ).

, .
.

, .
, ,
,
.
,

.
*

,
,
.

.

. ,
, .
' ,
.
,
.
50- ,
.
, ,
. 1980 .
.

.
. 50 ,
. ,
,
, . .
.

80- 1/3
89
.

. ,
.
,
- ,
.
15-
. , ,
,
. 1946 .

,
, 60-
- 11 .
60- ,

. 1970 .
.
.
-

. 1971 .
16 , 1976
.

.

.
,
.
1950-80 . .
- ,
, -
. 80-
5,5% .
. 56%
.
^Encyclopedia Britannica, CD-1997, History of Education.

86
87


. ,

. ,
,

.

. X I X .
,
. 1911 .
, 1918 .
.

,
X I X .
1871 ., ,
.
. ,
.. Volksschule,
- .

.
.
Grundschule,

.
.
,
.

.

. 1949 .
.

.
.
-
,
. -
, - -
, . 1964 .
.
9 .
70-
.

, .
, .
, .
(Gymnasium),
, 2 5 %
. Hauptschule,
- 4 0 % . Realschule,
90
- 2 5 % .
6 18 .
60-
, 7 0 % . 1983 .
4 6 % . ,

. 1975 . 8%
,
3 9 % , - 2 4 % , 91
2 0 % . , - , ,
. 1982 .
19-26 4 8 % ,
- 4 0 % .

,
. ,

.
.

. 50 ,
.
7 16 .
.
.
70- Grundskola
.
25 "" .
-
.

'"Encyclopedia Britannica, CD-1997, op. cit.

91

Alber J., Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2, p. 82.

89
88

 , , ,
.

, - ,
.

.
1950-1980 . .

, .
18 .
20 .

, .
.

1979 .
.
10-15%
. 1950-80 .
- . 1975 .
.

.

.

.
,
,
.
,
,
,

, .
,

.
*

.
.
.
,
. 70-
200 9 2 .
.

.

*
92

Sharp A. ., Register Ch. A., Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 31.

90

, ,
.

.
- 60-
70- ,
.

.
, , , -
, ,
, - .
, -
9 3 .
, ,
,
,
. -
.
3 6 %
(1976 .). , ,

.
,

.
.

, ,
1948 .
v,

Alber J., Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2, p.78.

91

 .
: ,
,
,
.. 50- 9 0 %
.
- ,
- .




.
, ,

.

. ,
, ,
,
.
, ,

.
- ,
,
.
.
, ,
. 50- 60- 4 % ,
70- 5 % , 80-
6% 9 4 .-

, -
.

.

-.
*

,
.
,
,
.

-
(. N15 17 ).
.
,

, 80-
, 90- -
.
9 5 ,
. 1994 . ,
,
, 9 6 .

.
70-
.
,
.

: - /
- / .
, ,
,
. , 70-
,
,
.
45

94

Sharp A. , Register Ch. A., Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 314.

92

Jobert Bruno , Le tournant -liberai en Europe, L'Harmattan, 1994, P., p. 14.

OECD, The OECD Jobs Study: Facts, Analysis, Strategies, OECD: Paris, 1994, p. 35.

93

 70-
,
.

,
. -
.
80-
,
, .
, . ,
.
- . 2 0 %
97
.
- .
70- , -
. 80
- (. N16 ).
,
( ) ,
,
.

.
, ,
.
50 7 0 %
. 26 ,
- 1 . 9 0 %
.
1978 .
. 80-
-,
.

.
- (. N15 17
). ,
,
97

98

. , 1 1 %

, 18% ,
( 1979 .).
,
, , ,
,
.
, ,
,
.
A F D C ,
,
. ,
,
. . 20
000 4
, . , ,
, .
70-
, -
, - . 1983 .
-
(. N16 ).
1981-1986 . .
1966 ""
, .
80-
17 2 2 % .
. 1981-82 .
, .

.
1986 . 2/3
. 1979 .

- .

"Ibid.

Ginsburg N.. op. cit, p. 109.

94

95


-
1,62% (. N17
).

. 70-
:
,

.

(. N17 ).
,
.

. 1969
, 1975 .
,
, .
70- ,
, , . ,
, ,
- .
-
.

,
,
,

, (

60-
) . - ,

. ,

64 5 7 % 1968-88 .
, , 7 2 ' .

96

, - 7 5 % . ,
.


:
.
,

.
,
. 1970-1980 .
-
.
50-
- 10,4% - , -
. 1974-78 .
200 000
. 1/7 1/5,
.
,
, .
- - 2/3
, . ,
, (
- ). 80-
, 1/5 -
1/3 - ,
50- .
70 , ( % )
. ,
,
- ,

.
-
II ,
(. N17 ).

in .

97


.
50- .
.
, ,
. 60-

.
: ,
, ,
, ..
"
", 30-
. ,

,
, .

.


. ,

.

.
2%
. 70- ,
,
, .
1988 . 8% .
5 0 % .


,
,
, . 1980 . 8 0 %
.
,
.

98

1974 . ,
.
,
. 1980 . 7 8 %
. -
.

,

. (
) ,
.

.
38-42 %.
. (
), ( )
.
- 15-16% . ,
6%. 1973 .,
.

- , ,
,
.
.
60- ,
,
-.
,
. 1980 .
16%, 26,5%,
- 55%. -
. ( 9 0 % ) ( 6 1 % ) -,
,
, (. N9 ),
,
.

99

 70-
80- , .
6%

,
.
, "
" .
1/3
2/3 .
,
(. N16).

, .
60-
. 1967-68 .
,
, .
1975 i
-

.

,
100%,
, ,
.
-,
.
.
,
, 01
,
, . 60-
50 6 0 % ,
- 3 0 % , . 80

.

99

. N16. ( 70- ).

38
38
21
3

21
79

1
54
10
34

55
35
2
7

41
35
2
20

73
27

38
44
16
1

2
86
4
8

100

93
7

93
7

100

100

100

"Alber J., Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2, p. 39.

100

101

 1980 .
- -
3 5 % , 2 9 % (. N9 ).
70-
, : ,
,
.

.
, ,
.
,
-
. - (. N10 ).
,
.
.
(
), 3 0 %
, 100%.
7 0 % .

, .

.
60-
-
.
,
100%.
70-
,

.
. 1980 .
1,0%, - 4 6 % .
,
(. N9 ).

.
, , .
-,
,
.
.

.
-

, - , ,
- "".

1980 . 20,8 (. N1
), 30,7.
14 18 ,
1 0
" . 70- -
- 2,4. 1975 .
1,0 (. N4 ), ,

.
60-
- ,
(. N2 ). 80-
-
. 70-
8 % ,
3,2%. (. N3 ).
-
. 60- ,
1 0 1 .
-.
5,7% 1960 . 8,3% 1970 .
Medicare M e d i c a i d ,
. 70-
, ,
. 80-
.

'''. Amenta ., Skocpo! ., Taking Exception. Explaining the Distinctiveness of American

I ublic Policies in the Last Century, in Castles F.G. (ed.) op. cit, p. 293
""Sharp A. M, Register Ch. A., Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit., p 365

102

1(13

 2 0 % ,
.

- .
,
. 80-

, 2 0 % .
60- 70- -
. 1960-1970-1980 .
: 27,2% - 30,2% - 32,4% . 80-
.
, 1980 . 1,2 , 2,4
1987 .

.
.
-

, : ,
, ,
, ,
. 4 8 %
( 1985 .). ,
, 7 4 % .
-
.
. N 17. , , ( $).

, . 1960
. , , .
1960 1980 .
(
) 10,3% 18,7% .
(1983 .) : 2,2%; ( , ,
, ) - 5 3 % ; 2 2 % ; - 21,5%.
1960 . 3 4 %
, 1982 - 5 6 % . 1960 .
$815 , 1982 . $2527.
1970-81 .
13%, 11,5%. 1965-83 .
24,3%
4 3 % , ( ) - 5,9
ll%i2.

(. N17).
.
.

. 1974 .
102

Gilbert N, Changing structures for the delivery of social benefits in the United States, in Morris
R. (ed.), Testing the Limits of Social Welfare: International perspectives on policy changes in nine
country, Hanover and London, University Press of New England, 1988, p. 273.

104

103

45,5%

37,7%

1982

617,8

745,7

281,3

1983

600,6

808,3

292,4

48,7%

36,3%

1984

666,5

851,8

314,6

47,2%

36,9%

1985

736,9

959,1

340,6

46,2%

35,5%

1986

472,2

.

.

-
.

, -
. 1984 . , -,
, , $246 !
2 9 % , 2,2% - 68,8% -
.
I03

lbid, p. 275, U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1986, p
305, 310; and OECD, Committee on Fiscal Affairs, Tax Expenditures: A Review of Issus and
Country Practices, 1984, p-p 80-83, . no .

105


, ,
(. N18).
. 1978 .
$86 . -
. 8 0 %

, 6 7 % .
1974 . 2 4 % 14
(U.S. Bureau of Census, 1981), -
.
104

. N 18. (% ).
1970-80

1980-1984

1984-86

+30%

+55,5%

+ 17%

(, ,
)

+88%

+59%

+21%

(. N19). 1965-84 .
500%, ,
- 1000%. 1984 .
2 0 % .
, 3 7 % .

, .
,

.
105

. N19. ( 80- ).

, 1985 . 2% $30
. 8 2 % 5% -
. , ,
. . ,
.

(. N1 ).
(
) 16-
, - ,

106

( 80- ) . 60- 70-

- , , .

16- , .
.

.
,
.

,
.

,

1975-1981 . (. N2 ).
( 1979 .)
.
.
- - - .

38

21

13

30-
- 10%. ,
,
- .
. 1 0 7

J6

57

22

,
106

l04

Ibid, p. 283, U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1986, p. 385;
and Wall Street Journal, June 15, 1987, p.25,.
105 no Myles J, op. cit, p. 120.

Nutter G.W, Growth of Government in the West, Washington DC: American Entreporise
Institute, 1978. no Dunleavy P, op. cit, p. 248.
107
Perry R, United Kindgom, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2. p. 166.

107
106

 (. N20).

- (. N4
). , 1974 .
,

108
.

, .
.

(. N5 ).
. ,

, ,
.
. N20. % .

1979/80

1980/81

1981/82

1982/83

1983/84

1984/85

1985/86

5,8

4,8

3,0

2,3

2,6

2,5

2,0

11,4

11,7

11,4

11,2

11,1

10,7

10,7

11,4

12,2

12,2

12,2

12,2

12,1

12,3

24,9

25,1

27,4

28,6

29,2

29,4

30,5

: ,
,
.
5 5 % . -
70- ,
3 5 % . ,
. -
.

, , .
70-
. 50-
25-30% . 70-
4 0 % ,
2 3 % 19% (
(1975 .) ).
- ( 2 1 % ) .
1951 1981 .
5,4% 14%.
26,6 31,4.
,
, 1/3 1/2 (. N21).
, ,
1/5 1/3 .
,
, 50-
.
110

. N21. .

1951-58

10,5

2,1

1959-69

6,0

0,6

1970-1975

7,8

5,5

1976-83

1,3

-0,6

6,3

1,6

(. N20)
,

- -
" (. N1 ).
- . -
1975 .
-
, (. N3 ).

1 0 8 Amenta , Skocpol , op. cit, p. 293.

,09
. Robinson R, Judge , Public expenditure, privatization and the welfare state in
Britain, in Morris R. (ed.), op. cit., p.40, Treasury H.M, The Goverment'Expenditure
Plans 1986/87 to 1988/89, Cmnd 9428, London:HMSO

'"Alber J, Der Sozialstaat in der Bundesrepublik 1950-1983, Frankfurt-New York, Campus, 1988,
. no Alber J, The West German state in transition, in Morris R. (ed.), op. cit, p. 98.

108

109

 - ( ,
)
(. N2
).
-
(. N4 ).

. - -
6 10% .
(, )
1980 . ( 4 7 % )
.
( . , ,
) -
5 0 % (. N22). ,
1974 . 6 0 %
.

.
.
-
. ,
. - ,
.

3 5 % , 4 1 % .
.

-
, - (. N22).

,

.
1/3 .
-
.
-
,
, . 1938 .
3 9 % , 1950 . - 3 9 % .
1950 . 2 9 % . 50--
,

3 8 % . 60-
- - .
. 70 5 0 % ,
.
6 ,
5 .

. N22. -
(% ).

5 0 % .
,
.
-
.
(.
) 4 5 %
.
, . 60
-
.

.
1950-80 . 10 13%

111

1950

70,6

9,4

8,9

11,2

1960

70,2

10,9

7,9

11,0

1965

68,7

12,6

5,4

13,3

1970

67,7

14,7

2,9

14,8

1975

65,2*

17,1

2,5

15,2

1980

64,5

18,1

2,5

14,9

1983

65,1

18,3

2,4

14,2

, 1975 .
.

, 60-
, ,
. 1950-80 . 2/3 1/2
, .
'"Ibid., p. 99.

110
111

 ( %
), 70-
-.
- 7-8% .
,
, 70-
.

. 80- 2/3
. (.
) - 15% .
- 10% .
- 5%
1% 60-
,
2% .

.
-
- . ,
60- . 1952 1980 .
67 5 8 % .
, . 80-

.

.
1/4 , 80-
1/3.

.
,
,
. .
, ,
,
. ,
, .
1976 - 1979
., 80-
. "" ,
-
-

,
. - ,
- ,
112
- . , ,

, .

1950-1970 2 4 % 6 2 % .
.
- ,
.

.
,
5%.
, ,
,
, 60- .
4 0 %
, ( 1/3),
( 1/4) (- 1/10).


,
.
,
- .
1980 .
2 0 % - 5%. ,
, ,
15 20 % .
1 1 % 1950 .
3 4 % 1980 (. N23).
, , ,
.
,
- .
- (
1960-1975 . ) , -

112

Alber J, The West German state in transition, in Morris R. (ed.), op. cit, p. 100

113

 (. N1 2
).

113

. N23. .

1946-1954

12,7

8.5

7.2

5.4

5.6

1955-1962

7.3

8.0

9.5

9.5

4.8

1963-1970

11.7

10.5

13.8

15.9

9.3

1971-1976

7.7

2.4

6.6

10.7

11.2

1977-1980

4.4

2.2

3.5

8.5

5.0

.
1/2 1/3 .

,
. 60-
2/3
.
,
,
.
60 .
,
1/3 . 70-
. ( )
15%
2 5 % 1980 . -
.

, 50
4 0 % . ,
.
- 2 5 % 6 % .
70-
. ,
1 4 % .
13

Olson s, Sweden, in Flora P, (ed.), op. cit, vol. 1.

1950 . 70-
- 25 5 0 % . 1972 .,
,
. 6,4%
, . 50 , 60- ,
70- .
22 ,
60- .
.
,
,
30- .

.
,
( ),
( 1/3) ( 1/10).

.

, .
,
1/5 1/3.

1947 .,
, 1959 .,

, .

1968 ., ,
.

- "
" 30-
60- . ,
1 1 4 .

1 l4

Ginsburg N, op. cit, p. 98.

115

" "
, ,
- ,

.

,
.
60- " "
.
-
.

80-

, 60-
, , ,
. ,

.
,
- .
,
, , .
^ .
-, .
70-

, . 1980 .
15%
, 1967 . 9 % .

115

(1981 . ) .
.
, ,

5 4 % 6 2 % .
80-
10% , 60- 5,4%.

- .
, , -

. ,
.

(. N24).

" - " .
.
1970 . 2 1 % (7,2
) .
1974 . 10 .
1980 . 2 9 % , 11,2
.
,
.

: 1.

, ; 2.
,
; 3.
.

. -
& ,
.

2 2 % 3 7 % 20

115

R, United Kindgom, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2. p. 188.

116

117

116

. N24. .
- :

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

60 .)

42,4

49,2

32,7

34,5

39,3

46,0

53,4

18,4

15,1

14,2

14,7

18,0

(%

117

60 .)

(%

, ..
(% 60 .)

38,7

44,2

38,9

34,0

34,0

34,8

38,8

(% )

3,6

4,0

5,1

4,9

5,6

5,3

5,7

(%
)

77,8

82,9

83,4

74,1

75,8

76,1

64,5

3,4

2,6

2,0

2,4

2,5

3,3

3,5

(%

(%
18 .)

27,4

24,8

82,6

82,9

(% 18
.)

30,9

31,5

87,3

88,1

12,0

33,4

41,0

32,6

24,1

35,2

40,7

4,1

7,0

6,0

(%
)

1,5

11,0

(% )
(%
)

1,9

:
,
,
.
- .
70- 8 0 %

1 1 8 .

, , 15%
50- 2 8 % 80- .
u6

Alber J, Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2, p. 46.

: ,
.
lls
Cf. Transfer-Enquete-Kommission (1981), pp. 108 and 111. . no Alber J, The West
German state in transition, in Morris R. (ed.), op. cit, p. 96.
117

118

.

, ,
. ,
,
, .
.

, ,
.
, -

.
,
.

.
.

, ,
100%, , ,
.
.
.
.
16 ,
, -
19 . .

-
9 1 % (. N19
). -
, . 7 5 % ,
- 5,8%. -
.
8,0% - - .

. - -
-.
-
- .

119

 - , -
(. N19 ).
(% ,
) - - 1980 .
- 1,5 -
(. N22 ).
- 2 0 % - .
- 2 0 % , .
, - ,
, .
,
,
.

, ,
(. N20 ).

-.
,
-
- (. N21 ).
.

.
,
.

1 1 9 .

. - ,
2 0 % - , 2 7 % - 1 2 1 1 . .

.
,
, ,
. ,

.
80- .
.
12-14%
, 2 1 % .
18% .
121
7-10% .

. ,

.
,
, ,
.

.
15 ( 11 5 0 % )
- 15% 2 8 % .
. -
46 3 5 % .

.
1986 .

. ,
,

. 1 2 2
.
5 0 % .
6,6%.
- ,
- .
(. N25)
, - .

- , .

l21

119

Sharp A. , Register Ch. A, Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 377.

Pechman J. A, Who Paid the Taxes, 1966-1985, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institutions,
1985, . no Sharp A. M, Register Ch. A, Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 377.
120

120

Sharp A. , Register Ch. A, Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 379.

Economic Report of the President, January 1987, p. 85, . no Sharp A. M, Register Ch. A,
Leftwich R. H. (eds.), op. cit, p. 384.
122

121

 1967-1983 . 1 1 %
2 3 % . 1967 .
3 8 %
21,2%, 1983 . 47,2 25,3%.
() -
8 3 - 9 1 % .
-.
123

. N25. , .

1975

1977

1978

1981

1983

()

43

44

45

47

49

35

34

35

36

36

31

21

32

32

33

81,7% - ,
- , -
(. N19 ).
1 7 % , -
, -
. -
, - (. N19
).

68,5% (. N21 ).
, .
70-
-
20 4 0 % . -
1979-1984 .,
,
-
. 1988 .,
- 4 0 %
2 0 % - .
- 2 0 % .
123

Perry R, United Kindgom, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit, vol. 2. p. 199.

122

.

. -

. 16,7% (. N19 ).
,
-
.
.
80-
- .
-
.
.

,
. , ,

. -
- 0,93 ,
- - 0,58 .
-, .
, , .
80- -
, ,
- - .

, , -
. 80-
-
. , , -
5 0 % ,
, 7,4% 8,5%
. ,
, .
, - .
1960-1980 ., ,

.
, -
. .

123

 . -
,
-
-.

. N 27.
125
, 1980.

1978 . 17,7 , 8 0 %
.
, ( ),

. ,
, . 50-
- 15%. 70- 2 7 % .

- .

,
. ,
, (. N26).
,
-
(. N20 ).
. N26.
124
- % .
1950

1960

1970

1978

1980

0,94

0,84

0,98

0,86

1,16

0,95

1,21

0,95

1,19

0,93

1,33

1,09

1,43

1,10

1,47

1,10

1,22

1,16

1,20

1,10

1,29

1,24

1,43

1,50

1,49

1,58

1,19

1,26

2,74

2,34

3,18

2,72

3,26

2,85

0,17

0,57

0,14

0,59

0,58

0,13

0,81

0,11

0,80

124

Alber J,, Germany, in Flora P.(ed.), op. cit., vol. 2, p. 67.

124

0,81

(% )

0,2

6,9

4,9

11,2

(% )

15,5

16,2

25,8

22,5

53,6

43,3

,
, (. N27).
-
.
7 9 % . -,
(. N21 ).

. 1980 . 2 9 , 2 % ,
17,2%, - 16,5%
- - 8%.
28,5%, 13-17% .
,
- (. N19 ).
-
C
8 8 % (. N21 ). 4 1 % , - - 5%.
100%, .

-.

.
30- 40- .
- ,

.
125

Ibid., .68.

125

. N 28. ( 1975 1979 .).

. N 29. (
127
),

-
%

1920

1%

50%

2%

60%

5%

77%

10%
91%

20%
100%

1930

47%

58%

74%

88%

98%

1935

42%

53%

70%

84%

97%

1945

38%

48%

66%

82%

96%

1951

33%

43%

60%

76%

92%

1966

24%

32%

48%

64%

82%

1970
1975
1979

23%

31%

46%

62%

84%

21%

28%

44%

60%

80%

13%

19%

33%

51%

75%

60-
80- ( . N28).
, , -
"
". 70-

.

80-

-
.
- .
/- . ,
,

(.

N29).

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

3.7

4.0

3.8

4.0

4.3

4.6

4.6

II

4.8

5.0

5.1

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.3

III

5.7

5.7

6.0

5.7

6.0

6.1

6.0

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.8

7.2

IV

6.7

6.6

8.0

8.0

7.8

7.9

7.6

7.7

7.8

VI

9.3

8.9

8.8

9.1

8.7

8.5

8.1

VII

10.9

10.7

10.8

10.8

10.4

10.0

10.4

VIII

13.4

13.5

13.2

13.1

13.3

13.2

13.0

IX

15.9

16.1

16.0

16.0

16.1

16.0

15.9

21.8

21.6

21.8

21.3

21.4

21.8

21.8

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

-
.
,
.
.
.
, .
-
70- ,
,
.
, -
.

,
. -.
- , -
. -,
,
(. N23 ).
,
l27

I 2 6 i b i d , v o l . II, . 57 , . 60.

126

Olson S, Sweden, in Flora P . , op. cit, vol. II, p. 57-58.

127

- .

.
70- ,


.

.
.

, -
, . 70-
,
.

,
.
,
. - ,
, ,
, . (80-
X I X )
.
"
". 1899 . - 10
,
. ,
,
.
,
, , ,
"" .
,
.

.

, , ,
.
, .

,
- .

,
, .

.

, - .
, ,
,
. 70-
. -
.
,
.
,


.

,

- ,
,
, ""
.

, "
".
, .
" " 30- ,

, , ,
.
.

. ,
70-
, ,
.

128

129


, " "
.
80- 1965 ., .
" ". 1973 - 1987 . 128
2 0 % 2 2 % , - 2 5 % .
80- ,
, .

. ,
,

. 80- -
,
60- ,
12
''.

.
.

.
1990 . -
0,40. -
(. N24 ).
- 2,22,
- .
. ,
, - .
- (. N23
). -, -
-
, , -, .


.
.
.

70- 80-

,
. , ,
,
(. N30),
, 1979 .
.
80- , ,
.
. N30. (%
130
).

4-

3-

2-

1976

7,4

12,7

18,0

24,0

37,9

1986

5,9

11,4

17,0

23,9

41,7

, - , -
.
- . -
(. N23 ).

1 3 1 .

, , .
,


,
.

.

130

1 2 8 My|es j _

129

ci(

Ginsburg N, op. cit, p. 145. CSO, 1988, tabl. 5.18

Schmidt M.G, Learning from Catastrophes: West Germany's Public Policy, in Castles
F.G.(ed.), op. cit, p.62.

] ].

131

Ibid. p. 128.

13(1

131

132
.
,
35-40 ,

, ,
, .
.

, .

,
,
.
- ,

( ,
,
"" (
133
500 000 1 ) .
, .
4 0 % .
. , ,

.

.
,
,
""
.
-
.

- 1974-85,
(. N25 ). -
, -
.

,
134
.
,

,

,
, .
,

.
.
, 80- - ,
.

,
.
-
- ,
132

Schmidt M.G, op. cit, p. 93.

Ginsburg N, op. cit, p.72.
Schmidt M.G, op. cit, p. 62.

133
134

132

-
(. N25 ).
, ,
,
, .
80-
- -
. 90- , -
- .
, , , .

70- ,
.
.

1974-1985 . (. N25 ).
-
, -
, - .

133

(. N25 ).
, 90-
.

.
,
,
- (. N25 ).
70-
,
.

, ,
, ,
.
.
, -.
,
, .
,

.

. ,
, , ,

. ,
,
.



,

,
.

.

.
, ,
,

.

. /-
- - / , ,
- , .
,

, .
, ,

134

135

 , ,
, ,
.
- "" "-", -, ,

- 70- .
, 3 3 %
, 2 1 % . "
" " "
,
.

, " "
, ,
.
80-
90- . ,
, .

, ,
, ,
,
.
-,
,
.
80-
,
.

- ,
80-

.

. - ,

, -
"" .
, , "".
, 60- 70- -
" ", ,
.

136

,
. 90- ,
,
- , .

.
.
,

.
" " .
"" ,
, - ,
,
.
/- - - /
:
, . ,
.
. ,
,

. " "
, ,
, .
" ".

"
".

,
.
""
"" - ? .

, ,
.

- , ,
, .
,

.
.

137

 .

.
,
.
.
.
,
,
. -
"" ,
.
, ,
, .
i

.
,
.
,
.
60- 70- .
:
, ;
,
,

;
;
.

.
.


.

.
.

,

,
.
, .

.
.

,
.

-

.
.
,
.
. 60- ,
,
.
,
,
, .
,
.

,
.
.
, -
.
.
,
.
.

,
, .
.
.
,
,
.

138

139



. ,
.
,

, .
..
.
. ,
- .
, , 70- ,

.

.
,
,
. , ,
, .

,

.

/ - / .
,
.
, .
.
*

,
90- ,
,
. .
-
,
.

. ,
,
.

,

.
,

.
,
.
,
,
, - .

,
, .
, ,
.
- .

.

,

. ,
,
"" .

.
-
,

140

141

The modern Social States

Conclusion

Without rejecting the need for a normative approach, it seems to us that in an

analysis of the social and, in general in public policy, its use might lead to a
situation which prescribes treatment without a proper diagnosis.

This book studies variations in the social programmes of four free market,
democratic, national societies - the U S A , Great Britain, Germany and Sweden. A
first reaction to an analysis of social policy of nation states at a time when social
programmes are being restricted and national borders are disappearing may be
that this is to large extent unjustified, but a more profound analysis will show that
these features are only superficial.

The basic impossible of assessing which model - more state or more market
- is better, is stressed by the fact that the limits of the social states in all the
western societies were reached simultaneously at the end of the 1970's. This
happened at the moment when Sweden's social expenditure was "about 3 3 % of
G D P and in the US - 2 1 % . U n t i l that moment Sweden's "state social capitalism"
and the "market social state" in the U S A were not only far being the object of
political debate but were producing similar social results and on the whole were
little burden for the social system.

The main thesis which this book aims not so much to argue but to
popularise is that between the modern social state and the free market there is
complete harmony and reciprocity. Social policy is a structural element of free
market society. It does not destroy the market but makes its function more
effectively. Its political practice are accepted only because the economy and
society create significant social problems which they can not resolve
spontaneously.

The difficulties in the application of a normative approach to social policy

are linked to the fact that "the freedom of the market" and its resultant political
strategies do not produce the same results when implemented in the different
market societies. In the U S A the heightened social tension of the 1980's which
was a common problem for all western countries was followed by their
spontaneous assimilation in the 1990's. This was not the case, however, in the
United K i n g d o m where unemployment achieved record levels.

Social problems are caused by economics but are formulated by politics. In

politics they are transformed into social political mechanisms for the regulation of
society and take on the relevant procedural f o r m . The specific, relatively closed
national economy created specific problems and, to a greater extent, the specific
national policy formulates the mechanisms for its regulations. The practices of
social policy are similar only in general terms and differ in all their details since
there are a product of a specific economic and political environment.

These discrepancies are outside the logic of normative science and can only
be explained if we accept that the limits of the social states are created by the
condition of the economy, but that the prescriptions for public, as well as social,
policy are determined by the condition of the given society and the specific
features of its national market. The more a given economy is facing difficulties
and social problems it creates, the more there is a need for the active intervention
of the public authorities.

The difference is not due to an sequentialism in the transformation of a

free market to another type of non-market environment but rather reflects the
specific internal structure of the specific social system, in which certain factors
and structure are predominant in relation to others. The system of social
institutions is only one of the manifestations of national differences in the context
of a common market model. It results from the overall development of the specific
society and the becomes part of the political system. This gives us the grounds to
speak of models of social capitalism, a concept which includes the features of
social institutions but also their mutual correspondence and their inherent
inclination in favour of a certain type of social political solution.

In the 1980's, the global market environment began to produce a global

policy, initially regarded as the universal withdrawal of the state f r o m society and
the economy.
The identical political response of the western societies is a
consequence of the universal appearance of the management strategies of market
liberalism in government. This was a process which took place in the 1980's to a
large extent without any link to the condition of the national economies. The
national societies reacted with heightened social tension. This was least marked in
the U S A where the poor are excluded from policy and reacted only by nonparticipation in the electoral process and most marked in traditional
"revolutionary" societies such as France. However, despite the filter of politics, for
quite objective reasons, the social problems continued to flourish. The long-term
unemployment and the "new poverty" appear.

The comparison of the social political practices, established in modern

societies, allows us to outline the extreme alternatives of political solutions aimed
at the regulation of the social environment which do not destroy but support the
main fundamental market principle. The sliding scale of state/market involvement
(more state/less market - less state/more market) is insufficient to clarify or
explain the difference.
Because of the principle opposition of market and state, its use as the only
benchmark in a comparative analysis contains the inherent temptation to delve
into the territory of normative science and to lose the path of positive research.

The emerging imbalances had domestic as well as international

dimensions. This was particularly marked in the 1990's when the US market
began spontaneously to assimilate social problems. In Europe, however, they
proved to be persistent and even worsened. International imbalance increased
catastrophically after the inclusion of the former communist countries in the
global environment. Global policy reduced solely to the absolute recognition and

143
142

observation of international law. Public policy became a matter of national

choice and the freedom in its formulation became understood as the only possible
way f o r the consolidation of capitalism. The support for domestic capitalism once
again put the ball back into the court of social policy. This was also the case for
the "problematic" European countries, particularly for the former communist
countries where the social problems arising from the immature markets proved to
be as much a hindrance to globalisation as their authoritarian regimes and closed
societies had been previously.
There is another reason why the sliding scale of state/market should not be
absolutised: it doesn't mean anything, or at least has very little significance. It is
true that in the system of social institutions of Sweden, the state is very strongly
represented. The same is also true in the case of Germany. This, however, does
not lead to identical results, in fact the opposite. It actually leads to the formation
of opposing profiles of stratification. The formula "more state" conceals different
political practices which when applied in a specific environment causes differing
social effects. The same is also true of the "minimal state". The United K i n g d o m
and the U S A have almost analogous relative levels of social expenditure and f r o m
the point of view of such quantitative criteria can be defined as societies with
"small states". At the same time the United K i n g d o m supports state health care
and universal pension provisions, while in the U S A a significant part of the
population does not possess health assurance.
What is concealed behind the principal opposition of the "great" states of
Sweden and Germany and the "small" states of the United K i n g d o m and the
U S A ? A detailed discussion of the modern social states requires the establishment
of a number of relative axes which are not exhaustive but which are at least
diverse.
The first of these axes measures the relative significance of the different
types of strategy of social regulation social assistance, social security, universal
social rights in the models of social capitalism. In the U S A model there is a
predominance of social assistance which recognises the right of the socially
underprivileged groups to be assisted by society. This type of social regulation
does not lead to real changes in society. Its implementation reproduces the social
status of the poor without correcting it. Social assistance does not bring its clients
any closer to the market and does not involve them in its successes of failures. In
the German model there is a pre-dominant logic of social security which
distributes the rights of the employed to the unemployed. However, in this way
social regulation includes those unemployed in the market and, thus, in the
distribution of that which the market has created. The crisis of the market creates
a crisis in social regulation. In the Swedish and British model, there is a
predominant universal logic of social regulation which recognised the equal social
rights of all citizens, notwithstanding their social status. These universal
programmes to a large extent "re-structure" society and introduce a certain extent
of social equality. To this end, universal social policy practice is the only factor
which creates its own zone, free f r o m the regulatory functions of the market.

144

The second possible axis of comparison measures the level of income

replacement. If the first comparative criterion is connected w i t h the relative
proportion of the population dependent on social programmes, the second reflects
the level of this dependence. In the U S A and the U n i t e d K i n g d o m the level of
replacement income is quite low while in Germany the level is exceptionally high.
In Sweden the level of replacement income became very high at the end of the
1960's and especially in the 1970's. The combination of the two criteria provides
the following picture: the U S A allocates a small amount of funds at a small
amount of people, which gives the maximum level of freedom to the market; the
U n i t e d K i n g d o m allocates a small amount of funds to a large portion of the
population which provides a guarantee against poverty, but does not replace the
market as the main distributor of wealth; Germany allocated a high level of funds
from the working to the non-working population; Sweden allocates a high level of
funds to the entire population.
The third axis of comparison measures the relative differentiation of social
benefits. In the U S A and Germany the social benefits are determined by
employment income and are thus highly differentiated. In the U S A the
differentiation is increased by the complete lack of national standards and the
absolute decentralisation of the vast majority of social programmes. In Germany
the differentiation of social programmes is supported by the fragmentary nature of
the social security funds. The U n i t e d K i n g d o m and Sweden provide equal social
benefits.
The fourth axis of comparison measures the relative importance of the
transfers made via social assistance, social insurance and universal programmes
and social services in the established systems of social political practice. The US
model is poor both in terms of transfer and social services. The UK model
provides low transfers, compensated by exceptionally well developed social
services. Germany provides exceptionally high transfers and almost non-existent
social services. Sweden combines a high level of transfers w i t h a well developed
level of social services.
The fifth axis of comparison classifies the countries f r o m the point of view
of the predominant method of the mobilisation of finances needed for the support
of social programmes. The social state in the U S A is financed mainly by the
federal and the state budgets. The share of total taxation in the financing of social
programmes is a consequence of the dominant role of social assistance in the
system of social political practice and the established credit and subsidy
instruments of social regulation. The British social state is financed entirely by
taxation. This type of financing supports both the universal social programmes
and the exceptionally developed sphere of social services. The German model
includes finance f r o m employment income contributions. In the 1960's for a
number of reasons, some of which were beyond the control of politics, there was
an increase in the involvement of the state in the financing of social programmes.
This, however, did not change the essence of the model in which individual
contributions were concentrated in independent funds regulated only by the

145

universal rules for the formation of social benefits. The social state in Sweden is
financed via a complex system of local, regional and national taxes.
The models of social capitalism can be compared f r o m the point of view of
the effects which established social political practices produce. The clients of the
social state in the U S A are the poor social strata. The clientele of the British
social state encompasses almost the entire population, mainly due to the wide
sphere of social services. The German social state is oriented towards the nonworking population. The social state of Sweden encompasses the entire
population both via the system of transfers as well as in the sphere of social
services. The clientele reflects the predominant area of re-allocation in a given
society. In the U S A the re-allocation, in as far as only can speak of re-allocation is
f r o m the rich to the poor social strata. There is an analogous situation in the
United Kingdom. The direction of re-allocation in Germany is from the working
to the non-working population. In Sweden the direction of re-allocation is from
the rich to the poor social strata, but it is organised in such a way that it actually
introduces a relatively high level of equality in society.
The countries studied here could also be compared from the point of view
of the level at which social aims have become a permanent element of public
policy. Sweden and Germany are societies which combine social aims in the
process of formulation of political decisions. In Sweden social equality, the cost of
labour and total employment are political aims which are pursued at all costs. In
Germany, the social aims are combined in the overall construction of the "social
market economy". Their implementation are not in opposition to economic aims.
Germany is a country which at a political level observes to a great extent the
balance between social and economic aims. In the case of the U S A , in principle,
and in the United K i n g d o m , after the 1970's, economic aims are the fundamental
principles in the formulation of political decisions.
The models of social capitalism also differ f r o m the point of view of the
pre-dominant attitude towards employment policy. The U S A and the United
K i n g d o m are inclined to undertake measures which stimulate the supply of jobs,
while Germany mainly controls the demand for employment. Sweden, similar to
the U S A , is more inclined to stimulate the supply of jobs, but in a very different
way. While in the U S A the creation of jobs means more freedom on the market
and tax concessions, in Sweden the creation of employment is connected with the
expansion nf the public sector and subsidising of jobs.
There is a significant difference in the attitude towards the dilemma of high
employment/low labour costs
low employment/high labour costs. Germany
maintains high labour costs in contrast to the U S A and the U K , which to a very
limited extent control the price of labour. In Sweden this dilemma seems not to
exist. There the high price of labour and complete employment are maintained via
political measures.

justified, purely in that Bulgaria is at the moment undertaking political steps

towards the creation of a total market and market economy. The acceptance of
social regulation which corresponds to modern standards and satisfies the needs
of the existing society is a part of the process of its domestic capitalism.
In the same way as the other former communist countries, Bulgaria had a
choice between two strategies:
First - the absolute deregulation of the market and the gradual
establishment of the modern systems of social protection which with the passing
of time would acquire some features of decomodification, seemed possible at the
beginning of the 1990's, when the democratic ambitions of people were
sufficiently strong to support universal cohesion. This strategy leads towards the
model of the U S A .
The second - the establishment of modern social policy regulation of the
market and modern systems of social protection became necessary with the
development of processes and the delay in time. Although the second strategy has
not met w i t h sufficient support on the part of the international financial
institutions, it has become the dominant strategy due to the inability of the
emerging markets to assimilate social problems spontaneously. This second
strategy which provides more activism and social engineering on the part of the
public authorities leads to some of the European models of social capitalism. The
acceptance of the British model is supported by the predominant inclination in
government for the maximum preservation of market freedom, but is hindered by
the limited individual possibilities and the inherited high level of social equality.
The German model looks favourable due to the need of a balanced state budget
but comes into opposition w i t h the constant need for the centralisation of power
in the state. The Swedish model is too expensive for Bulgaria and despite the
overwhelming public support for such practices is hardly possible.
Of course, the acceptance of given social political practice and the
establishment of a given model of social capitalism is not a question of objective
evaluation, even less of political desire. This is a consequence of the complex
relationship between political, economic, cultural and international factors. For
this reason the present book stops short of a forecast, but with the clear
knowledge that a market economy without the relevant social regulation is a
building w i t h foundations which collapsed much more quickly than its builders
might imagine.

That Bulgaria is not a subject of analysis in this book is not entirely the
t r u t h . The interest of a Bulgarian researcher in models of social capitalism is

146

147

. N4.
.

. N 1 . , % . 1 3 5

1960

1981

10,9

20,8

13,9

23,7

20,5

31,5

15,4

33,4

13,7

26,5

138

1960-1975

1975-1981

2,4

1,0

2,2

1,8

0,8

0,8

. N5. (% ).

. N2.
. 1 3 6

1981

1939

1951

17

18
31

11

27

13

14

26

..

15

38

1960

1981

2,3

0,9

1,9

2,5

. N 6 . 65 . (%

1,8

0,6

) . 1 4 0

2,0

4,0

1,7

2,1

(1980)

26,8

15,4

5,5

37,3

(1980)

23,8

9,1

5,5

54,6

(1978)

11,9

11,6

3,9

68,5

(1980)

11,1

8,8

. N3. (
). 1 3 7
1960-1975

1975-1981

8,0

3,2

5,9

3,2

7,0

2,4

135

OECD: Socia.1 Expenditure 1960-1990. Problems of growth and control, Paris: OECD, 1985, p.
21, . no Schmidt M.G, op. cit, p.63.
136
Ginsburg N, op. cit, p.70. OECD 1985 .
137
OECD, Social Expenditures, Paris: OECD, 1985. no Dunleavy P., op. cit, p.

148

.141

78,1

. 100 ,
.

138

Ibid, p. 253,
'Ibid, p. 252.
140
Esping-Andersen G, op. cit, tabl. 4.4.
141
.
13

149

. N7.
142
, 1980.

5,0

1,71

0,55

0,45

6,4

2,0

1,0 ,

0,1

8,3

2,2

0,5

0,8

9,7

1,0

0,5

0,15

18

6,2

1,71

0,55

0,45

. N10. % .

14,10

21,60

18,20

14,58

21,69

21,15

1980

4,47

7,23

6,04

1990

3,54

7,46

7,60

1980
1990

N11.

. 1 4 6

. N8.
,1980. 1 4 3

N12.

18

60,9

18,3

17,1

3,7

67,3

21,1

10,5

1,1

70,4

18,6

4,2

6,8

85,5

8,8

4,4

1,3

18

68,2

18,9

4,5

6,0

15,8

26,5

54,8

2,9

34,0

34,2

28,9

2,9

1,0

45,9

45,3

7,8

19,1

36,7

40,2

3,9

Esping-Andersen G., op. cit, 1990, tabl. 4.2.

Ibid, tabl. 4.3.
International Labor Office, The Cost of Social Security, Geneva, 1985, . no
Alber J, The West German state in transition, in Morris R. (ed.), op. cit, p. 100.
143
144

150

18

34

52

37

59

22,4

6,4

142

% 65
- 50%
( Luxemburg Income Study)

N9. , 1980,
% . 1 4 4

. 1 4 7

145
146
147

. Myles J, op. cit, p. 128.

Ibid, p. 120.
Ibid, p. 121.

151

. N16. .

. N13. %
148
.
1960

1975

24,7

1980

42,5

42,5

1984

41,4

85,2

90,3

90,2

91,4

67,5

80,2

79,3

78,2

72,6

90,2

92,0

91,4

61,0

76,2

79,0

78,7

1968-73

1974-79

1980-87

1989

4,2

4,6

6,7

7,6

5,2

2,5

3,3

5,0

10,5

6,4

3,2

6,0

5,5

0,6

1,0

1,6

2,2

1,9

2,7

1,4

2,7

3,2

4,9

7,5

6,1

. N17.

(1988-1989). 1 5 2

. N14. % . 1 4 9
1960

1964-67

1975

1980

1984

(% )

(% )

(% )

5,3

8,6

9,5

10,7

1,62

42

58

3,9

5,6

5,6

5,9

2,32

43

57

4,7

7,8

7,9

8,1

2,38

71

29

4,7

8,0

9,5

9,4

4,2

7,0

7,2

7,5

. N15.
, 1990-1991. 1 5 0

. N18. " ":

. 1 5 3

0,76

2,37

0,27

0,81

0,50

1,52

1962-5

1965-9

1969-73

1973-8

1978-82

0,99

1,05

1,10

1,06

1,06

1,03

1,06

1,00

1,11

1,10
1,02
1,05

1,00

1,02

0,98

1,08

1,07

1,07

1,04

1,16

151

148

Ginsburg N, op. cit, tabl. A. 19. OECD 1987 r.

149
Ibid, . A.20. OECD 1987 .
15 Myles, op. cit, p. 117.

152

152

Ginsburg N, op. cit,, . . OECD 1989 .

Join-Lambert . , op. cit.
Esping-Andersen G, op. cit, p. 174.

153

153

. N19. ,
154
, % , 1980 .

. N20.
, 1980.

4,5

2,4

1,2

75,8

72

63,1

64,5

4,4

6,7

4,5

16,7

3,7

5,8

2,7

1,1

2,7

2,6

2,5

2,3

0,01

90,8

81,7

83,3

. N21.
. 1 5 7 , 1 5 8

27,3

72,0

58,5

1,3

16,9

20,5

51,7

4,4

38,1

71,5

11,6

27,9

78,6

56,3

8,8

18,1

29,1

68,5

77,0

48,3

28,3

80,3

34,8

70,8

0,0

1,3

6,8

12,9

14,5

23,6

8,0

17,2

16,5

29,2

1,2

1,1

0,2

0,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

2,2
2,1

1,4
0,6

156

16,5

13,6

14,8

28,5

4,5

3,3

7,7

1,2

79,1

83,1

77,5

70,2

6,0

9,3

18,1

78,8

88,4

47,1

41,0

98,4

55,0

5,0

0,1

9,2

87,8

99,9

88,3

%
|
156

O'Higgms ., Schmaus G, Stephenson G., Income distribution and redistribution: a microdata

analysis for seven countries, in Smeeding T O'Higgins M, Rainwater L. (eds.), Poverty,
Inequality and Income Distribution in Comparative Persrective, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990, . no Ginsburg N, op. cit, tabl. A.2.
155

154

0'Higgins ., Schmaus G., Stephenson G., Income distribution and redistribution: a microdata
analysis for seven countries, in Smeeding T., O'Higgins M., Rainwater L. (eds.), Poverty,
Inequality and Income Distribution in Comparative Persrective, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990, . no Ginsburg N., op. cit., tabl. A.5.
157
B ,
:
,
. .
- (), ( ).
158
Smeeding ., O'Higgins , Rainwater L. (eds.), Poverty, Inequality and Income Distribution in
Comparative Persrective, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990, . no Ginsburg N.,
op. cit., tabl. A.6.

155

. N22.
159
1965-80.
1965

1970

1975

1980

13

15

16

19

13

20

31

24

160

161

. N24. , 1990 .
:

0,40

0,71

0,74

2,22

1,64

1,54

. N25. 1950-1985.

17

21

26

26

20

28

33

34

22

26

30

33

45

59

22
59

1950-1959

1960-1973

2,1

3,2

7,7

4,4

4,1

5,2

12,3

7,3

1,2

3,5

4,4

3,2

4,5

4,5

9,8

6,3

4,0

4,9

9,3

6,1

4,9

6,1

6,5

7,3

10,9

12,2

10,3

14,1

17,5

18,4

14,9

19,0

24,6

24,0

21,9

24,7

42,1

39,3

46,3

35,0

36,9

32,1

38,6

27,1

159

Esping-Andersen G, op. cit, p. 177.

.
% ,
.
162
Sawyer , Income Distribution in OECD Countries, Paris, OECD, 1976, . no Ginsburg N,
op. cit, tabl. A.3.
163
c .
- , ,
.
160

161

156

1950-1985

.23. ,
1972/73. 1 6 2

163

1974-1985

14 Myles J, op. cit, p. 117.

165
Schmidt M.G, op. cit, p. 60.

157


A g l i e t t a , Metamorphoses de la societe salariale, Caiman-Levy, Paris, 1984
A l t J, The Politics of Economic Decline, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1979.
A s h f o r d D , The Emergence of the Welfare State, Lasil Blackwel Ltd, 1987.
A s h f o r t l D , (ed.) History and context in comparative public policy, Univ. of Pitsburg Press, 1992,
A t k i n s o n A , Distribution des revenus en Europe, Revue francaise des affaires sociale, N3, 1990.
B o y e r R, La theorie de la regulation, une approche critique, La Decouverte, Paris, 1986.
B o y e r R , D o r e X, La politique des revenues en Europe, La Decouverte, Paris, 1994.
B o y e r R., S a i i l a r d Y . (eds.) Theorie de la Regulation: L'etat des savoirs, La Decouverte, Paris,
1995.
B r o w n R . D , Party cleavages and welfare effort in the American State, American Political Science
Review, vol. 89, N1, march 1995.
B u l m e r M , L e w i s J , P i a c h a u d D . (eds), The Goals o f Social Policy, Unwin Hyman, London,
1988.
B u r k h a r t R . E , L e w i s - B e c k M . S , Comparative Democraty: the Economic Development Thesis,
American Political Science Review, vol. 88, N4 , Dec. 1994.
C a s t e l R, Metamorphoses de la question sociale, une chronique du salariat, Fayard, Paris, 1995.
C a s t l e s F . G . (ed.), The great experiment: labor party and public policy transformation in Australia
and New Zeland, Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, 1996.
C a s t l e s F.G. (ed.), The comparative history of public policy, Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1989.
C a w s o n A, Corporatism and Welfare: Social policy and State Intervention in Britain, Heinemann,
London, 1082.
D a h r e n d o r f R , Effectiveness and Legitimacy, in Political Quarterly, vol. 51, N 4, 1980.
D e l o r m e R, A n d r e C, L'etat et economie, Seuil, Paris 1983.
D o n z e l o t J , L'invention d u social.
E s p i n g - A n d e r s e n G , The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
E s p i n g - A n d e r s e n G.(ed.),Welfare States in Transition. National Adaptations in Global
Economies, SAGE Publications, 1996.
E v a n s G, Class conflict and inequality, International Social Attitudes, 10th report, 1993.
F l o r a P , H e i d e n h e i m e r A . (eds.) The Development of Welfare State in Europe and America,
Transaction Book, New Brunswick, 1981.
F l o r a P. (ed.), Growth to Limits, European University Institut, t. 1 and 2, 1986.
F r i e d m a n M , F r i e d m a n R, The Tyranny of the Status Quo, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
1985.
I n g l e h a r t R , A b r a m s o n P. R, Economic Security and Value Change, American Political Science
Review, vol. 88, N2, June 1995.
H a b e r m a s s J , L'espace publique, trad, de l'allemand, Payot, 1993
H a s e n f e l d Y., B r o c k T , Implementation of social policy revisited, Administration & society,
february 199.1.
H a y e k F. A, Contre Keynes, trad, de l'allemand, Payot, 1982.

G i n s b u r g N , Division of welfare: A Critical Introduction to Comparative social policy, SAGE

Publications, 1992.
G l e n n e r s t e r H . , After the Welfare State?, The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. LI, N 3, July
1990.
G e o r g e V , M i l l e r S , Social Policy towards 2000: squaring the welfare circle, Routledge, 1994.
G e o r g e V., W i l d i n g P , Welfare and Ideology, Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1994.
J o b e r t B , (ed.), Le tournant neolileral en Europe, L'Harmattan, Paris, 1994.
J o h n s o n N , Reconstructing the Welfare State: a Decade of Change, 1980-1990, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990.
J o h n s o n N , The Welfare State in Transition, Wheatsheaf Books, 1987.
K a u f m a n n F.-X.Le developpement des Etats providence en Europe, Revue francaise des affaires
sociale, N3, 1990.
M a n n K , The social devision of welfare: a class struggle perspective, Social Policy Review, 19901991.
M a r s h a l l T . H , The Right of Welfare and Other Essays, Heinemann, London, 1975.
M a r s h a l l T. H, Social Policy, Hutchison, London, 1975.
M a y n t z R , (ed.), Policy Networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Westview
Press, 1991.
M a u r i c e M , Methode comparative et analyse societale. Les implications theoretiques des
comparaisons internationales, Sociologie du travail, XXXI, N 2, 1989.
M e b a n e W . R , Fiscal constrains and electoral manipulation in American Social Welfare,
American Political Science Review, vol. 89, N1, march, 1995.
M e r r i e n F.-X, Etat Providence: I'empreinte des origines, Revue francaise des affaires sociale, N3,
1990.
M o r r i s R. (ed.), Testing the limits of Social Welfare, Univ. Press of New England, 1988.
N o z i c k R , Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.
O f f e C , Democracy against the Welfare State?, Political Theory, Vol. 15, N 4, Nov. 1987.
R e i n M, E s p i n g - A n d e r s e n C. R a i n w a t e r L, (eds.), Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy, M.
E. Sharpe, Inc., 1987.
R h o d e s R. A. W , M a r c h D , Policy Networks in British Politics, Clarendol Press, Oxford, 1992.
R i n g e n S, (ed.), Societies in Transition: East-Central Europe Today, Central European Univ.,
1992.
T a y l o r - G o o b y P, What citizens want from the State, International Social Attitudes, 10th report,
1993.
T a y l o r - G o o b y P , Attachment to the Welfare State, British Social Attitudes, 8th report, 1991.
T h e r e t B , Neo-liberalisme, inegalites sociales et politiques fiscales de droite et de gauche dans la
France des annees 1980, Revue francaise de science politique, juin, 1991.
T h e r e t B , Regimes economiques de 1'ordre politique, PUF, Paris, 1995.
T i t m u s s R. M , Social Policy: An Introduction, Allen and Unwin, London, 1974.
W e a l e A, Political Theory and Social Policy, St. Martin's Press, 1983.
W i l l a r d J . - C , L'economie sociale face a l'etat et au marche: interrogations sur quelques mots-cles,
Revue des etudes cooperatives, mutualistes et associatives, 3e trimestre, N 257, 1995.

H a y e k F. A, La presomption fatale: les erreurs, trad, de l'allemand, Payot, 1985.

H e a t h A , M c M a h o n D , Consensus and dissensus, British Social Attitudes, 8th report, 1991.
H e w i t t M , Social policy and the question of postmodernism, Social Policy Review, N6, 1994.
H i l l M, Social Policy: A comparative analysis, Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1996.
H i l l M , B r a m l e y G , Analysing Social Policy, Basil Black well, Fxford, 1986.
G i n s b u r g N., Agendas and prognoses for social policy: a selective review, Social Policy Review,
N6, 1994.

158

159

-
-
1/16 60x84
10
, 1998 .
ISBN 957-324-948-12